tv Washington This Week CSPAN June 14, 2015 12:46pm-3:01pm EDT
12:46 pm
i taught at west point now officers rising in the ranks are reaching out to me to see if i am ok. i fear for their safety when they go to war now they fear for my safety in washington. is that the enduring message we want to send? we must not forget, warren weinstein is dead while there are remaining hostages. who is fighting for them? thank you. >> thank you, lieutenant colonel. thank you for your service to our nation. i will point out representative hunter is in the audience here so welcome, sir. our next witness is mrs. taylor johnson. she is a senior special agent with homeland security special
12:47 pm
investigations, a component for customs enforcement and she raised concerns about national security and criminal risks in the eb5 program to her management and the dhs office of the inspector general. ms. johnson? >> chairman johnson, ranking member carpenter, i appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. surrounding the issues and obstacles with whistleblowing. i am a special agent. i have been for about 11 years. i have been responsible for investigating large transnational organized crime groups involved in money laundering narcotics and smuggling. i have received some of the highest honors of our department and my opm file reflects yearly promotions. after disclosing gross mismanagement, waste and fraud
12:48 pm
that threatened general public safety, national security risk, and the eb5 project, i was subjected to a significant amount of harassment and retaliation. with the approval of my chain of command i began investigating , the eb5 regional center, and some of the violations investigated surrounding the project included bank and wire fraud and i discovered ties to organized crime and high-ranking officials and politicians who have received large campaign contributions and campaigns that appeared to facilitate the program. i disclosed this to my management and then specific examples of national security risks, and some of the security risks coincided with what the cia, fbi, and sec have already discovered as well.
12:49 pm
during the course of the investigation, i discovered eb five applicants from china russia, pakistan, malaysia had been approved in as little as 16 days and the files lacked the basic and necessary law enforcement queries. i found over 800 operational eb5 regional centers throughout the u.s.. this was a disturbing number for me since the u.s. only allows 10,000 applications per year. i could not identify how they were holding each regional center accountable or how they were tracked once they were inside the united states. in addition the complete detail of the funds that went into the project was never completed or produced after several requests related to that investigation. it became evident that there was some serious and significant national security risks to that program. from the onset of the investigation, my management been -- got complaints and as a
12:50 pm
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. i was not permitted to access my case files or personal files and i was moved initially over 50 miles in direct violation of title 5. my weapon and credentials were taken against the firearms policy and my government vehicle was confiscated, and access to the building and all government data bases was revoked, and i was told i could not carry my own weapon, which was a constitutional rights violation. when an adoption social worker tried to contact and verify employment she was told i had terminated for a criminal offense and i are most lost my
12:51 pm
one-year-old child. i am continuously placed in dangerous situations with no way to protect myself or others. management has willfully obstructed me from promotions and injured my prospects to promote. lastly, after being contacted by the office of inspector general on the case and designated as a witness, the agency falsely accused me of misconduct in 2011. it resulted in termination recommendation. the allegations surrounding the termination have since been proven unfounded by osc and the agency has recognized that. opr produced an inaccurate and biased report to terminate by employment.
12:52 pm
this is a direct conflict of interest. the 2011 complaint was used after the agency was unable to substantiate any allegations against me and as a tool to ensure that i could not testify for the oig continue the investigation for the eb5 program. there are no policies in place which limit the disciplinary actions against agents. agents are placed on administrative restrictions for years at a time, which is a gross mismanagement when these agents are needed to support the u.s.. i was slandered to the point where i could not perform my job because of the malicious and false gossip, and took away the time and happiness from my family. i am still currently being held hostage by my own agency. it's demoralizing to myself and agents to have directors and senior leaderships to ignore the reports of undue influence, and
12:53 pm
surveys that clearly identify agents wanting to do their jobs and being unable to because of leadership condones and encourages bad behavior within the department of homeland security. agents and officers need to be valued by management and not punished when they disclose factual and important information to our leadership. in closing, it's important to have agents at your front line coming forward on issues that affect the safety of our nation, and to this committee i look forward to listening to your insight and answering any questions you may have. thank you, sir. >> thank you, mrs. johnson. our next witness is mr. michael keegan. mr. keegan is a retired social security manager at the social security administration. he raised concerns about waist -- waste within the social security administration. >> distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this
12:54 pm
opportunity to discuss my demotion reassignment and retaliation during my tenure at the social security administration, or as is a. -- ssa. in july 2011, i was recruited by a former deputy michael gallagher, specifically to assume management and responsibility for the facilities and supply management, an organization of 500 employees and contractors operating and administering management and real estate actions for hundreds of facilities across our country. in january of 2012, i was assigned as the project executive for the construction of a replacement computer datacenter. this project was funded via a $500 million appropriation. as part of the american reinvestment and recovery initiative. congress had been briefed by ssa officials that the appropriation was needed to replace the existing national computing center or ncc located on the ssa
12:55 pm
headquarters in maryland. most notably a replacement datacenter occupied only one floor of the entire national computing center with 75 employees, and an additional 925 employees work in the buildings other three floors. the centerpiece of the justification presented to congress was the ncc was beyond economic repair and had to be replaced in totality. my duties further required attendance at quarterly congressional staff meetings before the house ways and means community -- committee. the ssa was to brief the congress and i was an important member of the delegation. in the course of performing these duties i discovered a number of serious problems and i brought the problems to the attention of assistant deputy director mrs.
12:56 pm
tina waddell, who did not act on my recommendation and instructed me to brief the new incoming commissioner of budget finance management. in february of 2013, mr. peter spencer was brought out of retirement by acting commissioner to assume the duties of deputy commissioner. soon after his arrival i gave him a detailed briefing on serious issues that i believe included misleading congress waste and abuse. i further raised employee over time and travel abuse issues however the most significant issues i raised involved ssa's representations to congress when only part of the ncc that held the datacenter needed replacement. as an example of the lack of candor, testimony on the record from patrick o'carol, page three of that testimony notes that ssa representative was monitoring and improving ncc plumbing
12:57 pm
conditions, foundations and monitoring hvac ductwork as examples. this was no mistake or misunderstanding. ssa was specifically advised by an independent assessor to revise a jacobs engineering report to directly address the inquiries on the cost. ssa refused to follow the recommendation and chose not to be forthright with congress. further there was no mistake, at depositions it was said they never had any plans to replace all four floors on the center, attached for review are the deposition transcripts that show this lack of candor. i asked the committee to pay special attention to ms. coleman's deposition transcript. where she denies knowledge of that. she testified she never saw the reassignment letter that ruined
12:58 pm
my career, a letter in which she signed, and notably her testimony that her chief of staff made the critical decisions against me, which was squarely by her chief of staff's statement that she made those decisions. i asked the committee to read pages 41 to 46 of mr. spencer's testimony as in the exhibit which he dances around questions about whether he would consider purposely misleading congress to be unethical. he testified that he could not say purposely misleading congress is something unethical. a week later, a formal investigation was launched against me. although i was cleared from the hostile work environment allegations, i was removed from my position and left to languish
12:59 pm
in an empty office. to this day after 22,000 pages have been turned over by ssa and discovery and ten depositions by my attorneys, nothing has been shown by ssa that i deserve the retaliation. in july 2014, after blowing the whistle again on this cold and for misrepresenting to congress, i finally made the difficult decision to retire from government service five years earlier than planned which has caused me significant hardship. i would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have for me. thank you. >> thank you, mr. keegan. our next witness is mr. jose belo. he is a chief officer with the u.s. customs and border protection in washington, d c. he has raised concerns about overtime abuse to the office of special counsel. >> good morning to all.
