decision to go to myanmar was kind of a spontaneous thing. it wasn't something i planned. i happened to be in tokyo doing press for "wayward pines" and at that time there was more stuff that was coming out about the rohingya in the news. pictures -- horrendous pictures of people crammed into hulls of boats like human cargo. stories of human trafficking, as was mentioned earlier, and ships turned away by countries in the region, and i wanted to find out a little bit more about why these people were being forced to flee. i'd been on missions before with refugees international and i had met and spoke with displaced people and in the eastern congo and in the sudan and i feel that the best way to learn about what

is going on is to go there and see it for yourself. so i called michel, and i said i'm thinking about going to burma to visit the camps and what do you think? and he said matt, i think it would be good. but it's not going to be easy. because he told me a number of the ngos working there like msf, had been chased out of the camps. it's never a good sign when msf gets chased away. but he said by all means if you can go, do it and i think you can make a difference and make sure you take a lot of pictures. so i decided to go under the radar. i met up with a few journalist friends who were living in the region who are more familiar with the crisis than i am. and we went to sitway together which is the main city in the rokong state.

and as many of you might know, the rohingya muslims are an in the rokong state. the vast majority of people living there are buddhist, who are themselves an ethnic minority within the country of myanmar. in the two days we were there we visited four displaced idp camps. i was told don't do that. i'm not good with acronyms but i get one and i like it. so visited idp camps and one just outside the maintain of sitway and many of the inhabitants there many of the people living there were forced to live there after their homes were destroyed in an outburst of ethnic violence over the last three years. the first impression when you visit the camps right away is -- right away is that nobody -- nobody would live there if they

had a choice. it's hot, dry, there is no trees. people we met seems to be thoroughly defeated. young men whose spirits were broken. you could see that in their eyes. shake hands with somebody and there was a politeness but they immediately looked down, defeated. there were signs of malnutrition among the children. we met people who tried to escape unsuccessfully and spent several horrific months at sea starved and beaten, only to be returned to pay a ransom and lost everything and ended up back in myanmar. there were others whose homes were burned to the ground and watched neighbors being murdered as the police did nothing to stop it. during the two days that we were there, we didn't see any aide workers in the camps. there were signs that they were there.

well-structured latrines and things like that but we didn't see anybody. and that was a little bit strange. because i'd been in refugee camps before. it was the first time -- i didn't see anybody. now, i didn't visit all the camps. again, i was only there a few days. but from what i understand, the ngo's are not having an easy time working in the region. the health clinic in the community that we visited served about 30000 people with one doctor who comes four days a week for about two hours a day. so this -- i mean, this is just not enough, obviously. it says a lot about the desire to help these people there. the conditions in the camps are bad, obviously not good. but from what i've been told the situation in the northern part

of the state is much worse where the apartheid-like conditions are more blatant. it's getting less attention because it's not somewhere you can visit easily. you have to go by boat and again the government doesn't want you going there. this is where 90% of the rohingya live. unlike the sitway region to the south, the population is almost entirely rohingya. but they are treated as second class citizens and completely controlled by the police. i didn't get to go there. it is not easy to access. back in sitway, the last row henna neighborhood in the town is called ang minglar. it's a neighborhood where no one is allowed to enter there. the people living there are, you know, prisoners. their economic life has been shut down. they have no access to services. if they want to get out, they have to pay a bribe. and in appearance, as you are

driving through, it appears to be like other residential streets in the town, except there's barbed wire checkpoints. and we don't really know what's going on inside because it's forbidden to enter. i tried to enter the nand neighborhood, knowing it was off limits, and i was stopped by a policeman who was really just a kid and insisted i leave repeatedly and he didn't want me taking pictures. and this went on for a while, he putting his hand in front of my camera and me playing dumb and him telling me i have to go and i got the point when a truck pulled up with more police with guns so we left. mingler is a neighborhood that is blocked off and it is literally like the polish ghetto under the nazis where people are contained, trapped. and this is an area of concern.

talking to michel, and folks at human rights watch, that -- that is an area of concern that if the violence flares up again as it has in the recent past, that this neighborhood, ang mingular and its inhabitants the rohingya will bear the brunt of the violence. the people living there are trapped and they are like sitting ducks where they are. so with all of the news out there about the rohingya being turned away at sea it has taken the heat off the myanmar government and turned it more into an international issue. a few weeks ago there were media reports that the myanmar navy had intercepted a ship holding 600 refugees off the shore. and the navy then secretly off loaded all of the rohingya

refugees in myanmar, that was the majority, there were 300 to 400 rohingya refugees, they were off loaded in secrecy back in myanmar and then the ship -- the navy escorted the remaining refugees to bangladesh, the migrant workers. and when they arrived they proved to the international community, hey, look, there are no refugees from myanmar on the ship, you know. and they gave credence to the assertion they are bengali, not from myanmar and they don't use the word rohingya, they don't acknowledge it exists. they were praised by the state department and the u.n. for the rescue. however, it didn't -- it doesn't really hold water because for me, because i met and spoke to several people who were on that ship, including one rohingya

woman who was desperate to escape with her four children. who told us how men boarded the ship at night and ordered everyone from sitway to get off the boat and the rohingya were brought to shore. really, the fact is i mean, well over 1,000 rohingya have taken to the seas in a desperate attempt to escape their hopeless lives in myanmar. that's indisputable. and the woman with the four children told me she would do it again if she could. despite of three months of misery while she waited it out in the bay of bengal. because what happens is the traffickers won't leave with the bigger ships until they are filled to the brim. that is when -- it is a horrible situation. young people are tricked into coming on the ships, promised a better life. and so she suffered like this out there. but she said she would do it again if she could.

that is how desperate the situation is there. it is kind of mind-boggling. and the reason that this is happening and will continue to happen is because the people -- the rohingya are stateless and they are unrecognized by the government, the myanmar government. despite the fact they have been born and raised there and living there for many generations, longer than my descendents have been living in this country in many cases. so in 1982, a law was enacted stripping row henna of stripping the rohingya of citizenship and dening them basic services, right to health care, education and the right to vote. there are clear instances of ethnic cleansing. the rohingya aren't permitted to travel. they need to get permission to marry. a new law just passed requiring a gap of three years between child birth. which maybe that is not such a

bad thing, but in this particular case it is obviously, it's an indication of ethnic cleansing, a way of controlling the population. so coming from that source, it is a bad thing. if people choose to do that, we learned that. when i was in south sudan, that's one of the things they try to encourage people, when they're struggling in these camps and these situations, it's hard enough to take care of one child, let alone -- so i understand that. but this is not that. this is a different thing. this is ethnic cleansing. and, you know, the feeling i was left with was one of oppression of people being trapped hopeless in with no options. but, in fact, it isn't a hopeless situation. something can and must be done. and i look forward to hearing from michel on what can be done and then your questions as well.

thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, matt. and good morning. now the boat crisis that has been widely reported on is just the most visible and most recent manifestation of what has been a very long ordeal and dramatic ordeal for the rohingya and i'm grateful that matt went back to myanmar in sitway to see where the problem really was. because the boat crisis has given the impression which has been used by the myanmar government that it is an international crisis, which it is not. and when confronted with the accusation that -- that the result of persecution, they say this is a result of communal violence and when we describe the conditions of the rohingya in secret, it is not communal violence. any government that is faced

with communal violence will seek mechanism of reconciliation and find compromise between the communities and this is not happening. so your visit, matt, was important to give more profile to what is really happening there. i was myself there a year ago. and the only thing i can say is things are getting worse. the situation today is of total segregation of rohingya from the rest of the population. in the north, as matt say, they cannot move out of their village without authorization from their local police station. in sittwe and around sittwe, they are locked in camps that are like ghettos, where aid is given in an ad hoc manner. there are tremendous difficulties to get there. it puts them in the position to beg the government to have more access and as they beg for more access, they tone down the criticism of what is acceptable which is the absolute detention in which these people are kept. we have talked about the

