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 hearings, they need to get up to speed on this law too and

unfortunately the decisions have been very very uneven. at the u.s. office of special council i think the area that congress could -- besides just oversight which is also healthy the area where congress could make the most difference is by giving them the authority to issue stays or temporary relief. in my experience, the most significant factor whether we have sort of a long-term marathon nightmare or whether the agencies decide to get serious and have a resolution that both sides can live with and move on from is whether there's temporary relief. if there's not, the agencies should starve out the whistleblower. that will make a huge difference. finally, those issue of the national security loophole and retaliatory investigations which threatened every witness this

morning for which they have very uncertain rights. that's the work to be done. >> several are wearing eun post mortems and others have worn some army navy, and what branch of service did you serve in. >> my branch of service is department of homeland security the component is u.s. custom and border protection. >> but when you were on active duty with the military. >> i thought i understood you say active duty. >> united states army aviation. >> good things. i spent five years in southeast asia and another 18 years in the cold war. i was a naval flight officer. active duty and later reserve duty. retired navy captain. commander and chief of the national guard for 8 years and i have huge respect for you. particularly those of you that have worn the uniforms. thank you for your service in that regard. >> thank you, sir and the

slogan back then really helped me a lot. be all you can be. >> that's good. just take a minute and tell us -- not just a minute but tell us with respect to how we treat whistleblowers that are civilians as opposed to those that are military personnel. give us a minute on since we have both civilian and military personnel on our panels today can you just briefly discuss the differences between whistleblower protections for the two? just briefly? >> yes, sir the military is the lowest common denominator in the u.s. code for accountability through whistleblower protection. the key differences between the civilian and military laws first the military law doesn't have the fair burdens of proof that have given whistleblowers a fighting chance in their hearings and the second is there's no right to an administrative due process hearing. everything is enforced by the

department of defense office of inspector general. they repeatedly condemned their work is inaddaquet. they help finish off the people that seek it. it's a very severe problem. we need due process and finally there's no judicial review there. there is some outstanding legislation which is the service member's justice act which has been introduced by senator boxer and joined by senator grassly and all the whistleblower support organizations that could even the playing field and we think that it's outstanding. >> mr. johnson, he just mentioned the senator's name and miss johnson this is pertinent to what you said earlier. for years the department of homeland security called on the congress to make changes in the eb-5 program. a well intended program but a flawed program and earlier this

month they introduced legislation that reflects the changes that the department and legacy intended to do. i'm encouraged by that. >> i saw that, sir, i think that's great. >> thank you. >> our next is the senator that's always on time and very faithful attende which i truly appreciate. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen thank you all for being here today. i appreciate it so much. and i do want to take a moment and thank you very much for your service to this nation and to all of you as well. i do take this very seriously in my new role as a senator and someone that made a commitment to protect our men and women

that serve in the united states armed forces whether they're still serving in uniform or whether they are veterans. so whether it's proper medical care or va or in your circumstance we'll make sure that is a priority. i'll take a little bit of issue with your testimony. in here sir you say that you have failed and you have not failed. i will never accept that because what you have done is raise an issue that is extremely important to this nation in making sure that we receive those hostages back so you have not failed. we have just not yet succeeded so that day will come. we will make sure that that day comes. so to you, thank you so much for all of your effort and we will continue working on this. i look forward to working with you senator johnson on some of

these very specific issues. especially with the good colonel. to the rest of you, i do want to ask very briefly, my time is very limited here today. i know you have recent cases but have there been repercussions for those that have come after you and retaliated against you? have you seen any correction from that end. if you could just briefly. if you would please start. just very briefly have you seen those that retaliated against you being disciplined? >> well my retaliation started back in the end of 2012 and it was on going. i was disarmed for no reason like my fellow law enforcement officer here illegally. they turn every single stone that they could find during my

20 years career and they couldn't find anything. my review performance is fully successful throughout the year. i don't have this because somebody gave it to me as a gift. i earned them. this one is the blue eagle award. that i received for meticulously searching and researching a container coming from columbia with 8,000 pounds of cocaine and when i was in the field i was very diligent doing and discharging my boughts. and i move up the chain of command the right way. not by making a network of friends but by earning my rank. my position. and to this day the agencies treated me with no respect.