1:00 pm
chairman johnson, and ranking member carper, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to help you blow the whistle on retaliation. i am a former member of the united states army aviation, and i served with dignity and honor for over six years until honorable discharge because during a military op ration in 1993, i suffered a for 60% of my physical ability. of my duties, after my
1:01 pm
operation, i decided i would like to continue serving the government, as i dreamed when i was a child of my duties, after my recuperation i decided that i would like to continue serving the government, as i dream when i was a child raising up next to the air force base where i enjoyed watching all the b52s, and i said one day i am going to be up there, and god gave me that opportunity. moreover, i spent a year in a body cast recuperating from my injuries and with the help of my wife and the physical therapists i started walking again. i am proven testimony that to this day i can do law enforcement work with all my pains and aches. when i was early discharged in 1995, i immediately took a position as a u.s. custom inspector in san juan, puerto rico, where i made a lot of good
1:02 pm
things for this nation and i continue serving with pride, honor and dignity to this day. when i joined in 1995, i completed to this day 20 years of active service with the service that is now the department of homeland security. sadly, because i did the right thing, i suffered retaliation from people i would have expected to receive support and complete admiration for doing the honorable thing, because i remember in 1986, as i did just now when i raised my hand and swear to tell the truth, i also swore to protect the constitution of the united states against all foreign and domestic enemies. well, members of the committee we are dealing right now with
1:03 pm
domestic enemies, enemies that have no intention of respecting the whistleblower act and protect the people that do the right thing by reporting wrong doing in the government. i reported the fraud, waste, abuse, and abuse of authority of more than $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money, and all of us in here are taxpayers, and i am an american citizen and i am proud to be that and i am proud of serving this nation as a public servant. all of us are public servants. we are not entitled to anything, but to do our job for future generations so that this nation prosper and continue for many years to come. we don't want to see the united states end, burned up like rome
1:04 pm
did hundreds of years ago. i don't want to say that i am swinging for republicans or for democrats, that's not the issue at stake over here. this is bipartisan. and my duty from the moment i got this badge and a weapon to fight for america in a war in -- and two conflicts is to defend the constitution of the united
1:05 pm
states and to kiss old glory every time i can, because that's my pride and that's my legacy to my children. if i am here, it's for a reason to leave a legacy to my children. as senator carper was saying earlier, we have to protect the way that we spend federal funding. nobody is entitled to say, well, forget about it, it's the government money. no, it's my money. it's your money. every time you file your taxes every year, it's your money. i have to say that cbp should avoid wars that they cannot win and never raise your flag for an asinine cause like fraud and corruption. i have been made the villain the black sheep, and that has to stop.
1:06 pm
i know we have many provisions in our system to protect whistle blowers, but the agencies, they don't care and they try to cover it up as much as i can. my situation is well known. i have been suffering. i love my job, but i cannot go back. and gladly with the help of the senate and the office of the special council, i am getting there. i am going to get my job if it's the last thing i do. i worked there 11 years and never did anything wrong to deserve what is coming to me. i also, with the help of this
1:07 pm
committee and the help of the osc, i'm trying very hard, very hard to have the osc gain more power over their investigation because the agencies do not respect the way they handled their investigation. i want to end with a quote that president obama, our leader in charge of this great nation, when he said, democracy must be built throughout open societies that share information.
1:08 pm
when there is information, there is enlightenment and when there is a debate, there is solutions. when there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse corruption, subjugation, and indignity. i have been called many things and people laugh about my spanish and people may say i am a colorful character, and people may think i am just a second-class citizen, and i remember senator john mccain telling me, if you are, mr. ducos, a second class citizen because you were born in puerto rico, then i am right on the bus with you because i was born in panama. there is no place in our government and society to reprise, to discriminate against people that do the right thing.
1:09 pm
i am one against many, and look what i did. i am still standing. i am still here. i have a job. and i want to do my job with your help. also, i would like to cite something that helps me go by every day. honor is simply the morality of superior men. believe that you can do something and you are halfway there. like theodore roosevelt said
1:10 pm
speak softly and carry a big stick. so in conclusion, let me find my paper -- i have everything in order here. my professional reputation has been tarnished in public and social media, and my family has suffered the ill affects to my well-being. these are the facts and the evidence that i have provided to the staff of the committee. it will be much, much, much more, and i will never do my six minutes if i tell you all the retaliation things that my agency have done to me. it's in writing, and it's accessible to you as evidence. but more now than ever, i will insure that all federal employees feel secure to report
1:11 pm
acts of corruption, waste, or security concerns that can bring grave danger to our national security. when it comes to federal agencies committing acts of wrong doing, we are the undercover cops on the lookout to prevent uncle sam from being pickpocket. thank you very much. i am looking forward to answer any questions that you may have for me. >> thank you, mr. ducos-bello. thank you for your service to this nation and patriotism. i don't think there is anybody in his room who does not think you are but a first-class citizen. our next witness, mr. tom divine. he is a legal director of the government accountability project a nonprofit to assist
1:12 pm
whistle blowers. mr. divine. >> thank you. the testimony from the last four witnesses personifies why i spent the last 35 years working at gap instead of getting a real job. today's hearing is welcome much needed oversight for the marathon struggle to turn paper writes into reality. working with over 6,000 whistle blowers since 1979, one of the primary lessons i've learned is passing these laws is one step in a very long journey. today's witnesses that just a great job of sharing lessons learned based on their personal experiences. i would like to extend that to the bigger picture. the first lesson to be shared is one that i think is pretty obvious.
1:13 pm
whistle blowing through congress can have the greatest impact making the difference against abuses of power that betray the public trust. no other audience comes close. the second lesson is that this next congress -- that this congress is the highest risk audience for whistle blowers and that's because there's a direct relationship between the severity of the threat posed by a disclosure and the viciousness of retaliation. the third lesson is that retaliation doesn't end, and after blowing the whistle, employees face-off often a lifelong struggle for professional survival. this is a life's crossroads decision. the fourth lesson that i think is were sharing is that since
1:14 pm
the wpea was passed, a creative harassment tactics are circumventing its mandate. the most and conferencing is the sensitive jobs loophole. this is a national security loophole that would assume the entire civil service rule of law that kept the labor force nonpartisan and professional since 1883. there has been no empirical studies or basis for scrapping the civil service system and no structure in place for government alternative to it but the federal circuit court of appeals, the same court that had the passage of the wpea approved it, and there was final regulations, and it's full steam ahead. the government has uncontrolled power to designate almost any position as national security sensitive. once that happens, sensitive employees no longer have the right to defend themselves in a hearing and don't have a right to know what they were charged
1:15 pm
with of doing wrong to lose their designation to work for the federal government. that's very disingenuous. the agencies still have the authority to present unreviewable independent justification for their actions. even if her television is proven -- even if retaliation is proven. that means by definition every whistle-blower will lose a case who has a sensitive job. we can still have the whistle
1:16 pm
blower projection act to turn the wpea into a bad joke, unless congress acts. we are on the verge of replacing the rule of law with a national security spoil system and taxpayers will be the big losers. the second creative tactic i would like to highlight is criminalizing whistle blowers. as we have seen from this morning's testimony, a new tactic, instead of just trying to fire somebody, put them under criminal investigation and give them the choice of resigning or
1:17 pm
facing a prosecutive referral. it's much easier, much less muss and fuss than litigation. you don't have to prepare all kinds of things, and all you need is one good investigative bully. second, you can't lose. the worst that will happen is the agency will have to close the case and then next month they can open up a new case under a new pretext. i have one whistle-blower facing 30 years of criminal investigations and fighting bribery in the chicago meat yards. the third factor is the the chilling affect of facing jail time is much more severe than the chilling affect of possible loss of your job. the fifth lesson learned is the whistle-blower protection act is a work in progress. the two most significant structural reforms have not been finalized. gao must recommend whether every other group of employees in the u.s. labor force, federal government whistle blowers can enforce their rights through district court jury trials if they don't get a timely ruling and access to the appeals court, the circuits review the prevision is just an experiment. senators, these are the structural cornerstones for the wpea to work. the report is due in a year and a half and it's time to get started on that.
1:18 pm
the sixth lesson learned, we are overdue reauthorizing of the merit system agencies, the office of special council and the mspb, and the good news is the leaders of these two agencies have really an unquestionable commitment to the merit system in their agency missions. it would be silly to challenge their good faith. in both agencies, their performance is probably the highest in the history since they have been created in 1978. the bad news is that this is a very low bar. at the mspb, the board has been very evenhanded and the administrative judges are extremely hostile to the whistleblower protection act and i can't honestly tell employees they have a fair chance of justice in an ms pb hearing. it means that although they are doing a lot better, whistle blowers still don't have a fighting chance at justice when they try to act on the rights under this law. the bottom line, the wpea was a great first step. the commitment of the agency leaders charged with enforcing it is an outstanding second step, but we have got along way to go before we achieve the act's purposes, and there is a lot of work and thank you for holding this hearing to get started.
1:19 pm
>> thank you for your testimony. let me start by saying, as i was reading the testimony, as i am listening to it, coming from the private sector, when you are at the top of a company it's hard to get, you know, the information not filtered so you really get the truth. as i am hearing what was brought to the attention of the superiors, i am thinking you ought to be having medals pinned to your chest and not have retaliation inflicted upon you.