restrictive policies. i mean, the government has enacted, now, an edict by which the word "rohingya" is prohibited. they request the foreigners don't use that name and the rohingya cannot self-identify and they would only consider looking at them if they describe themselves as bengali which is a sort of admission that they are not from the country. the laws on marriage, on children, have been mentioned recently. the government has withdrawn from those rohingya who still had some documentation. they withdrew their documentation and now they say we are going to verify them. how do you verify people if you dispose of all their documents is something they have not told us. we've seen in the country tremendous spread of hate speech promoted by a radical group of monks and that hate speech has been tolerated i would say even abetted by the government. the monk who promoted that has been promoted as a defender of the nation and there is no

attempt to counter the hate speech. and that has spread well beyond the state to create an anti-muslim hysteria in the country, and it's certainly put the most radical politician into the attitude to sort of move the rohingya out of their states. so the rohingya are faced now with permanent fear. and i remember talking to women who were just completely blind and said when is the next outburst of violence and are we going to survive it. fear, no hope for the children. the economy has been completely stalled. the few who still had some homes in sittwe were a sign to residents, they could not go out and they could not work and they are destroying their homes, putting the wood on the side and selling the wood so they can move into the camps or take to the boats. so we are seeing small, slow

hemorrhaging of the rohingya people which is tantamount, i fully agree, to a process of ethnic cleansing. and if you want proof of that, remember that after the violence in 2012 the president told the united nations high commissioner for refugees you can resettle them all. so the president said basically take the million people out of this country. which of course the high commissioner refused but it does state quite clearly what the government wants. so what can we do? it is going to be a long process. because the relationship between the two community has been made so bad by these hate speech campaigns and by the fact that the government has abetted that, that any process of reconciliation will be very long. immediately we want unfettered humanitarian access to the people in the camps and the people in the north so that

their very basic living conditions are improved. they have access to health education and to the minimum of activities that allow them to sustain their livelihood. but we also want that -- that cannot be the only objective. if we only ask for humanitarian access, we ask for better treatment of people who are in detention. and of course the international community cannot accept that. so we have at the same time to push for reversion of the narrative promoted by the government and countering the hate speech spreading out, that is going to ta]f but the government has to take the lead on that. and we need to have slowly release the introduction of the movement that they have. and that is difficult. for the time being, they are scared to get out of the camps because they know that the violence erupts against them and nobody will defend them. you need to have straight instructions to police forces to the military that they have to

protect the fundamental rights of whoever lives in this country. and eventually, we'll have move towards a process of reviewing the citizenship law and to re-establish full citizenship for the rohingya but that will take some time. it will require a lot of international pressure and it will require sustained international pressure over the coming years. and one last word perhaps before we open for question, is that the rohing state is the second poorest state in the country.hpdj an ethnic minority, as matt said, that had legitimate grievances against the central governments, and if these are not addressed in a process of reconkonconcileiation reconciliation, of course that will never happen. and of course we'll see that they are all good here and all bad here but how do we engage the rohingya and reduce the impact that the more radical politicians have on their population. a long process. the u.s. has been a leader in messaging the right thing to the

government. the diplomatic messaging to date has had no effect and the challenge of the future is what are the next steps that can be considered to push the government into a much better attitude toward rohingya. and john, on these words, i would throw back to you. >> thank you so much, michel. so we're going to start with some questions about rohingya and i think both of you will jump in on those. and then we'll pivot toward the end with some questions that i've gotten about matt and movies -- television. so matt, i want to first ask you, and you can just come up, what got you interested in this cause? obviously there are so many causes you could devote your time to. why this one? >> well, i guess the question to

the first one is refugees, refugees international, that is one question which is -- that is a longer answer. i think with regards to the rohingya, rohingya, but rohingya is what i heard when i was there, was the speech that was made by tune kim and he spoke, at the ri gala and it really was a gripping speech that he made, and it was different because it was so immediate and there was such desperation there. and he came the next day and he addressed the board and i remembered feeling like i would óóyo like to help this guy somehow, if we could -- not help him, but help his cause, the people there. because he seemed so desperate, you know. and then there was a lot of stuff coming out in the media with these ships being turned

away, the human trafficking and the mass graves. and i was in the region and this was something i wanted to do. the other question you asked about, you know, refugees international. it's a great organization. i'm really pleased to be a part of of it. i've been on the board for seven years and working with them for longer. >> how did you get involved -- the board in the first place. >> well, richard holbrooke introduced me to the organization after -- robert de niro introduced me to richard holbrooke and, you know, i was trying -- i wrote and directed a movie. i was trying to get bob to do

it, and it was set in cambodia, and richard was fascinated by this because he spent time in the foreign service during the war. and he said you have to come to one of our board -- our events. and i did. in new york. and i met a woman named evette who was an advocate, an amazing woman, an inspiring individual. so my -- that's how i got interested in r.i. i didn't join the board until some years later. but i always thought it was a powerful organization. and unfortunately yvette died in a horrible accident in kosovo, her truck went off a cliff. she was doing some work reuniting kosovo refugees with their families there, on a mission for refugees international. and it was -- i was really heartbroken because i loved this woman. she was a great woman. so she kind of inspired me to

get involved. and i'm glad i did. >> and this is for either of you, either or both. but is the ultimate solution with the rohingya to keep pressure on the myanmar government? in other words, is that the party that is in the best position to end this crisis? should the myanmar government be the focus? >> yes. for many reasons. first, there are two -- nobody knows exactly, but hundreds of thousands of rohingyas in bangladesh, that they don't recognize, they live on the border in miserable conditions and the bangladesh government doesn't want anybody to help them. nobody wants them. we know they've lived in myanmar, burma, for decades or

centuries, some of them. they have all different history. and if you do accept that any country has the power to decide a section of its population it doesn't want what, sort of precedent do you create on this world. i think it is the problem of myanmar and it will be complicated and have to be helped but they cannot be helped if they don't change the narrative and the language about these people. >> this is a question that was e-mailed into us. myanmar is now a hot spot for international tourism. this is bringing in desperately needed development, hard currency and revenue to the country. why not hit them in the pocket book and launch an international call for a tourism boycott until the persecution of the rohingyas is fully ended and they are accepted into the full fabric of the country as vital, valued and contributing members of the burmese society and once this happens we hope tourists will flood into the country again.

so what about that? some kind of tourism campaign like that? does that make any sense? anybody? >> well, i would just say that i think any pressure -- i think that the international community can put on the myanmar government to -- to reinstate ultimately citizenship to these people, that any pressure that can be put on the government to meet these people's human rights, and ultimately change the stateless status, and give them citizenship has to been done and some pressure has to be put on them.

i'm not sure about that. michel, what do you think on that? >> well, since myanmar has opened up, western countries have business and political interests in myanmar and there are human rights and humanitarian considerations. so far the pressure on myanmar has been essentially applied by the u.s. government in diplomatic and whether it is the secretary of state, president obama, the assistant secretary of state for human rights and they went there and said all of the right things publicly and they probably say stronger things privately so the message has been right but the u.s. has been pretty much alone. the rest -- the european countries, the u.k., have been pretty subdued in addressing the issue of the rohingya. now if diplomatic pressure does not work, the second thing is do

you reverse to sanctions being suspended, et cetera, this is not for us to decide. this is the tools that the government has. and the u.s. cannot be alone in addressing that. and right now the urgency is to have more governments toll the line with myanmar, which is one of engagement and discussion and not of stratization but with firmer and firmer tools at their disposal. whether the tourist block or something can be done, if it is not imposed by the government, it will be difficult to be imposed by companies individually. >> this questioner said it seems like the current crisis came after myanmar started democratic reforms. do you see any connection between the events? that is one question. and the other question is, is the conflict based on religion?

are the rohingyas muslims living in a buddhist country and is that the root of much of the trouble? >> well, what is happening with the opening up of burma and the process of democracy is the whole periphery of burma, except the delta, is populated by ethnic groups, by minority groups, nonburmas, if you want. almost all of them have had the issues with the central government other the past decades. with citizenship, there is an aspiration by all these groups that they can have a better say in the political life and better returns in the economic life of the country. therefore, there has been more protests and more demands and because the government has lowered some of the strong-arm policies they had in the past,

these manifestations have become stronger. so i think somehow this is the result of the process of democracy. but what i would say is not acceptable is the language used against the rohingya. now the fact that they are ethnically different, most of the other ethnic groups in burma, are the typical berman stock. the rohingya are more of the endo-aryan stock, and there is a difference in religion that makes the narrative more conflicted but i think is not good reason enough. i mean lots of people tell you that in the past communities have lived pretty peacefully. there have been tensions in state for a long time that have been stalked by politicians and by some of the history but i think at the level of the villages, et cetera, there was a much better understanding.