for the past six months i have been sitting in a folding chair with no desk no duties, no program to manage, nothing. i just show my face for 8 hours and all my talents are going to waste. >> but no correction. >> no correction. they are fixated in that they haven't done anything wrong. in that as a whistleblower i committed the worst crime by taking the auo away from the border patrol and the officers that changed their series from 1895 to 1801 in order for them to be seduced by the border patrol in drawing that auo which is illegal. now you tell me i am 1895 abide

by the constitution to obey and discharge the law. how come in less than an hour in the library of congress i came upon the regulations and the law that governs the use of auo and for those that don't know what auo means it's the overtime that they draw out at 25% of their yearly salary. >> and thank you. i would like to go ahead and move to just very briefly to some of the other members on our panel. >> yes, ma'am, you're welcome. >> thank you very much for being here today. >> thank you senator there is absolutely -- i have absolutely no knowledge that there's been any accountability repercussion in anyway involving senior leadership -- i'm sorry, senior leadership at social security administration and i can very quickly characterize this in two areas. if you recall from my testimony

i testified that my supervisor testified under oath that he could not agree that misrepresenting facts to congress was not ethical. the second thing i would tell you is that there is a mentality at the social security administration which i witnessed in many senior level meetings concerning bad information stays in the house. we do not air our dirty laundry to congress. we protect our leadership at all costs. and third in my career in the military private sector and senior executive of four agencies the social security administration has the worst track record of accountability and taking responsibility for their actions that i have ever seen and i don't mean that in a flippant manner senator but sincerely. >> thank you. >> there's been no corrective action. >> i appreciate that. >> and colonel yours is a very

special case. any specifics that you would like us to no. >> no, ma'am. >> thank you very much for your testimony today. thank you mr. chair. >> thank you senator. >> senator portman. >> thank you for having the hearing. and thank you all for being here. me wanting to share your personal experiences and roubling experiences. i saw mr. devine's territory and repeated it. he said this is one of your highest risk audiences so i hope that at the end of the day you're happy that you shared this information with us and we don't end up being a high risk to you. we're speaking to the united states congress. you know, your elective representatives because we need the information and this is an oversight committee. we want to make sure that it

works together with all the taxpayers that we represent. so it's very important that you're here today to talk about the broader policy issues that you have but also to put some context around it. you know, what really happened to you and to your responses a moment ago as to what actually happened that changed in the departments is discouraging. i do think that the legislation that you mentioned earlier. that indicates that congress might be able to move forward on legislate i have changes. i want to start with the military side. there's been some discussion. he was asked about the military whistleblower protections versus other departments and agencies. he said it was the lowest common denominator. he talked about the burden of proof, the lowest common denominator. he was concerned about due process hearing.

one of my concerns is about what the gao has said and in may of this year they issued a report and it was about investigations into retaliation complaints from military whistleblowers. they said it took three times longer than the legal requirement of 180 days so that alone seems to me, indicates that we have a problem on the military side. it also talked about the chain of command issue that service members are to report wrong doing outside the chain of command. >> to have an independent process. so i guess if i could talk to you they responded to the report by saying they conquer with the recommendation and they are

committed to requiring them outside of the chain of command. they've taken retaliatory action. is this requirement for whistleblower investigations sufficient to ensure independence from the chain of command in your view? >> i believe it is. the dodig has a difficult job and their dealing with me is first class. it is a slow process but i haven't hit the 180 days yet. so the investigation is on going and they're working it as hard as they can can. >> in terms of the complaints that have taken almost three times longer than 180 days, why do you think that is and what

should the it do to respond to that or what should we be doing legislative in in terms of the overall structure of the military side of whistleblower retaliation? >> yes, sir i mean some of that is beyond anything i claim expertise in so i have to scope it down to what i'm seeing. in my case i had a retirement date of june 1st that everybody was aware of. they reviewed my complaint which included the information that was a security violation of representative hunter and through the joint staff they determined that my complaint was not classified which would pretty much mean the information i spoke to hunter about which by design was meant to be unclassified was actually

unclassify unclassified. >> and it was the fbi that thought it was unclassified, right? >> right. the fbi filed a complaint and representative hunter basically said that well, you know, we had to put him in his place. they felt that it was one of those things where it was a shot across the bow. well they did that with a criminal allocation. so they underestimated the effect of telling the army that i'm leaking information and that lead to the situation i'm in right now. on the positive side the calamity allowed me to share with you aspects of the broader dysfunction i was dealing with but in terms of resolving this it should have been resolved with a simple conversation before the fbi complaint even hit i notified my chain of command what was coming and they told me yeah you did nothing