1:20 pm
so what i would like to ask the whistleblower's here, i want you to as easy as possible describe to me why, why were you retaliated against. i would like to start with lieutenant colonel -- i appreciate you meeting with me in my office yesterday. you told me an awful lot yesterday, which i appreciate. i think i have your why, i think. i want you to confirm this. you told me in the course of your attempts to gain the freedom of these hostages in afghanistan and pakistan, you were made aware to your belief that the government did pay a ransom and the ransom money was stolen. secondly, that you believed you were pretty close to potentially having a deal where we would get seven hostages in exchange for
1:21 pm
one taliban leader, and instead we got one hostage in exchange for five taliban leaders. is that information, is that why you have been retaliated against or what is the reason? >> yes, sir. i think there are layers of this, as i said, in terms of layers of the bureaucracy. on december 1, 2014, representative hunter submitted a complaint to the ig alleging an illegal or questionable ransom possibly being paid for sergeant bergdahl. there was a good deal of evidence that it occurred and a lot of questions as to how it occurred. that complaint implicated both the dod organization and the fbi. so part of what lit the fuse was the same folks in the fbi that were basically implicated and the dodig complaint of one december were the ones that later complained to the army i was sharing sensitive information with representative hunter. another aspect of it on the fbi's side was the general frustration with representative hunter pushing them hard on civilian hostages and their awareness that i was speaking to
1:22 pm
representative hunter about all of this. he even set up a meeting between my office and the fbi to help them out with some of this, and after the meeting they responded by contacting caitlin coleman's father and threatening not to talk to representative hunter again or he would stop being supported by the fbi. i mean just atrocious treatment of family. so the fbi complaint to the army and for reasons to be seen there is a bit of a debate within the army whether i actually did anything wrong, and my understanding is one party, who i just don't want to be speculative, but there was a big debate within the army over whether i did anything wrong and that led to the investigation. >> can you tell me a little bit about what deal you thought you had for the release of the hostages? >> so, my office worked options. we looked at a whole variety of options. one of the options that we developed was a, you know, i mean, we called it, you know the one for seven option.
1:23 pm
it entailed six hostages and a seventh i would rather not discuss today. so the six hostages, and it was five hostages and a prisoner of war, so when we saw that nobody else was trying to get them home, we, you know, we were working every initiative possible. one was the one for seven and in that we were looking at norzi, and he was described as the pablo escobar of afghanistan and we realized he was just another war lord who was an ally of the karzai regime, and we lured him
1:24 pm
to the u.s. under the false promise of safe passage and then put him in jail for life. some thought he was a wretched human being, and others thought he was wronged. for us it was we are not getting bergdahl, let alone the other hostages back for free, and every option was going to be painful, so the norzi option was one that was at least less painful. we were able to reach out to the tribe itself that we believe could free the hostages, and we made a lot of progress on it. i briefed it widely, but in the end when the taliban came to the table, the state department basically said it must be the five for one, and that's the only viable option we have and that's what we went with.
1:25 pm
>> i can see how members of the government, if there was an option for seven -- six americans for one taliban and the deal ended up being five taliban for one american, they probably would not want that too highly publicized. that makes sense to me. mrs. taylor, can you say why? what was threatened? who was threatened? >> sorry, guys. i think that because of the people that were involved with the investigation, it may was -- maybe put a different light and there was extra outside influences and back and forth with the different members and different agencies, so we are all kind of -- as police officers the last thing you want to be is listed as a whistle
1:26 pm
blower and you usually ride the wave and keep your head down and mouth shut. i did that in this case until i was contacted by the instructor general's office. we are required to cooperate with them and i think breaking that silence, i add everything -- i had everything in my 12-year career thrown at me and it was stuff that was not factual. i think there was a lot of issues surrounding that. >> you said as an investigator the last thing you want to be known as is a whistle blower and is that because of the retaliation? >> there is a brotherhood, you don't want to see your colleagues hurt, and what i have seen is significant problems at a leadership level, and that's not to get anybody in trouble.
1:27 pm
i think one family in dhs being hurt is enough, and i think there needs to be corrective action. i lost my train of thought. did that answer your question? >> it does. thank you, mrs. johnson. senator carper. >> thank you to all of you for being here and sharing your stories with us. on veteran's day i went up and down the state of delaware and there were a number of places where we met with veterans young and old and their families, and families of people that died serving our country, and it was a wonderful up lifting of their service. one of the things that delaware is noted for, we are the first state to ratify the constitution, and one of the gatherings that we had was in dover, delaware. the constitution of our country was first ratified in dover, delaware, on december 7th, 1887, -- 1787, over 200 some years ago, and as you close down the streets, the main streets in town, and the intersection of state street and lockman street,
1:28 pm
we had veterans and their families in a big circle around the intersection, and we were gathered about 200 yards where the golden fleece tavern once stood, and i invited the folks that were there that day, i invited other people in assemblies that day, i invited to join me in doing something a lot of us did when we were in school, and that's to recite the preamble to our constitution. i would read a few words and they would repeat them, and we did this up and down the state. i love doing it and i think people loved doing it as well, and it starts off with these words, we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union -- think about that. in order to form a more perfect union, and it doesn't say in order to form a perfect union, but a more perfect union. and one of my core values is everything i do i know i can do better.
1:29 pm
they realized it was not perfect and they realized the future generations had to do better and better and better. as mrs. divine notes, we have been working at this as a whistle-blower protection. it was first adopted in the 1980s, and i don't recall who was president when it was signed into law. make sure your mic is on? >> president reagan was in office when congress first passed it but bush signed it. >> we have been working on this a while, signed into law by our current president. i want to ask you if you would mr. divine, thinking about the enhancements we adopted in 2012, why they are an improvement over what existed before that, and could you walk us through a few more other changes you believe are needed and give us a couple real-life examples of how those changes would improve whistle-blower protections?
1:30 pm
>> i think the most significant are following through and completing the structural reforms would help the rights to be implemented. the congress had to pass the law four times because there was not normal access to the appeals court in the one court that handled all the cases, it was extremely hostile, and the lack
1:31 pm
of healthy competition was an achilles' heel. the wpea structurally had a five-year experiment with access to the appeals law. that needs to be made permanent. the second structural reform is if there is not a speedy administrative ruling, like all the corporate whistle blower statutes, being able to start fresh in court, and this district court access is particularly significant, get the politics out of the cases when it's a politcally charged dispute or an extremely high stakes one, or when it's highly complex or technical and you need the resources of the district court. it was set up to resolve office disputes not to deal with major issues of national policy. with respect to the
1:32 pm
administrative agencies, i think that there needs to be some very intensive training of the administrative judges at the merit system's protection board. we have to train all the government managers and bureau kratz and the people conducting -- bureaucrats and the people conducting the administrative hearings, they need to get up to speed on the law, too. unfortunately the decisions have been very, very uneven. at the u.s. office of special council rblgs i council, i think the area that congress, besides just oversight, the area congress could make the most difference is by giving them the authority to issue stays or temporarily relief. the -- in my experience, the most significant factor, and it was a long-term marathon nightmare or whether the agencies decide to get serious and have a resolution that both
1:33 pm
sides can live with and move on from, is whether there is temporary relief, and that will make a huge difference. finally the issues of the national security loophole in retaliatory investigations which threatened every witness this morning for which they have very uncertain rights and that's the menu of work to be done. >> thank you for all of that. several of you today are wearing uniforms and others have worn them, some in the army and navy. what branch of service did you serve in, mr. ducos? >> the department of homeland security. the component is u.s. custom and border protection. >> i thought you served on active duty?
1:34 pm
>> yes, the united states army aviation. >> i spent five years in southeast asia, and another 18 years in a cold war and i was a naval flight officer, and retired navy captain and commander in chief, and i have huge respect for you particularly those of you that have worn those uniforms and thank you for your service in that regard. >> the slogan back then really helped me a lot, be all you can be. >> that's good. that's good. take a minute and tell us, just a minute, and tell us with respect to how we treat whistle blowers who are civilians as opposed to those that are military personnel. since we have both civilian and military personnel on the panels today, can you briefly discuss
1:35 pm
the differences between whistleblower protections between the two. >> it's the lowest common denominator in the lowest code -- u.s. code for accountability through whistleblower protection. the key differences between the civilian and military law is first the military law does not have the fair burdens of proof that give whistle blowers a fighting chance in their hearings, and the second is there is no right to a administrative due process hearing. everything is enforced by the department of the office inspector general. again, we have numerous whistle blowers from that unit whose
1:36 pm
disclosures are it's operating as a plumber's unit, to finish off the people, and we need due process and there is no judicial review there. there is outstanding legislation which is the service members justice act which has been introduced by senator boxer and vetted by all the whistleblower supported organizations that could even the playing field. >> i would just share, mrs. johnson, this is pertinent to what you said earlier, for years the department of homeland security has called on congress to make changes. earlier this month there was an eb5 program and senator grassly and leahy
1:37 pm
introduced legislation that reflects changes, and i am encouraged by that. >> i saw that, sir. i think that's great. >> senator carper, thank you. our next is senator urnst. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, thank you all for being here today. i appreciate it so much. i want to take a moment and thank you for your service to this nation and to all of you as well, but you have been in very difficult circumstances, and i appreciate you being here today. as somebody that has served i take this very seriously, in my new role as a senator and somebody that made a commitment to protect our men and women that surferved in the united states armed forces, whether they are still serving or in the past, and whether it's through
1:38 pm
proper medical care or through the va and whether it's in your circumstance, we will make sure that is a priority. i will take just a little bit of issue with your testimony. in here, sir, you say you have failed, and you have not failed. i will never accept that because what you have done is raise an issue that is extremely important to this nation and making sure that we receive those hostages back, so you have not failed. we have just not yet succeeded. so that day will come. we will make sure that that day comes. so to you, thank you so much for all of your efforts, and we will continue working on this. i look forward to working with
1:39 pm
you, senator johnson, on some of the very specific issues especially with the good colonel. to the rest of you, i do want to ask very briefly, my time is very limited here today, but those of you, and i know you have recent cases, but have there been any repercussions for those that came after you and retaliated against you? have you seen any correction from that end, if you could just briefly, mr. ducos-bello, can you start just very briefly, can you see those retaliation against you be disciplined. >> it started in 2012, and to this day it's ongoing.