right now i think it's being used politically. and one of my fears is that the attempt of the government to try to passify the ragyind is on the back of rohingya and this is something that should be denounced. >> matt, you are obviously taking your message to the press. are you meeting with anyone else while you're in town and you visited the situation a couple of weeks ago. do you have any plans to make any other visits or reach out to any other communities in working on this issue? >> not presently. no, not presently. i mean, we're actually -- this is great to be able to carry the message here, to the national press corp here. and we're trying to get the message out there.

because it is something that is very difficult and vexing and it has been sort of under-reported. the rohingya, it's something i've heard because i'm on the board of refugees international, but until i heard tune kim speak six weeks ago, i had read reports of people's villages being burnt to the ground and things like this, very disturbing. so just wanted to -- i just want to get the message out there, of what i saw. and as far as meeting with anybody else, r.i., i know, refugees international, the people who are better versed frankly in the crisis than i am, will be meeting with and have met with people on the hill and things like that. so that is happening. i'm not doing it while i'm here. because i have to get back to new york.

actually we're going to do a few more you know, a few more appearances to talk about this crisis. >> michelle, have you or your organization tried to reach out to ung sung suky, i hope i'm saying that correctly, the opposition leader, and tried to encourage her to speak out on this issue? >> aung sun seeky. she's the leader of the opposition and the nobel peace prize winner. we did field the question when she came to talk at u.c. a couple of years ago which she essentially dodged. she has since then declared she was primarily politician while the rest of the world sees her as a human rights advocate. so she declared herself. and talking for the rohingya is not going to earn you any votes in the current context in burma. but talking about aung sung suu

kyi, we divert the speech. we should talk about what the government should do. because it is the government that is responsible. she is not responsible for the policies. the government is responsible. we should address the issues with the government. if she gets into government, we'll talk about her then, perhaps. >> this questioner said myanmar has a long tradition of driving its ethnic minorities to become refugees. in fact, more than 100,000 refugees from burma remain in refugee camps in thailand and some have been there for more than 30 years. do you think the thai government's experience with those refugees and their long stay in thailand have made the thai government less rue electric reluctant to respond to the rohingya crisis? >> it's all you. >> well, the thais have received refugees in the hundreds of

thousands since the crisis in the mid-70s. so i think they're worried to be seen as a country where everybody can find refuge. so it is a factor perhaps in their weariness about the current movements. >> matt, we have some questions about your career. and right now you are starring in "wayward pines." which this questionnaire said seems kind of like a modern-day "twin peaks." is that a fair comparison, why or why not and what is your opinion of "wayward pines," how it's being receiveded? >> okay on to "wayward pines" here. well, it was a really interesting experience because i hadn't done any long-form television before. it is funny, because i was speaking to one of our board members from r.i. and she is like it is like "the twilight zone," it is not like "twin

peeks." i agree. i felt the tone of it felt like "the twilight zone" when i was doing it. i could tell you it was an enjoyable experience. at times stressful and challenging for me. i'm not crazy about surprised in the best of circumstances. and when you are doing television, you are getting new scripts all of the time. and so that can be a little bit tricky, you know. because i'm not one to -- if i have thoughts on something, i'm going to speak up. and i did. and it was good. and i think that is what makes the show good. it was an incredibly talented group of people, including the rest of the cast and the directors that would come on board. so it really was a -- it was a different environment in that way than typically on television. >> matt, this questioner notes

that it seems you have cut a different path than some of your contemporaries as you've opted more toward indy picks than hollywood blockbusters. was that a conscious decision, and if so, why did you decide that? >> well, the industry has changed since i've been in the business, several times. and i never consciously -- i mean, indy picks didn't exist when i started in the movie business. of course they did, but not really. there wasn't this kind of indy film division with studio pictures. the first film i did would have very much been a indy film but it was in fact distributed by warner brothers and backed by or rye orion with warner bros. and it should have been

considered a studio picture as well. so i don't know. i tend to gravitate toward sometimes more character-driven material. i just look for a good script. i look for a good character. those are the things i've always looked for. >> you have now worked with a wide range of directors, so this questioner would like you to compare and contrast francis ford cop pola with m. knight sham lone. >> are we here to talk about the rohingya? what is going on? i don't like to -- comparisons are never valid. and so i don't want to compare. i thought that m. knight sham lone was terrific working with him as a director. a very talented director with good leadership skills and i enjoyed the experience. i only wish he would have directed more than the first episode because i enjoyed working with him. obviously i learned a lot from francis. any more questions?

about the rohingya, about refugees? >> i do. i also have some more movie questions. how do you see the role of the u.n. in this crisis and china? and are there meetings with members of congress and maybe you can talk more about reaching out to the hill. but also the role of the u.n., china, other powerful political forces in addressing this crisis? >> i think you should address that one. you're excellent. >> thank you. well, i'm not quite sure about the question about u.n. and china is. this is a huge question. the -- china is a permanent member of the security council so it is a major inference over

the political process in the u.n. obviously. but on the -- on the rohingya issue, i'm not quite sure where the question goes. perhaps i can anticipate some of the things we would like to see. i mean, given the level of persecution the rohingya has involved and the government denies everything, we think a mechanism to address that would be to have a commission of inquiry. this is how you would respond to this type of event. i'm afraid this would be vetted by some of the important u.n. members and i think that is your answer. >> when conflicts arose in the past, particularly in endo-china, there have been historical efforts by refugees to find safe havens abroad, not only in neighboring countries but also in western counterparts such as the usa, australia and canada.

that being said and taking into account the fact that many southeast asia countries have refused the rohingya safe havens, what are your opinions on policies in the western world? should it change to accommodate this crisis? >> well, i would just like to say, you know, i mean, refugees international started in the indochina conflict during that period of time with the boat people in vietnam and also on the thai/cambodian border. and i think it's not fair to -- i mean, i think it's difficult to say that, you know, southeast asian refugees were accepted and welcomed into the united states and other communities in australia and places like that. i think what i was getting from the question is that shouldn't they, in return, accept the

rohingya? i think that, in fact, they're no longer part of those countries. so, you know, i don't know that we can -- i think there's kind of a disconnect. but i think the thing that's most troubling, and i will say about the rohingya is that it really -- it seems as if nobody wants them, you know? and they're dammed if they do, they're dammed if they don't. they're trapped and it's just not any way for anybody to live you know, to be, you know, they can't move internally and when they've tried to flee on these boats, they've been turned away and, you know, many of them have died at sea. when we came back from sittwe, there was a report in the myanmar newspaper that said

there were like 700 some odd bengali refugees that had been intercepted on a ship and 50 -- there were 50 people dead on the boat. so you can imagine what the conditions were like there. but, again, it was bengali, it was all about they were bengali. there was no mention of rohingya, obviously, because they don't use the word. and i know that eventually these bengali refugees will move to an island somewhere off the coast there and that journalists tried to find out more of what was going on and were detained and had their photographs erased and stuff. so they still don't want you to find out what's going on. this stuff is continuing to go on and it's really horrible. i think that whatever pressure -- i think that the answer is more pressure on the myanmar government to change

their policies with regards to the stateless rohingya, giving them the same rights everybody else has, and i think that is a good starting point. that their security, their human rights are being met. >> this questioner is asking about some recent harrowing photos to emerge from the rohingya refugee crisis that were exposed as frauds and these photos were apparently pulled randomly from old pictures from other crises around the world. do you know about this, sand this publicity over the fraudulent photos, is that doing any damage to get the message out about the rohingya? >> i don't know anything about it. i don't know anything about it but obviously that's -- you know, that doesn't do anything to diminish the fact that people are suffering in a human rights

catastrophe that's happening over there in that part of the world. so if there's pictures circulating, so what? that doesn't diminish the fact that people are suffering. and we've all seen them. there are real pictures. i just want to point that out. >> so when you talk to the rohingya, where do they want to go? like i said, the one woman we spoke to was stuck on the ship for three months at a time, she was trying to reunite with her husband in malaysia. she hadn't seen him for seven years. i mean, that's what she said. i don't know.