wrong and then somebody more senior for unknown reasons to me demanded this be thoroughly investigated. okay. that's fine but in five months nobody had spoken to me about what actually occurred. and that's where i think you run into the issue is the only organization that to me is actually kind of effectively grinded through this so far is dodig. everything they did i felt was first class regardless of how they ultimately conclude this in the end but them getting out to interview everybody involved was very very difficult because they'll approach someone and in the interview who is going to incriminate themselves. so i think they have an enormously difficult task and the time lines are the things that really they have to be enforced. 180 days is actually kind of hell for somebody trying to retire from the military and start a new career but from what i've seen i understand why it is

180 days but the chain of command on top of that needs to have a role in this where i don't understand why when the army heard there's an allegation of me speaking to representative hunter that they didn't think they ought to dig into it a bit before they started criminal charges and when they deleted my retirement they can only do that with a eye toward court marshall. all i can take away from this is they're seeking to court marshall me for sharing information with a representative of the house armed service committee. it's ridiculous in my mind but i'm the criminal in this case. the chain of command should have stepped up and realized they needed to handle this more smartly than going after me with a cid investigation. >> and had a conversation with you at the out set which you indicate they didn't have.

they didn't ask you. is that accurate? >> my chain of command never spoke to me. all i got -- the only time i was spoken to was on january 15th when this began when i was told i would be escorted out of the pentagon because i'm under criminal investigation. >> thank you, colonel. we have discussed today the office of special council and i have very little time remaining but just quickly maybe miss johnson you can talk to us about your experience with eig. has the inspector general been responsive to your concerns? >> yes they have. two investigations have been opened. not really at liberty to talk about that but they were able to open an investigation into the personnel actions in the whistle blowing complaint in addition to some other investigations related to that criminal investigation. they have a lot more as far as

subpoena powers than the osc and on my case the osc had a tough time getting my agency to cooperate with the documents. giving them what looked good versus what was actually requested. the opr system for us, at least at the dhs level was awful. they are all agents from los angeles under sac los angeles so for me going through that opr process on the numerous allegations that came up after the cb-5 and during was -- it was an awful process. it was communicating back and forth but the osc was eventually good at finding that and so was the oig in seeing the communications and the conflict

of interest. but it was probably above and beyond the best one so far as far as investigating. >> so they were helpful in trying to figure it out but they didn't have the authority to get the information in a time lynn basis where as aig was able to be more effective? >> right. they kept running into walls. >> thank you very much. appreciate again all of y'all being here and willing to testify before us today. >> thank you sir. >> mr. devine in your testimony i was looking at these laws ahead of time and for me it started back in 1978 and i guess it is with the civil service act but in your testimony enlighten me that it started with the act in 1912s. it created a no exceptions right to communicate with congress.

he has an absolute no exception right to communicate with congress. what's gone haywire. i keep asking myself why. again coming from the private sector, especially the top of the organization i'm always looking for individuals to actually address problems so again we should be pinning metals on these people's chests as opposed to retaliating. tell me a little bit about that law but also is there some very common universal question why. >> that is an excellent principle because there is no procedure and no remedies even if you found a violation somehow. so it's just basically a symbolic law. it's been waiting a long time to get some teeth in it.

as far as the more fundamental question i've asked myself that for a long time senator and i think the federal agencies and some private organizations too behave this way, it's the institutional equivalent of an animal instinct. an animal's instinct is to destroy anything that threatens it and organizations behave the same way. i don't think you know there's a lesson to be learned from him and we should talk this through. and i'm angry and they hurt me and i don't want to give them a chance to do it again. this is the way institutions react. snuff out the threat. it's unfortunate. it's very shortsighted. whistleblowers are the bitter pill that keeps you out of the

hospital. it's bad news in the short-term but it can be important for your survival. you have a whole cliche on it. don't kill the messenger. >> that's awful general as i listen to the four witnesses here in my mind i can at least assume somebody being protected. some piece of information that we didn't want to have disclosed like for lieutenant colonel and the fact that there was potentially a deal for 7 americans for one taliban. there might have been a ransom paid that was stolen. >> i'm going to get back to the other witnesses. it's specific why. you've been dealing with this a long time. is it protecting an individual or people in power. >> part of it is the structure of the communications when they work up through the chain of