1:40 pm
i was disarmed for no reason like my fellow law enforcement officer here, illegally. they turned every single stone they could find during my 20 years career and could not find anything. my review performance is fully successful throughout the years. i don't have this because somebody gave it to me as a gift. i earned them. this one is the blue eagle award that i received for meticulously searching and researching a
1:41 pm
container coming from columbia with 8,000 pounds of cocaine and when i was in the field, i was very diligent doing and discharging my duties, and i move up the chain of command the right way, not by making a network of friends, but by earning my rank, my position and to this day, the agency treats me with no respect and for the past six months i have been sitting in a folding chair with no desk, no duties, no program to manage, nothing, i just show my face for eight hours and all my talents are going to waste. >> no correction on the retaliators? >> no correction. they are fixated that they have not done anything wrong, and as a whistleblower i committed the worst crime by taking the aul away from the border control and the cbb officers that changed their series from 1895 to 1801 in order for them to be seduced by the border patrol in drawing that aul, and now, you tell me i am an 1895, abide by the constitution to obey and discharge the law, and how come in less than an hour in the library of congress i came upon the regulations and the law that governs the use of auo. and for those who don't know what auo means, it's the uncontrolled overtime they draw
1:42 pm
out at 25% of their nearly salary. >> thank you. i would like to move to just very briefly to some of the other members on our panel. thank you very much for being here. mr. keegan? >> thank you, senator. i have absolutely no knowledge there's been any accountable repercussion any way involving senior leadership -- i'm sorry. senior leadership at the social security administration. i can quickly characterize this in two areas. if you recall my testimony, i testified that my supervisor mr. spencer, testified at a deposition under oath that he cannot categorically agree that misrepresenting facts to congress was not ethical.
1:43 pm
the second thing i'll tell you is there's a mentality at the social security administration concerning bad information stays in the house. we do not air our dirty laundry to congress. we protect our leadership at all costs. third, i would just say in my 44-year career in the military private sector and senior executive of four agencies, the social security agency has the worst track record of accountability and taking responsibility for their actions that i've ever seen. i do not mean that in a flippant manner, but i mean that sincerely. >> ms. johnson? >> [ inaudible ]. >> i appreciate that. and colonel, yours is a very special case. any specifics that you would
1:44 pm
like us to know? >> no, ma'am. >> thank you very much for your testimony today. thank you, mr. chair. >> senator portman. >> thank you to chairman johnson and ranking member carper for having the hearing. mostly to thank you all for being here and being willing to share your sometimes very personal experiences and troubling experiences. i saw mr. devine's testimony before i came in today. he repeated it. in his remarks he said this is one of your highest risk audiences. i hope at the end of the day you're glad you shared your testimony and we don't end up being a high risk to you. we need the information. and, you know, this committee in particular is an oversight committee. our job is to ensure our
1:45 pm
community works better for all the hard-paying taxpayers we represent. it's really important you're here today. to put some context around it. what really happened to you, and to your responses a moment ago as to -- from senator ernst as to what has happened that's changed in the department. it's discouraging. i do think ms. johnson that the legislation that you mentioned earlier affirmatively, you thought it was a good idea to move forward on some reforms. maybe congress is able to move on some legislative changes. i want to talk about that for a second and maybe talk about the military side. there's been some discussion. mr. devine was asked about the military whistleblower protections versus other departments and agencies. it's the lowest common denominateor denominator. talked about the burden of proof and lowest common denominator. he was concerned about due process hearing. one of my concerns is about what the gao has said. in may of this year they issued a report. it was about investigations into retaliation complaints from military whistleblowers.
1:46 pm
they took three times longer than the legal requirement of 180 days. so that alone seems to me to indicate we have a problem on the military side. it also talked about the chain of command issue that service members are to report wrongdoing outside the chain of command but that conflicts with other military guidance and that's difficult, therefore, to go outside the chain of command and have an independent process. so i guess, if i could, colonel, to you, the ig responded to the gao report by saying they concurred with the recommendation and were committed to requiring service investigators to attest they were outside the chain of command but both service members submitting the individual were alleged to have taken retaliatory action. is this sufficient to ensure independence from the chain of command in your view? >> i believe it is. i mean, the dod ig has a very
1:47 pm
difficult job and their treatment of me as i filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint with them was first class. it is a slow process. but i haven't hit the 180 days yet. so the investigation is ongoing and they are working it as hard as they can. >> i'm glad to hear that in your case. and in terms of the complaints that have taken almost three times longer than the legal requirement of 180 days we talked about, why do you think that is, and what should the ig do to respond to that? what should we be doing legislatively in terms of the overall instruction of the whistleblower retaliation? >> some of that is beyond anything i claim expertise in. so i have to scope it down to what i'm seeing. in my case, i had a retirement date of june 1st that everybody was aware of. the dod ig reviewed my complaint that included the information that supposedly was at -- is a security violation of representative hunter and through the joint staff they determined that my complaint was
1:48 pm
not classified, which would pretty much make the information i spoke to hunter about, which by design was meant to be unclassified, was actually unclassified. >> it was the fbi that said they thought it was classified, correct? >> the fbi filed a complaint and even, you know, in a session representative hunter basically said that, well, we had to put him in his place. they felt it was one of those things where it's a shot across the bow. they did that with a criminal allegation. so they kind of underestimated the effect of telling the army that i'm leaking secret information, and that led to the situation i'm in right now. on the positive side it allowed me to share with you aspects of the broader dysfunction i was dealing with, but in terms of
1:49 pm
resolving this, it should have been resolved with a simple conversation before the fbi complained, i notified my chain of command what was happening and they told me you did nothing wrong. and someone more senior for unknown reasons demanded this be thoroughly investigated. ok. that's fine. but in five months, nobody has spoken to me about what actually occurred. and that's where i think you run into the issue is, the only organization that, to me, is actually kind of effectively run through this so far is dod ig. everything they did i felt was first class, regardless of how they ultimately conclude this in the end. then getting out to interview everyone involved is very difficult because they'll approach someone and in the interview, who is going to
1:50 pm
incriminate themselves. the dod ig has an enormously difficult task, and the time lines are the things that really they have to be in force. 180 days is actually kind of hell for someone trying to retire from the military and start a new career, but from what i've seen, i understand why it is 180 days. but the chain of command on top of that needs to have a role in this where i don't understand why when the army heard that there's an allegation of me speaking to representative hunter that they didn't think that maybe they ought to dig into it a bit before they started criminal charges. and when they deleted my retirement they can only do that with an eye toward court-martial.