i mean, that's what she said and i have no reason to think that she wasn't telling the truth. and she said that if she had the opportunity to do it again she would which i found -- i couldn't believe that after what she'd been through. she'd been beaten on the ship. if she stretched her legs she was beaten, her kids were crying the entire time. they were fed a handful of rice per day and a cup of water. horrible conditions. so i think they just want to go anywhere where they have a better shot of living. i mean, one of the kids -- we met these three kids that were tricked into going -- like i said, i just want to go back. one of the things that was going on, a couple journalists told me like a couple years ago the story would have been -- this would have been a freedom trail story. these rohingya refugees fleeing

and escaping that in fact it was a good thing because they needed to get away from this oppressive situation. but as the stakes went up and the price went up and so then you had these brokers who themselves in the camps are rohingya and the traffickers who were piloting these ships would not leave with -- with their human cargo until it was filled up so they would have to then -- so they started to trick people and kidnap people and bring them on to the ships. so a lot of these people that ended up -- a lot of the rohingya who ended up on the ship were kind of tricked or forced into going there and there were negotiations made in

some cases to bring them back from their family, somehow meeting with community people, people with some clout, community leaders there and they were able to get them returned but i really think people are desperate and they want to get away and they're willing to risk their lives in this way and it's really incredible. it's a very grim situation and, you know -- >> okay, before i ask the final question i have some housekeeping. the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists and we fight for a free press worldwide. for more information on the club, visit our website, press.org. to donate to our nonprofit journalism institute, visit press.org/institute. i'd also like to remind you about some upcoming programs. actor-humanitarian gary sinise will discuss his advocacy for american servicemen and women at an npc breakfast tuesday, june

16. and also on june 16 the club will host a newsmaker debate with experts on whether streetcars are an answer to america's transit problem or a pointless throwback. and washington capitals coach barry trotts will address the national press club luncheon on wednesday, july 8. i'd now like to present our guests with the traditional national press club mugs. very valuable remembrances of these sorts of events. and how about a round of applause for these two also, by the way. [ applause ] now, we have time for one question and in the time

remaining, matt, maybe you could tell us a little bit about what's next for you. "wayward pines," you're going to continue on that. are you thinking about any more movies? what sorts of things are you thinking in your near future? >> well, in my near future i'm not sure exactly what my next acting job is going to be. that's the plight of the actor, never sure where our next deployment is coming from -- employment. however i'm working on a documentary about afro cuban music. about a guy -- a cuban scat singer named el gran fellove. documentaries take a long time and so that's what i'm doing. so i've been spending a lot of time really focused on that music, that world and so that's really what i have to finish, this documentary, for sure.

then i have a few other project, film and television at different things that i'm developing. i've written and directed and i want to -- i very much enjoy doing that so i want to figure very much enjoy doing that so i want to figure out what my next sort of fiction feature is going to be as a director. thanks. >> and michelle, how about you, what is next for you in addressing this crisis? what do you plan as your next steps? >> well, the next step is to make sure we keep the issue alive. as i mentioned, i think this is going to require a lot of time. there is no quick fix for the re hinga people -- rohingya people but if we think that the boat crisis is the only thing that will keep our attention, as soon

as the boats stop going and we forget about them there will be no progress and i hope we remember that the boat crisis is something much deeper that needs constant attention and as i said we hope all of the governments will keep up and this government will keep on messaging what it is doing so date. and so we'll keep on returning there and keep on working with the network we have with rohingya across the world to macsure their voice doesn't die out. [ applause ] . >> i want to thank all of you for coming today. and i'd like to thank our national press club staff, including the journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event. the research and work that our speakers committee jeremy

recommend -- remski put in for this. and if you need a copy of today's meeting go to our website and keep up to date on all of the upcoming program and to follow us on twitter follow press club d.c. and thank you very much, we are adjourned. [ applause ] on wednesday defense secretary ashton carter and martin dempsey will be on capitol hill to testify on u.s. military strategy in the middle east before the house armed services committee. live coverage tomorrow morning here at 10:00 eastern here on c-span 3. this weekend the c-span

cities tour partners with comcast to learn about the hist or yif key west, florida. earnest hemingway wrote several of his novels at this home in key west. >> they found this home for sale and they found it for $8,000 in 1941 and pauline converted this into his first formal writing studio. here he found in love with fishing and the clarity of his writing and how fast he was producing the work. he knocked out the first rough draft of a farewell to arms in two weeks in aarriving in key west. he said if you want to write, start with one true sentence. >> each book should be a new beginning where he tries again for something that is beyond attainment. he should always try for something that has never been done or that others have tried and failed. >> key west is where president harry truman sought refuge from

washington. >> truman regarded the big white house as the great white jail. he felt he was constantly under everyone's eye and by coming to key west he could come with his closest staff and let down his hair and sometimes the staff would let their beards grow for a couple of days and they certainly at times used off-color stories and could have a glass of bourbon and visit back and forth without any scrutiny from the press. >> a sportswear company sent a case of hawaiian shirts to the press with the thought that if the press is wearing our shirt we'll sell a lot of shirts and so president truman wore those free shirts that first year and then organized what they call the loud shirt contest and that was the official uniform of key west. >> watch all of the events from key west on saturday at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2's book

tv and saturday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. whistleblowers to works for the federal government faced and continue to face retaliation after they brought attention to government wrongdoing. they testified before a senate committee hearing this month. the hearing ran about two hours.

this hearing will come to order. good morning, everybody. i want to welcome our witnesses. say how much i appreciate your thoughtful testimony. i've read it all. there is some pretty compelling stories. there is from my standpoint a very important hearing.

as i've looked back at the laws written, designed to protect people that have the courage to come forward within government to blow the whistle to tell the truth, to highlight problems of waste and abuse and corruption and potential criminal activity within departments and agencies we have a number of laws. and they date back quite a few years. and with mr. devine's testimony, i added a new one. i didn't realize it went back as far as 1912, the lloyd follow act followed by the civil service reform act and the whistle protection act of 1989 and the act of 121 and yet we still have problems. my own experience with this having come to government late in life, tarted really with -- started really with the events with secret service in carta

halloweena and then as we looked at the reports by the inspector general, the fact that there was retaliation or evidence against members of that inspection team for being forth right. and followed up recently with the board of security hearings we had a customs and board protection agent chris cabrera testify before this hearing contradicting the information from the department of homeland security but also testifying under oath as all of you will be doing here today, and a few weeks later, a couple of months later, he testified on march 17th, 2015, and a few months later before another hearing on may 13th, 2015, this committee was made aware that agent cabrera was scheduled for a hearing in front of in ternal affairs. i raise the issue with then still department chief of border

patrol ron port ella and because of my lutheran background, i was assumed that it was concerned about what he was bringing to the table and wanting to correct errors within the custom and border protection agency and i'm not sure that was the case fortunately because we highlighted in our hearing that that internal affairs hearing from mr. cabrera was canceled that same day rather abruptly. so i've a certain sense that maybe that wasn't so innocent. they really had somethinge else in mind with that hearing. so these issues are very serious. as a result, my office has set up a website whistle at ron johnson.senate.gov and had over 130 whistle contact our office and we have today four of the individuals that did contact our office and i'm also mindful

there mr. devine's testimony that probably the greatest risk any whistleblower incurs is when they contact congress. it sounds like that is where the greatest retaliation can occur. so again, i want to thank all of the witnesses for coming here. the purpose of this hearing is not to adjudicate the issues you have raised. that will occur through a process, a procedure. the purpose of this hearing is to highlight so the american people understand so this committee understands that once an individual steps forward and puts their career at risk, exposed themselves to the type of retaliation that is all too common, we want to hear what type of retaliation is inflicted on individuals and what form of retaliation and what forms retaliation takes. so that is the purpose of the hearing. i want to caution people there some r some areas where