command sooner or later you reach someone that is responsible for the wrong doing and a conflict of interest kicks in for somebody that has power over the passenger. so that's why it's so important that when there is that conflict when it's not just a mistake that everybody wants to fix. somebody is engaged in wrong doing but they have access to safe, clear access to congress. to circumvent the conflict of interest and get independent response to their concerns. >> that's why we set up our whistleblower out there. i'm assuming the four individuals here will have some measure of protection by coming public and showing courage. i'd like to pick up with you specifically. can you point to a why and then i'm going to ask the other whistleblowers what does it cost you? i understand there's reputational harm. that's a cost.

it's a grave cost. sitting on a folding chair, not having a desk. all of those types of things but i want the dollar cost. i really want you to let us know how has this cost you financially but first i wanted to give you the opportunity of why. >> why it was done? >> was somebody trying to protect themselves? >> well i believe senator having sat at a number of high level meetings acting commissioner colvin was in the beginning stages of believing she was going to be nominated an then finally being nominated. in at least three meetings the chief of staff made the statement that nothing is going to leave this agency that is

going to embarrass colvin. i can't make a direct connection between that and what happened to me but it certainly seems to make some sense to me. and what it cost me, 44 year career in the military 12 years tht private sector and 12 years of senior executive service. nothing but outstanding performance ratings and my last performance review capped off my 44 years and destroyed everything i worked for in my career. it cost me practically cost my me marriage to be perfectly frank. one year of sitting in an office staring at four walls and watching the clock tick being a very high energy results oriented person for me was a death by a thousand cuts. what it cost me financially. i finally couldn't take it anymore and i retired. i retired five years early.

i was not financially prepared to retire and i have not been able to get a job consistent with my background and my position for two reasons. i can't get a reference and how do i explain how i went to a nonsupervisory advisor with no responsibility, no accountability and no duties. i think the cost and i think my wife would tell you senator the cost hassen been enormous. >> thank you. >> thank you. for me the biggest cost has been watching my son trying to jump out of his high school roof because he saw his father lost his uniform, his weapon. he's always been very proud of my career and the way i perform my duties. not only at work but off duty.

i raised three excellent children but it was the most costing and emotionally devastating thing that i had to do receive that phone call that no father wants to receive that your son is on the roof of his high school getting ready to jump because his father is going through a whistleblower retaliation action. luckily i was there and i got in time. police was there and the fire department was there with the jumping blanket. he finally jumped and he was held by police and he wouldn't let anybody arrest him. he has to be arrested by his father. and with great pain i picked my son who is autistic to come down to the office and put the handcuffed on him and took him to the patrol and then i follow

on my vehicle and spent two days in the hospital talking to him. that my problem was going to be resolved eventually. that patience will pay off. financially, it has cost me over $41,000 in lawyers fees. just to keep my job. i i'm in debt up to my neck but as a responsible citizen i pay and waiting hopefully that one day i can be compensated for all the troubles that financially i have put myself into because i did the right thing. this is very hard for me. i'm reliving something that no father wants to relive. it put a big strain on my 26

year marriage. but luckily for me i have a very supportive wife that i can talk to. i used the employee system program and went to therapy and talked to a counselor and she told me, you know, you haven't done anything wrong. you should be proud of yourself. and why did we create this new enhancement whistleblower protection act in 2012 if we are not going to clear the air and punish the guilty and protect the whistleblower. >> thank you. mr. johnson. >> yes, sir. i think a few things that folks said just kind of about protecting people in power. the lieutenant here -- or colonel. >> lieutenant colonel.