1:51 pm
all i could take away from this is they are seeking to court-martial me under allegations of sharing sensitive information with a representative on the house armed services committee. it's ridiculous in my mind but, obviously, i'm the criminal in this case. the chain of command should have stepped up and realized they needed to handle this a little more smartly than going after me with cid investigation. >> and had a conversation with you at the outset, which you indicate they didn't have. they didn't ask you. is that correct? >> my chain of command never spoke to me. the only time i was spoken to
1:52 pm
was on january 15th when this began when i was told i'd be escorted out of the pentagon because i'm under criminal investigation. >> thank you, colonel. we've discussed the igs and office of special counsel. maybe ms. johnson you can talk about your experience with the ig. has the inspector general been responsive to your concerns? >> yes, they have. two investigations have been opened. not really at libertiy to talk about that. they were able to open an investigation into the personnel actions and the whistleblowing complaint. in addition to some other investigations related to that criminal investigation. they were -- they have a lot more authority as far as subpoena powers that i think the osc -- in my case the osc had a really tough time getting my agency to cooperate with the documents giving them what would make them look good versus what was requested. the opr system for us, at least at the dhs level was awful. it's my opinion that that needs to be made permanent. the asac, the rac and the sac
1:53 pm
are all agents from los angeles under sac los angeles. for me going through that opr process on the numerous allegations that came up after the cb-5 and during was -- it was an awful process. the sac communicating back and forth. but the osc was initially good at finding that and so was the oig in seeing the communications and conflict of interest. but the ig was probably above and beyond the best one so far as investigating. >> so helpful in trying to figure it out, but they didn't have the subpoena powers. the authority to get the information in a timely basis, where the ig was able to be more effective. >> right. they kept running into walls. >> thank you, mr. chairman and appreciate you all
1:54 pm
being here and willing to testify before us. >> mr. devine in your testimony, again, i was looking at these laws ahead of time. for me it started back in 1978. i guess it is with the civil service act. but in your testimony, you enlightened me that it started with the act in 1912. and you said it was an anti-retaliation law created a no exceptions right to communicate with congress. >> yes, sir. >> really the point we're talking about here with lieutenant colonel amerine. an absolute no exception right to communicate with congress. what's gone haywire? in particular, the question i asked earlier, i keep asking myself why? coming from the private sector i am always looking for individuals to know what's going on so i can address problems. so, again, we should be pinning medals on these people's chests as opposed to retaliating. tell me about that law but also is there some very common, very
1:55 pm
universal answer to the question why? >> the lloyd act is a principle but it's tempered because there's no procedure to enforce it and no remedies even if you found a violation somehow. so it's just a symbolic law. it's been waiting a long time to get some teeth in it. as far as the more fundamental question, i've asked myself that for a long time, senator, and i think my own insights are that the federal agencies and some private organizations, too behave this way almost as the institutional equivalent of an animal instinct. an animal's instinct is to destroy anything that threatens it. and organizations behave the same way. in fact, i do. maybe there's a lesson to be learned from that and we should talk this through. what's the cause of that. i want to flatten that person that attacked me because i'm angry, they hurt me and i don't want to give them a chance to do it again. this is the way institutions
1:56 pm
react to whistleblowers. snuff out the threat. it's unfortunate. very shortsided. whistleblowers are like the bitter pill that keeps you out of the hospital. bad news in the short term. don't kill the messenger. >> that's awful general as i listen to the four witnesses here. in my mind i can at least assume some specific lives, somebody being protected. some piece of information that we didn't want to have disclosed, like for lieutenant colonel amerine. there was a deal of seven marines for one taliban. there might have been a ransom paid that was stolen. i'm going to get back to the other witnesses to find out their specific why.
1:57 pm
isn't it -- i'm looking for your knowledge because you've been dealing for this. is it protecting an individual or people in power? >> part of it is the structure of the communications. when a whistemblower works up the chain of command, sooner or later you reach someone who is maybe responsible for the wrongdoing and a conflict of interest kicks in by someone who
1:58 pm
has power over the messenger. that's why it's so important when there is that confluct, it's not just a mistake that everyone wants to fix but someone has engaged in wrongdoing. but they have access to safe clear access to congress to circumvent the conflict of interest and get some independent response to their concerns. >> that's why we set up our whistleblower at ronjohnson@senate.gov. i'm assuming that for individuals here will have some protection for coming forward. i want to pick up with you. can you point to a why? i'm going to ask the other whistleblowers, what does it cost? i understand in terms of this
1:59 pm
retaliation, there's reputational harm. that's a cost. it's a grave cost. having a hostile work environment in all kinds of ways. sitting on a folding chair, not having a desk, all those types of things. i want the dollar cost. i really want you to let us know how has this cost you financially. first, mr. keegan, i want to give you an answer of why. why in your case. >> why i think it was done? >> yeah. was somebody trying to protect themselves? was it just this general overall we want to protect the social security administration? >> well, i believe, senator, having sat in a number of high-level meetings at social security in the months prior to this debacle that happened to me, acting commissioner colton was in the beginning stages of -- colvin was in the beginning stages of believing she was going to be nominated and then finally being nominated. in at least three meetings, the chief of staff, james kisco made the statement. nothing is going to leave this agency that is going to embarrass carolyn colvin. i can't make a direct connection between that and what happened to me, but it certainly makes some sense to me. to answer your question of what it cost me. i had a 44-year career military, 12 years in the private sector and 12 years.
2:00 pm
-- 12 years senior executive service. i had awards and promotions until my very last performance review at the social security administration which capped off my 44 years and basically destroyed everything i worked for in my career. it cost me practically my marriage, to be perfectly frank. one year of sitting in an office staring at four walls and watching a clock tick, being a very high energy, results oriented person for me was a death by a thousand cuts. what it cost me financially, i financially take it anymore and i retired. i retired five years early. i was not financially prepared to retire. i have not been able to get a job for two reasons. i can't get a reference.
2:01 pm
and how do i explain how i went from a member of the senior executive service to a nonsupervisory adviser with no accountability and no duties. i think my wife would tell you the cost has been inordinate and enormous. >> mr. decos-bello. >> for me, the biggest cost has been trying to watch my son jump out of his high school roof because he saw his father lost his uniform, his weapon. he's always been very proud of my career and the way i perform my duties. not only at work but off duty. i have raised three excellent children, but it was the most costing and emotionally devastating thing that i had to do, receive that phone call that no father wants to receive that your son is on the roof of his high school getting ready to
2:02 pm
jump because his father is going through a whistleblower retaliation action. luckily, i was there. i got in time. police was there. and the fire department was there with the jumping blanket. he finally jumped, and he was held by county police and he wouldn't let nobody arrest him. he has to be arrested by his father. and with great pain, i picked my son, who is autistic, to come down to the office, put the handcuffs on him and then took him to control and followed in my vehicle and spent two days in the hospital talking to him. my problem was going to be resolved eventually. that patience will pay off. financially, it has cost me over
2:03 pm
$41,000 in lawyers fees, just to keep my job. i'm in debt up to my neck, but as a responsible citizen, i pay all of them and waiting that hopefully one day i can be compensated for all the troubles that financially i have put myself into because i did the right thing. this is very hard for me. i'm reliving something that no father wants to relive, but it has put a strain, like mr. keegan said, a big strain on my 26-year marriage. luckily for me, i have a very supporting wife that i can talk to. i used the employee assistance program, went to therapy and talked to a counselor, and she told me, you haven't done anything wrong.
2:04 pm
you should be proud of yourself. and why did we create this new enhancement whistleblower protecting act in 2012? if we are not going to clear the air and punish the guilty and protect the whistleblower. >> thank you. ms. johnson? >> yes, sir. i think a few things that folks said just about protecting people in power, the lieutenant here -- is it colonel or lieutenant? lieutenant colonel, i'm sorry. just having a little bit of common sense and starting a conversation could just -- there wasn't that communication there. but i think ultimately as far as reasons it is protecting people. maybe our leadership not having the courage to stand up and say, okay, these are our people.
2:05 pm
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. we're all dealing with a number of things. >> i was looking for the cost. >> oh, i'm sorry. i thought you said the cause. there's always that financial cost with legal fees. i had a great job so i adopted my two little girls. so i have two older ones from -- so i have four kids and i'm in the middle of an adoption. my salary was affected. i didn't get a step increase. not only did i add two kids to my household but i didn't get my increase. they finally fixed that. the phone calls. there is a huge expense to being an active member to your family. the joy is sucked out of your life. i'm pretty fun. i like to work hard and go home and play hard.
2:06 pm
you lose a little bit of that because it really just sucks it out of you. >> lieutenant colonel? >> i mean, for me, i had to burn two months of leave that i had intended to use for retirement leave. that was about $18,000 because initially when my security clearance was suspended they moved me out of a top secret facility to a secret open storage facility where my presence in and of itself would have represented a security violation while i am under investigation for a security violation. so, i mean, i took two months leave just to get out of there and not to further incriminate myself. and thanks to my jag lieutenant colonel bill ruling, i was able to finally get assigned to a position where i wouldn't be committing a security violation by going to work. there's some legal fees.
2:07 pm
we'll see how far that goes. the broader cost to me is what it shows the younger soldiers and officers in the army. we always have difficulty with our junior officers and junior noncommissioned officers showing them that, you know, remaining in the military, working your way up the ranks is something you ought to aspire to do. and all these officers that i knew as cadets see what's happening to me and the example set for them is terrible. what does it do to the army? the army is killing itself with things like this. when you go after people reporting significant issues and crimes. when you go after people who are whistleblowing, although i still loathe the term, you end up setting a terrible example for all the other people who are seeing the retaliation.