testimony might come close to revealing classified information or law enforcement and i want to make sure we don't breach those restrictions but with that i want to welcome all of our witnesses and appreciate your courage and the courage of anybody willing to step forward and risk that kind of retaliation. and i'm looking forward to hearing your testimony and your answers to our questions with. with that, senator carper. >> thank you. it is good to meet all of you and welcome you hear today and thank you for your service in different arenas an particularly those of you who serve in uniform and have served in uniform in our country in the past. mr. chairman, i appreciate your efforts to highlight the retaliation that too many of our federal employees have faced over the years and even today when they've blown the whistle on waste blown the whistle on fraud and abuse and misbehavior within their agencies. you've heard me often talk about how invaluable the work is of

the inspector generals across our government. the general accountability office are and others to this agency as we work together to reduce -- continue to reduce our federal debt. i'm reminded today that many times it is actually the federal employees and contractors within the government that first draw attention to issues or wrongdoings in their agencies an they are just as vital as part of our team as we work together to make this government of ours even better. without people willing to stand up and say something is wrong when they see it is wrong it would be much harder to root out waste and fraud and abuse. and in order to encourage people to stand up we need to make sure when they do they are not punished tor doing so. i have been a long time propoebent of strpgenning the proponent of federal whistles. a few years ago a federal whistleblower contacted my dover

office about mismanagement about a base mortuary, the mortuary for the country and where we would bring back the remains of our fallen heroes. my office was able to bring attention to the issues and the retaliation that the whistleblowers were facing. at the end of the day the office of special council and the investigation led to disciplinary action not against the whistleblowers but against people in leadership position at the mortuary p: tself, the top officer, a colonel to the reinstatement of whistleblowers and others there. i was struck by the brave to risk so much for right and wrong and i was struck by the good work of those whose responsibilities include looking out for the whistleblowers and making sure they get a share break as well as the taxpayer. this history has a responsibility of working with

whistleblowers to root out waste, fraud and abuse. and in the last congress whistle was critical in nrve investigation into former senators into west virginia which was responsible for reviewing thousands of application for disible social security programs an that hearing was powerful and was critical into ore sight into the disability program. these whistleblowers were important and these number of brave and courageous women put everything on the line, their livelihood and their lives and without them there would have been no investigation and no hearing and the fraud and the committee that they shined the light on may not have been uncovered and so i'm grateful to whistleblowers and golden rule, need to be treated like we would want to be treated in their

place. i was pleased to learn in preparing for this hearing that the office of special council has made significant progress in the last couple of years under the leadership of special council carolyn learner in protecting whistleblowers. in fact i've been told that favorable outcomes for whistleblowers came to the office of special council have increased since 2007. not just by hundreds and 200%, not by 300%, not by 400%, not by 500%, but by 600%. a great turn around. a great improvement. the korgs and the administration have additional work to do to make sure individuals can speak out without fear of retaliation. and we passed a most recently law three years ago in 2012, i was happy to support that legislation to strengthen the roll for whistleblowers to much to the courage and to make sure they are not retaliationed again. but before we go further i would be remiss to not notice the

chairman has that the whistleblowers here today have rat claims that have not yet been fully substantiated and cases still pending. having said that, on the one hand i'm glad that we have the opportunity to hear from you and to be honest i have questions about ongoing litigation. congress has established past whistleblowers to obtain objective [ inaudible ] through the offices of in spector generals and special courts and i hope today's hearing is seen as not interfering with or prejudging the views pertaining to the witness's claims here today. and there are some objectives that we will not hear today to better understand the issues and i hope as we continue our over sight on this subject and i hope we will, we'll have the opportunity to hear from the agencies involved, especially

from the office of special council and i hope we learn valuable lessons about what our whistleblowers face and how we can support them and help the environment in which the whistleblowers have in future. and i'm pleased to join you as a member of the new senate whistleblowers caucus. we look forward to working on these and other issues. thank you. >> and thank you, mr. carper. this is just the first hearing. the purpose is to highlight the forum -- the form of retaliation and what happens and we'll continue to delve into the subject with multiple hearings. with that it is the tradition of this committee to swear in witnesses. so if you could all rise and raise your hand. do you swir the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but truth, so help you god. thank you. please be seated.

our first witness is lieutenant colonel jason amerine. he serves in the united states army and led a special forces team in afghanistan in 2001 for which he received a purple heart and bronze star with v device which devoted heroism involving an armed enemy. he has raised concerned about hostage recovery effort to hostage. lieutenant colonel amerine. >> thank you, sir. warren weinstein is dead. colin rutherford josh boyle caitlyn coleman, and others in captivity remain hostages in pakistan. i used every resource available but i failed them. one of the resources was my constitutional right to speak to

members of congress. you passed the milt whistleblowers protection act to ensure suchak ses. but after i made protected disclosures to congress the army suspended my clearance, removed me from my job and sought to court martial me. as a soldier, i support and defend the constitution of the united states and in order to have a government in which the voices of the people are heard. my team had a difficult mission and i used all legal means available to recover the hostage hostages. you, the congress, were my last resort. but now i'm labelled a whistleblowers, a term that is both radioactive and derogatory. i'm before you because i do my duty and you need to ensure all in uniform can go on doing their duty without fear of reprisal. let me be clear. i never blamed my situation on the white house. my loyalty is to my commander and chief as i support and defend the constitution.

whatever i say today is not as a republican or a democrat, but as a soldier without allegiance to any political parties. in early 2013 my office was asked to help get sergeant bergdahl hope. we audited the recovery effort and determined the reason it failed for four years was our organization lacked an organization to synchronize the efforts of all of our government agencies to get hostages home. we realized there were hostages in pakistan that no one was trying to free so we added them to our mission. i assessed that both issues were caused by an evolutionary misstep that created stoep pipes of our federal agencies. the department of defense faced this problem in the 30i8s as army navy, air force and marines operated independent of each other leading to the goldwater-nichols act of 1986. transformation on that scale literally takes an act of congress.

to get the hostages home, my team worked three lines of effort. fixk a coordination of tíkáñ recovery, develop the viable trade and get the taliban back to the negotiating table. my team was quick to address the latter two of the tasks but fixing the government's interagency process was obviously beyond our capability. recover i sergeant bergdahl was a critical step of ending the longest war in american history so i went to congress in order to repair a dysfunctional bureaucracy to support our press. it caused the army to place me under criminal investigation. i spoke to representative duncan hunter because he is a member of the house armed services committee. i needed him to buttress our efforts with two simple messages. the hostage recovery effort was broken and because of that five hostages and a prisoner of war had little hope of escaping pakistan. it started to work.

his dialogue with the department of defense led quickly to the appointment of deputy under secretary of defense lumpkin as a coordinator for the pentagon. this steppen dabled the d.o.d. to act decisively on the bergdahl trade once the taliban sought a deal but the hostages were forgotten during the negotiations. i continued to work with hunt tore try to get them home. he set up a meeting between my office and the fbi and then the fbi formally complained to the army that information i was sharing with them was classified. it was not. the department of defense inspector general has since reviewed the information through my d.o.d.i.g. complaint and confirmed it was not classified but still i'm under investigation. a terrible irony a horrible irony, is that my security clearance was suspended on january 15th the day after warren weinstein was killed. he were the only effort trying

to free all of the civilian hostages in pakistan and the fbi succeeded in ending our efforts the day after a u.s. drone strike killed warren weinstein. am i right? is the system broken? layers upon layers of bureaucracy hit the extent of the failure from our leaders. i believe we all failed the commander-in-chief by not getting critical advice to him. i feel we failed the secretary of defense who never knew the extent of the interagency dysfunction but now i'm considered a whistleblowers for raising these issues. there has been no transparency to the army investigation of my protected communications with representative hunter. the army would not even confirm why i was being investigated for the last five months until this week and they only did that because of today's hearing. daniel brian and mandy smith burger of the project on government over sight have been a godsend and representatived

duncan hunter and jackie spears stood up for me where nobody else in congress did until today. i'm grateful for the opportunity to testify before you. the outpouring of support from fellow service members have been humbling. force for me is that the cadets i tout at west point, now officers rising in the ranks are reaching out to me so see if i'm okay. i fear for their safety when they go to war and now they fear for my safety in washington. is that the ending message we want to send? and we must not forget, warren weinstein is dead while colin rutherford, josh boyle, caitlyn coleman and her child remain hostages. who is a fighting for them? thank you. >> thank you.