>> i'm sorry. just starting a conversation. there wasn't that communication there. but i think ultimately as far as reasons it is protecting people. it's maybe our leadership not having the courage to kind of have the courage to stand up and say these are our people. we need to take care of them. it's supposed to be a family and that's not all their fault. there's been a lot of people with the merger and, you know, we're all dealing with a number of things. >> i was looking for the cost. >> oh i thought you said the cause. >> the cost. >> i apologize. you know there's always that financial cost with legal fees. i adopted my two little girls so i have two older ones from my first. so i have four kids and i'm in the middle of an adoption. my salary was effected. i didn't get a step increase. so not only did i add to two kids to my household but i

didn't get my increase. they finally did fix that. but, you know the phone calls. there's a huge expense just to being an active member of the family. but i'm pretty fun and i like to work hard and go home and play hard and you lose a little bit of that because it just sucks it out of you. >> thank you. >> i had to burn two months of leave i intended to use for retirement leave. that was 18,000 dollars. they moved me out of a top secret facility to put me in a secret open storage facility where my presence in and of itself would have represented a security violation while i'm under investigation for a security violation. so i mean i took two months leave just to get out of there and to not potentially further

incriminate myself and then thanks to my lieutenant i was able to finally get assigned to a position where i wouldn't be committing a security violation by going to work. the broader cost to me is what it shows the soldiers and the officers in the army. we always have difficulty with our junior officers and junior noncommissioned officers showing them that remaining in the military working your way up the ranks is something you ought to aspire to do. and all the officers i knew as cadets and the example set for them is terrible and what does it do to the army? the army is killing itself. when you go after people that

are reporting significant issues and you go after people that are whistle blowing although i still loath the term you end upsetting a terrible example for all of the other people that are seeing the retaliation so that's the cost to me that matters is what it's doing to my army. >> the answer is why. whether it's organization or protecting somebody else. it's trying to make an example of somebody so the next person doesn't step forward? isn't that the bottom line? >> thank you for being here and sharing your stories with us and your service past and present to our country. there's things that reminded me of a sad chapter in our state

last week when we buried the son of joe biden. and joe biden has this saying that i've heard him use any number of times when he has spoken at funerals and he has said talking to the family of the deceased that his hope was that the day would come when the thought of that individual would bring a smile to their face before it brought a tear to their eye. now several of you said the word whistleblower is not a term of endearment. and my hope is that you live long enough and we do too that just like vice president biden talked about the thought of a loved one bringing a smile to the face of the surviving family

members, my hope is that in the future, people in our government and our country when they hear the term whistleblower it will bring a smile to their face before it brings a tear to their eye. so that's one thing. >> second thing i want to say, i want to go back to dover air force base. one of the finest air force bases in the world. they're the best we have in the country and the world. so they have a duty there that involved not so much air lift as it did receiving the bodies and remains of our fallen heros and there were things going on in that motuary that were inappropriate and wrong and some of the folks that worked there knew about it and ended up going

on the outside and they came to our office and we were not sure initially if this were credible but they won us over and they convinced us that they were there for the right reasons. and the office special council got involved. and i want to tell you, i was prim impressed. they were like a dog with a bone trying to make sure that justice was done. i go to the air force base a lot. it's an important constituent of ours and one of the last visits i went over to the base last year, i've been there since but

i went back to the mortuary. it's an incredible facility. some of the hardest work done with anybody in the military was the work that folks did there with the remains. if you've ever been there it's incredible work that they do. i applaud them for the work that they do but some people that did not adhere to the high standards that they should have but i went back last year and when i walked in the first couple of people that i saw were the whistleblowers and i looked around to find the colonel that used to run the place. long gone. and i looked around for the civilian personnel that reported to the colonel, long gone and do you know who was running the place? the team that included the whistleblowers. more committed than ever to doing the right thing. the right thing.

i want to ask you to talk a little bit about the entity council that actually got involved in this case. i'm sure it's not the only instance where they did the lord's work and made sure that justice was done but talk about the work that they do throughout the military installation. talk about the work they do. >> i think the office of special council is probably the best agency in the federal government for whistleblowers to seek justice. it's a low bar but they're doing their best there and it's particularly impressive because just four years ago they were coming out of chaos where they were the subject of fbi raids and the previous special council is convicted of criminal misconduct.