2:08 pm
that is not what matters. the cost to me that matters, what it's doing to my army. >> lieutenant colonel, i think that really is, in the end, the final answer of why. whether it's organizational or protecting somebody else, it's trying to make an example of somebody so the next person doesn't step forward. isn't that kind of the bottom line? senator carper? >> several of you, again, thank you so much for being here, for sharing your stories with us and for your service, past and present to our country. several of you have said things that reminded me of a sad chapter in our state last week when we buried the son of joe biden. and joe biden has this saying that i've heard him use any number of times when he's spoken at funerals.
2:09 pm
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 a tear to their eye. several of you said the word whistleblower is not a term of endearment. my hope is that you live long enough and we do, too, that just like vice president biden talked about the thought of a loved one bringing a smile to the face of the surviving family members, my hope is that, in the future, people in our government, our country when they hear the term whistleblower, it will bring a smile to their face before it brings a tear to their eye. that's one thing. second thing, i want to say, i
2:10 pm
want to go back to dover air force base. dover air force base is one of the finest air force bases in the world. some of you have been there. they are the best air base we have in the world. they had a sacred duty there that involved not so much airlift as it did a mortuary and receiving the bodies, the remains of fallen heroes. and there were things going on in that mortuary that were inappropriate. they were wrong. and there some are folks who work there knew about it. and tried to get a change from within. were not successful. and they ended up going on the outside. they came to our senate office. and we were not sure initially if this was credible, but they won us over. they convinced us.
2:11 pm
they were there for the right reasons. the office of special counsel got involved. and i want to tell you, i was impressed. i didn't know a lot about the office of special counsel, but they were like a dog with a bone trying to make sure that justice was done. i go to the air force base a lot. it's important constituent of ours, our delegation. and one of the last visits i went over to the base last year. i went back to the mortuary. incredible facility. some of the hardest work done by anyone that's served in the u.s. military is the work done with the folks there with the remains. if you've ever done there. it's incredible work they do. i applaud them for the work that they do.
2:12 pm
but some people did not adhere to the high standards they should have. i went back to the mortuary last year. when i walked in, the first couple of people i saw were the whistleblowers. and i looked around to find the colonel who used to run the place, long gone, and i looked around for the civilian personnel who reported to the colonel. long gone. and you know who were running the place? the team that included the whistleblowers. more committed than ever to doing the right thing. the right thing. i want to ask you to talk a little bit about the -- the entity, the special counsel that actually got involved in this
2:13 pm
case in dover. i'm sure they're not -- it's not the only instance where they did the large work and made sure that justice was done, but talk about the work that they do throughout the government. in this case it was in a military installation. talk about the work they do, and how can we help them do a better job? >> i think the office of special counsel is probably the best agency in the federal government for whistleblowers to seek justice. it's a low bar, but they're doing their best there. and it's particularly impressive because just four years ago, they were coming out of chaos where they were subject to fbi raids and the previous special counsel was convicted of criminal misconduct. they've come a long ways. the area we're most impressed is the alternative dispute resolution, probably the most effective unit in the federal government at making a difference getting a speedy resolution with just results for whistleblowers.
2:14 pm
they've been aggressive in using their new authority to file amicus curie briefs that have been outstanding. they've increased their corrective actions significantly there. they've overhauled their disclosure unit for whistleblowers to try to make a difference so it's more employee friendly and can hold the agencies accountable for following up and acting on the problems confirmed. those are all positive developments. we think that they can do better and their complaints examining unit. the quality of the reviews for screening these cases for investigations extremely uneven in my experience in reports that we received. we think that they need to go for temporary relief more frequently. it's been going down in recent years. and that's the single most important factor there is for whistleblowers to get an
2:15 pm
acceptable ending. finally, we think they need to litigate some cases. the osc has told me that the reason they don't litigate is they always surrender when they >> the agencies what? >> they've said that they never really have a chance to go to trial and defeat a retaliation case because the agencies always surrender. i think they are picking the wrong enemies or wrong issues. we can help them find some whistleblower cases where the agencies will fight back on disputes that make a difference. >> a closing thought, if i could. our thanks to each of you for joinings today and for your service to our country, past and present. i would note as i did earlier in my opening statement, i think the chairman did as well, we have before us five very impressive people. but missing at the table are those who have another
2:16 pm
perspective on the stories that you've told. and i think we need to keep these in mind. these are matters still being adjudicated. and we'll have to let that process go forward. i'm encouraged by what you said mr. devine, about the changes that flow from adoption of the whistleblower enhancements act that we passed in 2012. with my support, that may be before chairman joint is here. i'm encouraged that it's working. i am also thankful to those of you who turned off your cell phones before you came in. [laughter] the last thing i want to say is, you all talked about your core values. you have. and i have my own. the chairman has his own. actually, they're pretty
2:17 pm
similar. i'll close with these. number one, figure out the right thing to do. just do it. not the expedient thing. what's the right thing to do? we all need to do that including the folks who run these agencies where you feel you have not been treated well. second is golden rule. treat people the way we want to be treated. most important rule of law. and third, i've referenced it already, the idea is to focus on excellence in everything we do. everything i do, i know i can do better. all these agencies we have, we can do better. all of these things we need to focus on. in order to form a more perfect union. and the last one, just don't give up. if you know you're right, think you're right, don't give up. never give up. and i think those are some of the core values that i hear sounded here today. and good values for us as individuals and for congress and for our country. thank you again.
2:18 pm
god bless. >> thank you, senator carper. i'd also like to thank all of our witnesses for your thoughtful testimony, your thoughtful answers to our questions. your courage for coming forward. i want to thank every whistleblower that has the current -- courage to come forward to tell the truth. i agree with the goal of the loins of all act -- lloyd act. an anti-retaliation law that created a no exceptions right to communicate. that is why we have set up our website whistleblower@ronjohnson.senate. gov. i want to encourage others of courage to come forward. it's the only way we'll reform it is if we know about it. if the public has the light of day shown upon abuse and corruption. again, thank you all for your testimony and coming forward. the hearing record will remain open until june 26th at 5:00 p.m. for submissions of statements for the record. this hearing is adjourned.
2:19 pm
2:20 pm
>> the house returned this week to consider bills on medicare in the federal health care law including a repeal of the medical device tax. it is also planning a revote on the trade and just assistance legislation that failed last week. that could come as early as tuesday. the senate devils in on monday to continue work on defense programs for 2016. can watch the house life on seas and in the senate life on c-span2. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every house and senate member plus bio and contact
2:21 pm
information. district maps, a full boat map of capitol hill, and a look at congressional committees, federal agencies, and state governments. order your copy today. it is $13.95 less shipping and handling on the c-span online store at c-span.org. >> director clinical cardiology at brigham and women's hospital in boston, dr. patrick o'hara on the advances in heart surgery in the progress the made in the understanding of heart health. >> this actually is a valve that has in crimped onto this catheter that is being now positioned into the diseased valve and it will be deployed here in a second with a balloon being inflated and a new valve would be inserted inside the old calcified stenotic valve. as you can see, the delivery system is withdrawn, and the
2:22 pm
wire will be withdrawn. what we have just seen it is little this line is replacement of a diseased aortic valve in a manner that does not require open-heart surgery. we are trying to become smarter about predicting who will get disease, we're trying to get smarter as to apply the most offensive way -- attentive way to prevent it. we are currently in an era where we are trying to harness the promise of the human genome research project that has been in existence for more than a decade with all of the informatics that can be driven by the giants of the industry like will for example. information about sociologist geography, demographics, where
2:23 pm
you live, where the railroad tracks are, what your likelihood is to get diabetes based on the educational background, and your likelihood of developing something like diabetes or hypertension if you live in a certain art of a city where you have less access to the right kind of food or the right kind of instruction about the sodium consumption and little things like that that could have an enormous impact on population health. >> tonight on c-span q and a. >> texas governor greg abbott gave the commencement address at the university of north texas in denver. he talks about the importance of responding to life's challenges relaying his own experiences of becoming partially paralyzed at age 26. this is 15 minutes. [applause]
2:24 pm
governor abbott: thank you. this university is fortunate to have you at the helm of this remarkable university as you begin the next 125 years for the university of north texas. [laughter] [applause] i'm deeply honored to get to participate in this celebration for this commencement of the north texas mean green. now, i know firsthand the caliber of the students who attend the university of north texas. my nephew, ryan abbott graduated from north texas five years ago.