lieutenant colonel thank you for your service to this nation. and i will point out that representative hunter is in the audience. so welcome, sir. next witness is miss johnson. she is a senior special agent under immigrant and customs enforcement. she has raised investigation of risks in eb five to the office of in spector general. miss johnson. >> chairman johnson, ranking member -- excuse me. we're all going to do that today. chairman johnson ranking member carper and distincted members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to speak before you guys today surrounding the issues and obstacles with whistleblowers. i'm a special agent. i've been with hsi for about 11 years. i've been responsible for investigating large transnational organized crime groups involved in money laundering narcotics and boat

cash smuggling. i won't bore the board with any accommodations but i've received some highest awards and my file reflects yearly promotions. after disclosing gross mismanagement, waste and fraud that threaten general public safety and national security and public corruption surrounding the eb 5 project i was subjected to harassment and retaliation. with the approval of my chain of command i began investigating the eb 5 and investor. some of the suggestions included major fraud money laundering, bank and wire fraud and in addition i discovered ties to organized crime and high-ranking officials and politicians who received large campaign contributions and promotions that appeared to have facilitated the program. i disclosed this to management and later the office of in spector general, specific examples of national security

risk associated with the eb 5 and the project under investigation. some of the security risks coincided with what the cia, fbi and fcc have discovered as well. during the course of the investigation, i discovered that eb five applicants from china, russia pakistan and asia were approved in as little as 18 days. the files lack the basic law enforcement queries evident by the sos and applicants 526s. i found 800 operational eb 5 regional centers throughout the u.s., and this was a disturbing number for me since the u.s. only allowed 10,000 applications for we're year -- year. i could not identify how they were holding each center accountable or how through were tracked once inside the u.s. and in addition the detailed account of the funds that went into the eb five project was never produced after several

requests related to that investigation. it became evident that there was serious and significant national security risks to that program. from the onset of the investigation, my management began getting complaints from outside agencies and high-ranking officials, as a result i was removed from the investigation and it was ultimately shut down and closed. shortly after i was escorted by three supervisors from my desk and out of my permanent duty station. >> was not permitted to ask ses my case file or personal items and i was9,"3ñ removed over direct violation of title five. my weapon was taken against the agency firearms policy and my government vehicle was confiscated and access to the building was revoked. i was told i couldn't even carry or own a personal weapon and it i was constitutional rights violation. and placed on six separate occasions, four of which were during meetings and interviews

with oig and the osc. and when an adoption social worker tried to contact and verify employment she was told i was terminated for a criminal offense and i almost lost my 1-year-old child. i report to a building that house inmates where parolees report. i am placed in dangerous situations with no way to protect myself or others. they have obstructed me from competing for promotions and injured my prospects to promote. after being contacted bip the office of the inspector general on the case and designated as a witness, the agency falsely accused me of misconduct in 2011. result -- it resulted in

termination. the allegations surrounding the termination have been proven unfounded and the agency has recognized that. [ inaudible ] produced an in accurate report in an attempt to terminate my employment and should down the eb five case. this is a direct conflict of interest. after the agency was unable to unsubstantiate any allegations and said i could not testify for the oig or continue the investigation with the eb five program. there are no policies in place which limit the disciplinary action against agents. agents with placed on restrictions restrictions for years at a time which is a gross mismanagement when the agents are needed to support cases and protect the u.s. i was slandered to the point i couldn't do my job because the malicious and false gossip and took away from the time and

happiness of my family and i'm still being held a hostage by my own agency. it is demoralizing to myself and agents to have leadership bury their heads in the sand and in surveys that clearly identify agents wanting to do their jobs but can't because of the leadership that condones and encourages bad behavior within the department of homeland security. i'm here to inform the committee of the surroundings of the largest investigativive branches of the federal government. agents need to be valued not punished when they disclose factual information to our leadership. in closing, it is important to have agents at the front line coming forward on issues that affect the safety of our nation. to this committee i look forward to listening to insight and answering any questions you may have. thank you, sir. >> thank you, miss johnson. the next witness is mr. michael keegan. he is a retired associate

commissioner at the social security administration. mr. keegan has raised concerns about waste within the social security administration. mr. keegan. >> chairman johnson. ranking member carper and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss my demotion, reassignment and retaliation during my tenure at the social security administration or ssa. in july of 2011, i was recruited by budget finance and moment michael gallagher to assume management and responsibility for the office of facility and supply management known as ofsm, 500 employees and contractors operating and administering management for fsa facilities across our country. in january of 2012, i was assigned as the project executive for the replacement of a project communication center.

this was funded via $500 million association as part of the american reinvestment recovery initiative. congress was briefed by ssas that the appropriation was needed to replace the existing national computing center or ncc located on the ssa headquarters in wood land maryland. the replacement data center occupied only one floor of the entire center with approximately 75 playies. however an additional 925 employees work in the buildings other three floors. the centerpiece of the justification presented to congress was that the ncc was beyond economical repair and in terrible condition and had to be replaced in totality. my duties further required attendance at quarterly congressional staff meetings before the house ways and means sub-committee on social security. saa was required to brief the committee on the cost of the ncc replacement project and i was a important member of the ssa

delegation. in the course of performing duties i discovered a number of serious problems at ssa. i first brought the problems to the attention of the assistant deputy commissioner miss tina waddell who did not act on my recommendations and instead instructed me to brief the new incoming deputy commissioner of budget finance and management. in february of 2013, mr. peter spencer was brought out of retirement by carolyn colvin to assume the duties of deputy commissioner. soon after mr. spencers a arrival i gave him a detailed briefing on issues i believed including misleading congress waste and abuse. i further raised employee over time and travel abuse issues. however the most significant issues i raised involved the ssa representations to congress to replace the center when at most part of the data center needed replacement. as an example of this lack of

candor, testimony on the record from patrick o'carroll ssa inspector general nationals the competing center replaksment with the national support data center. page three of that testimony notes that ssa representative was monitoring and improving ncc plumbing conditions foundations and monitoring hvac duct work as examples. this was no mistake or misunderstanding. ssa was advised but an in dependent assessor to revise a report to directly address the committee inquiries on construction cost and future use of the ncc. ssa refused to follow the information and chose not to be forth right with congress. at depositions my attorney asked and clarified for miss colvin and her top aides that ssa never had any plans to replace all four floors or the entire national computer sentir. attached for the committees

review are five through seven, the deposition transcripts when demonstrate the lack of candor. i ask you to pay special attention to miss colvin's deposition transcript which she denies what the employees do where she never saw the reassignment letter that ruined my career that she signed and that her staff made the critical decisions against me which was squarely contradicted by her chief of staff decision that said she made the decisions. i ask the committee to read pages 41-46 of mr. spencer's testimony as exhibit in which he dances around basic questions about whether he would consider purposely misleading congress to be unethical. mr. spencer actually testified that he could not affirmatively say that purposely misleading congress is necessarily unethical. shortly after my report to mr. spencer, i was removed from the quarterly congressional staff

briefings. a week later, a formal investigation was launched against me. although i was cleared from the fabricated discrimination and hostile work environment allegations, i was removed from my position and left to languish in an empty office with a few tasks that a junior administrative employee could complete. to this day, after 22,000 pages have been turned over by ssa in discovery and ten depositions by my attorneys nothing has been shown by ssa that i deserve this retaliation. in july of 2014, after blowing the whistle again on miss colvin by misrepresenting to congress the represent of a $300,000 disability process i retired five years earlier than planned which has caused me significant hardship. i would be pleased to answer any questions committee may have for me. thank you. >> thank you mr. keegan. my next witness is jose ducos-