they have come a long way. the areas we were the most impressed with them are their alternative dispute resolution which is probably the most effective unit in the federal government at making a difference and getting speedy resolution with just results for whistleblowers. they have been very aggressive in using their new authority that have been outstanding. they have increased their corrective actions significantly there. they have overhauled their disclosure unit for whistleblowers to try to make a difshs. difference. it's much more employee friendly. they can hold them accountable for following up and acting on the problems confirmed. they're all very positive developments. we think they can do better in their complaints examining unit. the quality of the reviews for screening these cases for investigations is extremely uneven in my experience in reports that we receive. we think that they need to go

for stays temporary relief quite frequently and that's actually been going down out slightly in recent years and that's the single most important factor that there is for whistleblowers to get an acceptable ending. and finally we think that they need to litigate some cases. the reason they don't litigate is the agencies always surrender. >> the agencies what? >> they've said they never really have a chance to go to trial and defeat a retaliation case because the agencies always surrender. >> okay. >> i think maybe they're picking the wrong enemies or the wrong issues. we can help them find whistleblower case where is the agencies will fight back on disputes that make a difference. >> all right. a closing thought. our thanks to each of you for joining us today. >> and for you sir it's our

country past and present. >> i would notice i did earlier in my opening statement i think the chairman did as well, we have before us five very impressive people and missing at the table are those that have another perspective on the stories that you've told and i think we need to keep that in mind. these are matters that are still being ajudicated and we'll have to let the process go forward. >> i'm encouraged by some of the process of the whistleblower enhancement. with my support i think that might be before chairman joined us here but i'm also thankful that you turned off your cell phones before. before you came in.

the last thing i want to say is y'all talked about your core values. they're pretty solid. number one figure out the right thing to do. just do it. not the easy thing or expedient thing. what's the right thing to do? we all need to do that. including the folks running the agencies where you feel you have not been treated well and the second is golden rule. treat other people the way we want to be treated. the most important rule of all and the third i referenced it already and the idea is to focus on excellence in everything we do. everything i do i know i can do better. all of these agencies we have we can do better. we need to focus on in order to form a more perfect union. and the last one is just don't give up. just don't give up.

you know you're right. you think you're right. >> never. >> never give up. and i think those are some of the core values that i hear here today. thank you again. god bless. >> amen. >> i'd also like to thank all of our witnesses for your thoughtful system and thoughtful answers to our questions. your courage for coming forward. i want to thank every whistleblower that has the courage to come forward to tell the truth. i agree with the goal of the lloyd will follow act. an antiretaliation law that was created -- that key yated a no exceptions right to communicate with congress which is why we have set up our website. whistleblower. so i want to encourage other individuals with courage to come forward. it's the only way we're going to reform government reform bureaucracies that you didn't know about if the public has the

light of day showing upon abuse and corruption. so again, thank you all for your testimony and for coming forward. the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until june 26th at 5:00 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for the record. this hearing is adjourned.

>> dond trump announced he's running for the republican presidential nomination. he made the announcement this morning at trump tower in new york city. >> i love my life. i have a wonderful family. they're saying dad you're going to do something that's been so tough. all of my life i heard that a truly successful person, a really really successful person and even modestly successful cannot run for public office

just can't happen and that's the kind of mind set that you need to make this country great again. so ladies and gentlemen, i am officially running for president of the united states and we are going to make our country great again. [ applause ] it can happen. our country has tremendous potential. we have tremendous people. we have people that aren't working. we have people that have no incentive to work. but they're going to have incentive to work because the

greatest social program is a job. and they'll be proud and they'll love it and they'll make much more money than they would have ever made and they'll be doing so well and we're going to behappen. i will be the greatest jobs president that god ever created. i tell you that. [ applause ] >> on wednesday defense secretary ashton carter and general martin dempsey will be on the hill to testify about military strategy in the middle east before the house armed services committee. live coverage tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern here on c span 3. scotland's first minister told an audience on the council on foreign relations the country would have nothing to oo fear.

she wins the british house of commons, this is about an hour. good morning, everyone, and welcome to this session on the council on foreign relations. i'm judy woodruff, and i'm delighted to be with you this morning to preside over a discussion with the first minister of scotland. nicola sturgeon was elected deputy leader of the snp in 2004. and in that capacity, she went on to become a high-profile figure in the scottish parliament and scottish politics, leading to her history-making election as leader of the snp in november of last year. she became the first woman to hold the position, first

minister of scotland, but she made further history two months ago after a vigorous campaign when her party won a landslide in the u.k. general elections, capturing 56 of 59 seats designated for scotland in the national parliament. she will begin by making remarks and then i'll sit down with her for a conversation before we take your questions. please join me in welcoming the first minister of scotland, nicola sturgeon. [ applause ] >> thank you very much indeed, judy for that very warm introduction. thank you to all of you for being here this morning. it is a real pleasure for me to be here. it's a real pleasure for me to be here in the united states, here in washington, d.c. and in, particular, to be here at the council on foreign relations,