2:25 pm
in 2010, with a degree in emergency administration and planning. he now works with the philadelphia office of emergency management. and the university of north texas would be proud of him today because of what he did earlier this week, when he put his degree to good use helping to respond to the tragic amtrak crash that took place just outside of philadelphia. now, i also got to know recently another current unt student. his name is nick bradley. now, for nick, after he graduated from high school, he didn't come straight to unt. instead, he enrolled and joined into the united states air force. he served in the united states air force until 2008 when the truck he was riding in blew up
2:26 pm
because of a bomb in afghanistan. after 16 surgeries, months of rehabilitation, and raw determination, nick pieced his life back together and is now going to be a senior right here at unt. [applause] i was with nick last month at the opening game for the texas rangers baseball team. with 52 screws holding his arm together, nick threw out the first pitch of the game, and it went right over home plate. [applause] well, it's because of nick and
2:27 pm
because of everyone like him who has fought on battlefields across the globe that we have the freedom to fight on the battleground of ideas in places like the university of north texas. [applause] and we never say thank you enough to the men and women who provided that freedom to us. and i want to take just one moment and ask anybody in this arena tonight who has ever worn the uniform of the united states military to please stand or wave your hands so we can say thank you for your service. [applause]
2:28 pm
well, to the class of 2015 congratulations on reaching this remarkable milestone in your lives. your hard work, your dedication, your drive brought you to this moment. you know, i think very fittingly, moments ago, you applauded your family and friends who helped bring you to this day. i want you to think about this. there's one thing we know for sure. and that is that these family members of yours are extremely proud tonight. you cannot imagine the sense of joy they feel right now. so tonight would be a great time to ask for money. [laughter] [applause]
2:29 pm
now, in addition to the pride that you surely are feeling tonight, some of you may also feel a sense of sadness, a sense of sorrow, thinking that your days at unt are behind you and that your unt days are gone forever. well, let me assure you that you never really leave because i can guarantee you that the unt fundraising committee will be on your back until the day you die. [laughter] [applause] i'm going to keep my remarks short tonight because i learned the hard way about going on too long. before i was governor and attorney general, i was a judge, and one time i was speaking as a
2:30 pm
judge to a large room of people, and i was the next speaker, and i came up in the back of the room and pulled up alongside a lawyer and asked him how things were going. he said, things are going pretty good so far, but our next figure is one of those long-winded judges and you know how that goes. [laughter] i said, well, do you have any idea who i am? he said, no, i have no idea. i said, well, i'm judge greg abbott. and i'm the next speaker. you could tell he was embarrassed, but he was a quick-witted lawyer. he looked back at me and said, well, do you know who i am? i said, no, i have no idea. he said, great. i'm out of here. [laughter] i know you want to be out of here and go start partying. so let me say just a few words. and i'll start out with some candor.
2:31 pm
my last graduation was when i graduated from law school. i don't have a clue who spoke at my graduation ceremony. i seem to recall some cliche advice about how the future was going to be filled with challenges. little did i know how prophetic that speaker was, because little did i know that as i walked across the stage that day to get my diploma, that picture would literally be the last picture of me walking. after graduating, i moved to houston, texas, where i took a job. and after a few weeks of living there, one day i went out for a jog, and while i was out jogging, a huge tree crashed down onto my back. fracturing my vertebrae in my spinal cord, leaving me forever
2:32 pm
paralyzed and unable to ever walk again. i see some of you shaking your heads. you're wondering, how slow is that guy jogging to get hit by a falling tree? [laughter] well, during months of rehabilitation, i realized that the future i had meticulously planned during college and law school, all the dreams i had aspired to and worked for and took for granted, were gone in an instant. everything had changed. but i found after that in going on and piecing my life back together and becoming a lawyer and becoming a judge and attorney general and now a governor, i realize our lives don't have to be defined by our circumstances. [applause]
2:33 pm
instead, we can define our lives by the character that we have. i learned that deep within each of us lies the character that allows us to conquer our circumstances. you know, i have never talked to any graduate from any program anywhere who had not faced challenges on the pathway to getting their diploma. i know that each of you have been challenged in different ways yourselves. all of you have demonstrated the character to meet those challenges. your presence here tonight those green caps and gowns you're wearing right now, the diploma you're receiving, show
2:34 pm
you have mastered your challenges. well, tonight, when you leave this wonderful school and go into the world to pursue your dreams, your lives are going to be filled with a lot of exciting twists and turns. you will have many more achievements in your lives. and yes, inevitably, you will face some challenges in your lives. but those challenges don't determine your destiny. you do. your lives aren't defined by how you're challenged but how you respond to the challenges you face. [applause]
2:35 pm
so wherever your paths may lead, whatever you may do after leaving here, you know what? in the end, it really doesn't matter. whether or not you turn out rich or poor. it doesn't matter what you do for a living or where you live. in fact, it doesn't even matter whether or not you will be able to walk. what does matter is the unique fingerprint that you leave on this world. now, quite literally, your fingerprint is on every single thing you touch. you may be holding something in your hand right now that has the imprint of your fingerprint on it, but i'm talking more figuratively, about the figurative fingerprints you leave behind, whether they be on the person sitting next to you your classmates, your friends,
2:36 pm
your family, or it could be a passing acquaintance. every single person you come into contact with has your fingerprints on them. and ultimately, your life will be measured by those fingerprints you leave behind. so as you leave the university of north texas, we look forward to watching the path you take and the unique fingerprint you leave on this world. so congratulations to the class of 2015. may god bless you all with bright futures. may god bless the university of north texas and this great state. thank you so much. [applause]
2:37 pm
2:38 pm
thank you to the board members thank you to the faculty. thank you to the administration here, and thank you to the maintenance workers. the people who clean the classrooms before you got there in the morning, the people who will take down these chairs when we leave today. this is a community college, and it took a community effort to educate our youth and our future. and thank you to the parents and the families who look just as surprised as my parents looked when i was the first in my family to graduate from college. now, i don't know if you knew this, but today's graduation is being broadcast on c-span. now, normally, c-span is the channel of congress. and i have to watch c-span all the time. and i can tell you that you guys look a lot better, sound a lot smarter, and have a lot more hair than the people i normally
2:39 pm
have to watch on c-span. [applause] for many of you, your path to this stage was certainly not a straight line. i draw inspiration from a rabbi from the 19th century, of ukraine, who described his troubles and the challenges we face through the human condition as the world's, the whole world is a very narrow bridge. but the most important part is to have no fear. there are many of you who had no fear in your path to this stage. i think about sierra solis, who is the president of the poetry club.
2:40 pm
she served as the interclub council secretary, stepped into the role of the aslpc director of events when it was vacated and all the while earning a 4.0 gpa and working with autistic children and families to support her own family. [applause] i think about katie lott, your valedictorian and the narrow bridge she had to walk without any fear. she didn't just work hard to become the valedictorian. she also just recently won a national speech competition. and she did that struggling with and overcoming tourette's syndrome. [applause]
2:41 pm
she described her narrow bridge as, when i'm in an environment where i have to be very focused like forensics, it's easier for me to suppress the tic, and it kind of goes on the back burner. once i'm up there in front of an audience, i go into speaking mode. i feel like i try not to use tourette's syndrome as an excuse. so yeah, my tics are something that i do all the time, and it's natural to me, but it's not going to ruin my life. it's how i look at things and it's probably helped in a positive way. when i think about the narrow bridges that you've had to walk i think about our veterans who are graduating today. who have made it so far. [applause] from the battlefields, from across oceans, and now going off into the community, taking the skills that they have acquired to help others. this narrow bridge is a journey i know myself. and my path to the stage certainly was never a straight line.
2:42 pm
i grew up in this area, the oldest of four boys. my mom, she still works today as a secretary. my dad is a retired police officer, and their dream for me was to be like many of you, the first in the family to graduate college. and we saw very early on the surest, the fastest way i was going to get to college, because we didn't have many resources to pay for it, was going to be through a soccer scholarship. and i made better and better teams. and i got more and more expensive. at one point, my parents thought i wasn't going to be able to pay competitively because the travel costs were just too much. but i pushed back. i later became a lawyer in life, but i started my first negotiation as a teenager. i said, what if i helped out and pitched in? and we all took side jobs and tried to pay for my soccer? and my brother's soccer? they thought i was crazy, just like any parent would.
2:43 pm
but on the weekends, it was a family affair. every single one of us, from oldest to youngest, my mom and my dad, we all refereed soccer in between our family games. during baseball season, we were umpires. i worked at aeropostale, folding clothes as a teenager. i was just as bad folding clothes there as i was folding clothes at home and that job didn't last too long. i sanded window frames after school and before soccer practice. i was a wedding entertainer's assistant. and i did all of this because i knew if i pitched in, if i helped out, it would reduce my cost of soccer and i could achieve the family dream of being the first to go to college, and i did. i was able to play division i soccer back on the east coast. my parents were proud. [applause] and like every young athlete, i thought i was invincible and i
2:44 pm
would play professionally, and like what happens to most athletes, i got injured. but i had a teacher from high school who looked out for me. and he called me and said, eric, i know you had your heart set on playing professional soccer. but i saw in you as a student someone who could also work and help others. something i had never thought about. i only thought about myself and my own athletic pursuits. he said, why don't you go to capitol hill and work as an intern? so i applied on a lark. i was hired, and i called home and i told my parents, mom, dad, i got that internship on capitol hill i applied for. they said to me what every one of you parents would say to your son or daughters. that's great. how much does it pay? i called the teacher back. i think we're good. i think it's all lined up. my parents want to know, are we talking $8 an hour, $10 an hour? how much does this pay?