bello. he is a chief officer with the u.s. customs and border protection in washington, d.c. the officer has raised concerns about over time abuse at the customs and border protection to the office of special council. mr. ducos- bello. >> good morning to all. chairman johnson ranking member carper, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to help you blow the whistle on retaliation. i am a former member of the united states army aviation and i served with dignity and honor for over six years, until unhonorable discharge because during a military operation in 1993, i suffered a severe injury which incapacitated me to

perform my duties for 60% of my physical ability to continue flying. of my duties, after my recuperation, i decided that i would like to continue serving the government, as i dreamed when i was raised as a jile, in puerto rico, next to the air force base where i enjoyed the b-52s go into practice during the cold war and i said to myself, one day i'm going to get up there. well, god gave me that opportunity. more over, i spent a year in walter reed in a body cast recuperating from my injuries and with the help of my wife and the physical therapist, i started walking again. and i'm proven testimony that to this day i can do law

enforcement work with all of my pains and aches. when i was early discharged in 1995, i immediately took a position as a u.s. custom inspector in san juan, puerto rico where he made a lot of good things for this nation and i continue serving with pride honor and dignity to this day. when i joined in '95, i completed to this day 20 years of active service with the service that is now the department of homeland security, u.s. customs and border protection. sadly, because i did the right thing, i have suffered retaliation from the people that

i would have expected to receive support and complete admiration for doing the honorable thing because i remember back in 1986 as i did just now when i raised my hand and swore to tell the truth, i also swore to protection the constitution of the united states against all foreign and domestic enemies. well members of the committee, we are dealing right now with domestic enemies. enemies that have no intention of respecting the whistleblowers act and protect the people that do the right thing by reporting wrongdoing in the government. i reported the fraud, waste abuse, and abuse of authority of more than $1.5 billion of

taxpayers' money and all of us in here are taxpayers. and i am an american citizen and i'm proud of that. and i'm also proud of serving this nation as a public servant. all of us are public servants. we're not entitled to anything but to do our job for future generations, so that this nation can prosper and continue for many years to come. we don't want to see the united states burned up like rome did hundreds of years ago. i don't want to say that i am swinging for republicans or for democrats. that is not the issue at stake over here. this is bipartisan. and my duty from the moment i

got this badge, and a weapon to fight for america and a war and two conflicts, is to defend the constitution of the united states and to kiss old glory every time i can. because that is my pride. that is my legacy to my children. if i'm here it is for a reason. to leave a legacy to my children. and as senator carper was saying earlier, we have to protect the way that we spend federal funding. nobody is entitled to say, well, forget about it, it is the government money. no, it is my money. it is your money. every time you file taxes every year, it is your money.

i have to say that cvp should avoid wars right now and never raise your flag for an asinine cause like fraud and corruption. i have been made the villain the black sheep the unconvenient truth to the department of homeland security and that has to stop. i know we have many provisions in our system to protect whistleblowers. but the agencies they don't care. and they try to cover it up as much as they can. my situation is well-known. i have been suffering. i lost my job at the commission situation room. i cannot go back. and gladly with the help of the senate and the office of the

special council, i am getting there. i'm going to get my job back even if it is the last thing i do. because i worked there for 11 years and i never did anything wrong to deserve what is coming to me. i also with the help of this committee, and the help of the osc, i am trying very hard very hard to have the osc gain more power over their investigation because the agencies do not respect the way they handle their investigation. and i want to end with a quote that president obama our leader in charge of this great nation when he said democracy must be

built through open societies that share information. when there is information, there issen lightment. there is there is a debate there is solutions. when there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse corruption subjugation and indignity. i have been called many things. people laugh about my acsent in spanish spanish, people might say i'm a colorful character and people may think i am just a second-class citizen, and i remember senator john mccain telling me if you are, mr. duke os a second class citizen

because you were born in puerto rico then i'm right in the bus with you because i was born in panama. there is no place in our government, in our society to rep rise, to discriminate against people that do the right thing. i am one against many and look what i did. i'm still standing, i'm still here. i have a job. and i want to do my job with your help. also also, i would like to cite something that helps me go by every day. honor is simply the morality of superior man. believe that you can do something and you're half-way there. and like theodore roosevelt said, speak softly and carry a

big stick. so in conclusion, and let me find my -- my paper. i have everything in order here. my professional reputation has been tarnished in public in social media, and my family has suffered the ill effects to my well being. these are the facts and the evidence that i have provided to the staff of the committee. it will be much, much more i will never get through my six minutes if i tell you all of the retaliation things that my agency has done to me.

it is in writing. and it is accessible to you as evidence. but more now than ever i will ensure that all federal employees feel secure to report acts of corruption, waste or security concerns that can bring grave danger to our national security. when it comes to federal agencies committing acts of wrongdoing, we are not strong. we are the undercover cops under lookout to prevent uncle sam from being pick pocketed. thank you very much. and i'm looking forward to answering any questions that you may have for me.

>> thank you. mr. ducos- bello, thank you for your testimony and your service to the nation and your patriotism. i don't think there is anybody in this room that doesn't think you are noig but a first first class citizen. mr. tom devine is from the public accountability project. >> the last four witnesses personifies why i've worked at gap instead of getting a real job. today's hearing is welcome much needed over site for the marathon struggle to turn paper rights into reality. working with over 6,000 whistleblowers since 1979, one of the primary lessons that i've learned is that passing these laws is just the first step in a very long journey. and today's witnesses did just a

great job of sharing lessons learned based on pefrnl experience -- personal experiences. would you like to extend that to the bigger picture. and the first one i think is pretty obvious. that whistleblowing through congress can have the greatest impact on power that betray the public trust. no other audience comes close. but correspondenting, this makes congress the highest rick audience for whistleblowers because there is the direct threat of the severity of the threat and the viciousness of retaliation because congress has more impact it is highest stakes in either directions. and the third is that retaliation doesn't end. after blowing the whistle employees face often a life long struggle for professional survival. this is a life's cross roads

decision. the fourth less than that i -- lesson that i think sharing is since the wpea was passed, creative harassment tactics are circumventing the mandate. these are serious challenges. the all encompassing is the sensitive jobs loophole. this is a national security lope hole that would sub zoom the laib force nonpartisan and professional since 1983. there is no empirical studies or bases for scrapping the civil service system and no government wide replacement or alternative for it but the federal circuit of appeals the same that forced passage of the wpea has approved it and the office of personal management approved it and it is full steam ahead and under those rules the government has uncontrolled power to designate

almost any position as national security sensitive. once that happens sensitive employees no longer have the right to defend themselves in an independent hearing and they don't have a right to know what they are charged with doing wrong to lose their designation to work for the federal government. now the administration said we are not attacking the whistleblowers protection act but that is very disingenuous. the agencies still have the authority to present an unreviewable independent justification for their actions even if retaliation is proven, loss of the sensitive job designation and that means by designation every whistleblowers will lose a case and lose a job. that will give you a right to turn the wpea into a bad joke unless congress acts. we're on the verge of replacing the rule of law with a national security spoil system and

taxpayers will be the big losers. the second creative tact tick is criminalized whistleblowers. as we've seen from this morning, a new tactic is instead of firing someone is put them under criminal investigation, give them a choice of resigning or facing a prosecutor referral. it is much less mus and fuss than formal investigation. you have to file formal depositions and all you need is one investigative bully. and second you can't lose. the worse that will happen is the agency will have to close the case and next month they can open up a new case or a new pretext. i with one whistleblowers who faced 30 years of serial investigations and he's facing bribery in the chicago meat yards. and the third is the chilling effect of facing jail time is much more severe from the

chilling effect of the possible loss of your job. and the whistleblowers protection act is a work in progress. the two most significant structural reforms for the act to achieve its premise have not yet been finalized. gao must recommend whether every other group of employees in the u.s. laib force federal government whistleblowers can enforce their rights through district court injure trials if they don't get a timely ruling and normal access to appeal courts the review, this is just an experiment. senators, these are the structural cornerstones for the wpea to work and it was due in a year and a half and it is time to get them started on it. and the sixth point is we're overdue on the reauthorizing of the implement of the w pea and