august and well-respected organization not just in the united states but worldwide. one of the things i've been reminded of often since i arrived on this visit to the u.s., the weekend, is the fact that the very deep bonds between scotland and the united states go back centuries. they run from the discussion and the debate between enlightenment thinkers such as david hume and benjamin franklin to the modern exchange of university graduates and the connections between our technology companies, the relationship between our two countries is cultural. it is social. it is historic, and of course, it is economic as well, and we value those lengths and those ties very highly. and from what i've seen and observed on my visit this week is that those ties are set to

continue and indeed to strengthen for generations to come. so, it's a real pleasure to be here this morning at the council on foreign relations, an organization, which, for more than 90 years, has contributed to that exchange of ideas between the united states and the wider world. i'm especially pleased to be speaking at this particular time. i'm very aware that there is a strong interest here in political developments, not just in scotland, but across the united kingdom as a whole, and there is, understandably, an interest in the implications of these developments for europe and for the wider international community. before we begin our discussion, therefore, i want to provide a very brief overview of my thoughts on where the united kingdom and scotland stand now. and in doing that, i'll talk

about two referendums and one election. i'll look back briefly on the referendom on scottic independence that took place last year and also the uk general election that took place just last month. but i also look forward on the referendom on the united kingdom's membership of the european union which is spected to take place sometime before the end of 2017. the exact timing of that referendum is not yet determined. now, as you probably guess or as you're probably able to guess, the first referendum on scottish independence which took place last september didn't turn out exactly as i would have hoped that it would, but while that referendum didn't change scotland's constitutional position, it undoubtedly

transformed scottish politics, and i would argue it has had a transformational effect on united kingdom politics as well. firstly, that referendum has made scotland one of the most politically engaged countries, i would argue, in the entire world. nearly everybody in scotland last year became intensely involved in a peaceful and passionate debate about the kind of country they want to live in. and that debate has had lasting consequences. for example the election in the uk, voter turnout was some 5 percentage points higher. than it was in the rest of the united kingdom. people who hadn't had much interest in how the government was governed now understand that their voice matters. they feel involved in decision making in a way that hasn't happened before, certainly in my lifetime.

so the referendum itself, the expedience of the referendum has been good for scotland. we're more energized, more informed and more empowered than we have ever been before. the result of that referendum also provided part of the context for last month as uk general election. to the casual observer, the uk e election, it resulted in the election of a majority conservative government, and so another term of david cameron as prime minister. when you look at that election in more detail, something striking and much more complex emerges, because in many ways, there were actually four different elections taking place in the united kingdom last months. in each of the different nations of the united kingdom. and those elections had very different results. and the differences in those

results have very significant implications for the uk, for the future of the uk and how it is governed as a country. so my party, the scottish national party won the election in scotland with us. judy just told you, 56 out of the 59 electoral constituencies in scotland. labor won the election in wales. the conservatives won in england, with 60% of the seats there, and of course northern ireland has an i have different system of party politics. so there was no one, uniform result across the united kingdom. the multi-national united kingdom voted in four very different ways. and shortly before the election, i raised the question of what actually constitutes an electoral mandate when the nations are voting in different

directions. in practical terms, simply winning enough votes and seats in england can secure a parliamentary majority. but had that is achieved in only one of the four nations, the question arises, what kind of mandates is that. the conservative party, of course, has the right to form the government of the uk and has indeed done that. but it was not the biggest party in three of the four nations of the uk. in fact far from it. so the legitimacy of those other nations comes very clearly into focus. so as i discussed with the prime6áhex minister when we met after the election, what happens to the future of the united kingdom now in the years ahead will at least in part depend upon how responsively westminster deals with the reality that in political as well as in constitutional term, the uk is

not a unitary state. there is no second independence on the horizon of course. but i think it's a reasonable point to make. if the united kingdom is to remain in tact in the years to come, it must demonstrate and demonstrate very clearly that it can adapt to multi-national and multi-party politics in a far more substantial manner than it has often done in the past. now here in the united states, of course, you're very used to the idea of different governments making different choices about very significant issues, but that's not something that uk governments are used to for much of the last century. devolution not withstanding, the uk has been a centralized state. but it's now increasingly clear, for the uk as a whole, one size doesn't fit all, and a one size