the office of special council and the mpea and the leaders of the two agencies have an unquestionable commitment to the merit system and their agency missions. it would be silly to challenge their good faith. and in both agencies the performance is probably the highest in the history since they've been created in 1978. the bad news is this is a very low bar. at the mspb, well the board has been very even handed the administrative judges are extremely hostile to the whistleblowers protection agency. i can't honestly tell employees they have a fair chance at justice doing an mspb hearing and despite a 600 increase in actions that brought us up to 2.6% of people who file

complaints there which means even though they are doing better whistleblowers still don't have a fighting chance at justice when they try to act on their rights under this law. the bottom line, the w pea was a great first step. the commitment of the agency leaders charged with enforcing it is an outstanding second step. but we've got a long way to go. before we achieve the acts purposes. there is a lot of work and thanks for holding this hearing to help us get started. >> thank you mr. devine for your testimony. let me start by saying, as i was reading the testimony, as i'm listening to it, coming from the private sector, where when you are at the top of a company it is hard to get the information not filtered so that you really get the truth, i mean as i'm hearing what was brought to the attention of superiors, i'm thinking, you ought to be having medals pinned to your chest, not

have retaliation inflicted upon you. so i would like to ask the whistleblowers here, i want you to very -- hopefully as easily as possible describe to me why -- why were you retaliated against and i would like to start with lieutenant colonel amerine and i appreciate you meeting in my office yesterday and you told me an autism lot yesterday which i appreciate and i think i maybe have your why but i want you to confirm this. and you told me in the course of your attempts to gain the freedom of the hostages in afghanistan and pakistan, you were made aware it is your belief that the government did pay a ran some and that money was stolen and secondly that you believed you were pretty close to potentially having a deal where we would get seven hostages in exchange for one taliban leader and instead we got one hostage in exchange for five taliban leaders, is that in a nutshell is that information

is that why you've been retaliated against or what is the reason? >> yes, sir. i think that there are layers of this, in terms of the layers of the bureaucracy. on december 1st of 2014, representative hunter submitted a complaint to the i.g. alleging an illegal or questionable ran some possibly being paid for sergeant bergdahl. there was a good deal of evidence that it occurred and a lot of questions as to how it occurred. that complaint implicated both the d.o.d. organization and the fbi. so part of what lit the fuse was the same folks in the fbi that were basically sim plick ated in the d.o.d. i.g. complaint of 1

december, the same ones that i was sharing information with representative hunter. another aspect on the fbi side general frustration with representative hunter pushing them hard on civilian hostages and their awareness that i was speaking to representative hunter about all of this. he set up a meeting between my office and the fbi to help them out with some of this. they responded by threatening them not to speak to representative hunter again or he would stop getting supported by the fbi. just atrocious treatment of family and the fbi complained to the army and for reasons to be seen there is a bit of a debate within the army over whether i actually did anything wrong. my understanding is one party

who i just don't want to be speculative but there was a big debate in the army over whether i did anything wrong and that lead to the investigation. >> can you tell me a little bit about it please? a little bit about what you thought you had for the release of the hostages? >> so my office worked options. we looked at a whole variety of options. one of the options we developed was a -- we called it you know, the one for seven option. it entailed six hostages and a seventh person i'd rather not discuss today. so the six hostages, there's five hostages and a prisoner of law. josh boyle and collin rutherford. when we saw that nobody else was trying to get them home we were

working every initiative possible. one was the 1 for 7 and in that we were looking at him described as the pablo escobar of afghanistan and we realized he was another war lord that's actually an ally of the regime. we lured him to the u.s. under a false promise of safe passage and basically unsealed indictment and put him in jail for life. some felt he was a wretched human being and others felt he was wronged. as we looked at the options we looked at 5 for 1 that we thought died in 2012 as the worst option. so for us it was we aren't getting bergdahl let alone the other hostages back for free. every option was going to be painful so the option for us was one that was at least less painful so we were able to reach out to the tribe we believed

could free the hostages and we made a lot of progress on it. i briefed it widely but in the end when the taliban came to the table the state department basically said it must be the 5 for 1. that's the only viable option we had and that's what we went with. >> i can see how members of the government, if there was an option for six americans for one taliban and the deal ended up being five taliban for one american we probably wouldn't want that too highly publicized. that makes sense to me. miss taylor can you try and encapsulate it in terms of why? who was threatened? what was threatened? >> i think with regard to who is involved in the investigation. i think because of the people involved with the investigation it maybe put a different light. there was a lot of extra outside influences and kind of back and

forth with the different members and different agencies so we are all kind of as police officers the last thing you want to be is listed as a whistleblower and you usually ride the wave and keep your head down and your mouth shut and i did that in this case until i was contacted by the inspector general's office and we are required to cooperate with them and i did and i think breaking that silence -- i had everything in a 12 year career thrown at me and a lot of stuff that wasn't factual. i think there was a lot of issues surrounding that as far as the retaliation. >> briefly -- i don't want to lose this thread you said as an investigator the last thing you want to be known as is a whistleblower? is that because it's well-known? the retaliation. >> there's a brotherhood. you don't want to see your colleagues hurt and in this case

i don't see a lot of corruption or problems at the agent level. 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. i just think there needs to be corrective action. and i lost my train of thought. did that answer your question? >> it does. thank you miss johnson. >> thank you. our thanks to all of you for being here and for sharing your stories with us. on veteran's day i went up and down the state of delaware and any number of places where we met with veterans young or old their families. families of people who died serving our country and it was just a wonderful uplifting of their service.

we're the first state to ratify the constitution and one of the gatherings was in delaware. the constitution of our country was ratified in dover, delaware. on december 7th 1787. over 200 and something years ago. and as you close down the streets, the main streets in town and the intersection of state street and we had hundreds of veterans and their families all in a big circle around the intersection and we gathered about 200 yards from where the golden police tavern once stood. december 7th 1787 and i invited the folks that were there that day as i invited people in other assemblies that day on veteran's day and memorial day i invited them to join me doing something a lot of us did when we were kids in school and that was to resite the preamble to our constitution.

i didn't expect them to know it verbatim but i would read a few words and they would repeat them and we did it up and down the state. i loved doing it and people enjoyed it as well. but it starts out 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. it doesn't say in order to form a perfect union but a more perfect union and for me one of my core values and perhaps one of yours is everything i do i know i can do better and the folk who is wrote that constitution it was ratified down the street from where we gathered on memorial day, they realized it wasn't perfect and they realized that future generations we had to do better and better and better.

we have been working at this for awhile with respect to whistleblower protection. my recollection was that whistleblower protection act was first adopted in the 1980s. who recall who was president when he signed it into law. do you recall? >> yes -- >> make sure your mic is on. >> president reagan was in office when congress first passed it but president bush was in office when the law was finally signed. >> thank you. but we have been working on this for awhile and we're working on it in 2012 with the whistleblower protection enhancement act which a number of us supported. i want to ask you if you would thinking about the enhancements that we adopted in 2012, why they are an improvement over what existed before that and while there's still more that we need to do, could you just walk us through a few of the more

important changes, further changes that you believe are needed and give us a couple of real life examples of how they would improve whistleblower protections. >> thank you, senator the most significant are following through and completing the structural reforms that will provide an adequate foundation for the rights to be implemented. congress had to pass the law four times because there was not normal access to the appeals court. it was extremely hostile. and it was an achilles heel. they saw it as a five year experiment. that needs to be made permanent. it's the case with every other whistleblower laws in the book except the military whistleblower protection act which has no judicial review. the second structural reform is if there's not a speedy administrative ruling like all

the corporate whistleblower statutes being able to start fresh and in court and have justice determined by a jury of the citizens that whistleblowers are purporting to defend when they risk their careers. this district court access is particularly significant. gets the politics out of the nation when it's a charged dispute or high stakes one or 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 issue of national policy. with respect to the administrative agencies there needs to be intensive training of the administrative judges. i know they say we have to train all the government managers and bureaucrats and what their rights are in these laws. the people who are conducting the hearings the administrative hear