2:45 pm
he said, eric, it's an internship. you're going to work 40 hours a week, and if you work hard enough, you'll get a good letter of recommendation if you ever want to go to law school. so my parents told me, son you're going to have to do the same thing we did when we didn't think we could pay for soccer. you're going to have to work. and so from 5:30 to 8:30 in the morning before i took that unpaid internship, i handed out gym towels at a local gym right around the corner from the capital. oftentimes members of congress would come in and i would check them out and show them around. from 8:30 to 5:30, i worked on capitol hill, giving tours answering the phones, responding to constituent mail, and starting to fall in love with the idea of helping people in need. but that didn't pay anything. at 5:30, i went one more block down capitol hill and i put on a restaurant server's outfit and i served mexican food at a little mexican restaurant.
2:46 pm
and members of congress would come in and i learned very early that if i learned their name, i got good tips. i know it's shocking to hear that it's so easy to flatter a member of congress. that was my narrow bridge. handing out gym towels in the morning, serving members of congress in the evening, and having no idea that 13 years later, i would serve with many of them in the halls of congress. but what i had was a family who cared about me and risked it all, a teacher who looked after me, and a will to never have any fears as i walked across that very narrow bridge. and i know each and every one of you in your own journey has fearlessly put yourselves up here today. so now, you're moving on. some of you going to four-year
2:47 pm
universities. others going off in a different trade and different jobs. and for so long, we asked young people, what do you want to do when you grow up? what do you want to be? but today, the certainty of the market, the jobs that are out there, are so different and they're changing all the time. over half the jobs that will be around in ten years don't even have names. and so i'm asking you right now not what do you want to be. what problem do you want to solve? and i actually want you to tell me right now. we passed out these cards. and you can tweet and take out your phones on the hashtag #solveaproblem. right here as you're getting your degree and moving on, tell us what problem you think needs to be solved. mark it down.
2:48 pm
we'll look back and see if it was addressed. #solveaproblem. maybe you're going to solve a local problem like fixing our drought. we can't make it rain. but as californians, all we've ever known is how to innovate. maybe you'll be the next engineer who will work on desalination or water recycling projects to make sure that california can continue to thrive. maybe you'll think more nationally. and solve a problem like access to education. our generation has $1.3 trillion in student loan debt for 40 million young people. and it affects every major decision we have to make. it's a problem that needs to be solved. from the decision to start a family to buying a home to taking the job you really want our student loan debt is a generation weighs down on us like an anchor.
2:49 pm
and we must address this and make sure that anyone who is qualified has access to an education. maybe you'll solve a business problem. i think about the sharing economy and new companies like uber and lyft. or two people in san francisco who were roommates and couldn't afford to live in an expensive city and they were struggling to get by. when they realized they could host travelers in their apartment as a reasonable rate. they created a company that became one that is now the face of the sharing economy, airbnb. they thought creatively about how to solve a problem, their own problem, and then created a website to give others a way to do the same thing. tonight, one million people will sleep underneath the roof of an airbnb. there are so many problems that we need you as a generation to
2:50 pm
solve. so again, i challenge you, tell us, tell me what problems you'll solve. i see natalie padilla said getting more help for people who have cancer. jalen, who is in the audience, a graduate, says climate change. these problems you have been given all the tools from las positas college to solve. and i hope as you go along your path, as you continue to find mentors and teachers, that you'll remember that you have two hands. one to continue to reach up and receive more skills to solve the problems around us. but don't forget that the other hand should be used to reach down and to lift others up. next year, five years, ten years from now, hundreds of graduates will sit in those very seats and it's my wish for you that
2:51 pm
you take all of the skills you have acquired and remember that they will be better and more enriched if you reach down and lifted them up like you were lifted up by your mentors and your teachers. las positas college, john f. kennedy said and it was his birthday this week, that the american by nature is optimistic experimental, and a builder. who builds best when called to build greatly. today, you were called. you were called to solve some of the greatest problems of our time. remember how you got there, how you walked across that narrow bridge. answer the call and reach down and pass your knowledge on to others. thank you so much. congratulations. [applause]
2:52 pm
>> the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york gave the commencement remarks this year's graduate of uc berkeley law school. he is known for his prosecution of white collar crime on wall street. in 2012, he was named by "time" magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. his speech is 20 minutes. [applause] >> dean childry, distinguished faculty, proud parents, family friends, and graduates congratulations to the class of 2015. you have so much to be proud of and so much to be grateful for. congratulations to all of you. [applause] i want to congratulate the
2:53 pm
student speakers and also professor brought who i will tell you on the record stole a lot of my material. i was totally going to make the permissive joinder joke. thanks. i learned -- i always learn something when i come to law school, even when i'm not an attendee of the law school. i graduated from columbia law school 22 years ago, and it was news to me that in all that time, it turns out there is still a legal writing requirement. i thought we had gotten rid of that. i was a little bit nervous, i will tell you, when i came here to speak this morning. i have given commencement addresses before, but never in california, never in northern california, and i had some butterflies. i was worried, would you understand my new york accent, i don't know if it's going all right so far. so i arrived, and this is different for me. usually i'm in a different kind of venue, not in an unbelievable
2:54 pm
greek theater. then i heard the steel drum band, and that calmed me down completely. [laughter] i just want to make one basic point this morning. and it echos what has been said already. it's this. you are joining a profession much maligned and often misunderstood, that presents virtually infinite possibilities, infinite possibilities to grow, to learn, to achieve. but not only that. the law also presents infinite possibilities to do good, to help other people, to serve. there are so many ways as a lawyer, not just to make a living, but to make a difference. on a day like this, the air is inevitably thick with expectations. expectation of what kind of mark
2:55 pm
you graduates will make on the world, but if we're being honest, there is also inevitably some trepidation also. and not just when you think about how you're going to pay back your student loans. you may be asking yourself, did i make the right choice? is this the right career? what if i'm not good in the courtroom? what if i don't like billing in six-minute increments? these are all natural worries. so let me start by offering a mildly radical suggestion. promise yourself today that if you are not happy in your first law job, after giving it a genuine chance with genuine effort and a genuinely open mind, move on. quit. and do that for every job you ever hold. if you don't like your job, because of the people or the politics or the hours or the work, you can leave. you have worked too hard and invested too much to accept a long sentence in a job that you hate.
2:56 pm
i have seen in my years in practice too many people unhappy in a law job because they stayed too long, because they let inertia overwhelm their free will. now, i'm generally not an advocate for being a quitter but i am an advocate for being happy in your job. i believe you should grow and mature and learn and derive joy, actual joy, from your work as a lawyer. and one reason i can so blithely suggest you quit if you don't like your job, because i think it gives you more mobility than just about any professional degree you can get. if it turns out you don't like the first conventional legal path you wander down, you can double back and take the path less traveled by. if you go to a law firm and don't like it, you can go in-house. if you don't like private practice, you could do public service. i would encourage that.
2:57 pm
if you do not like t transactional work, you can do litigation. you should do what makes you happy. you should do what brings you joy. in fact, here's a news flash. ultimately, you don't even have to practice law at all if you don't like it. i know at this point, there are some parents saying what the hell is preet talking about? does he know that this is a law school graduation? maybe the steel drum band had an effect on him. we just paid $160,000 for this education. what do you mean, don't practice law? now, before you start throwing things at me, i should let you know this happened in my own family, not with me. my parents went through it with my brother vinny. yes, somehow i have an italian brother. [laughter] diverse family. so my brother was a trained lawyer, but after time, he was bitten by the business bug.
2:58 pm
he felt a pull towards becoming an entrepreneur, so he left the law. his first dotcom business didn't do so well, but he recovered. in 2005, he started another e-commerce venture with his best friend from high school, this time, selling of all things, diapers. so basically, my brother remember, this is a proud indian american family, my brother went from being a scholar at columbia law school to selling diapers on the internet under the slogan, and this is true, "we're number one in number two." [laughter] i have the t-shirt. it's true. you laugh. my brother laughed, too.
2:59 pm
especially on the day that he sold his diaper company to amazon for $540 million. [applause] yes, my brother is now what plaintiff's lawyers call a deep pocket. my brother, by the way, is a fairly competitive guy, vinny. this is also his way of saying hey, bro, i see your whole u.s. attorney thing. and i raise you $540 million. so here's the thing. this is also true. my brother would be the first to tell you that he owes a large part of his success to his legal training and his time in law practice. he doesn't regret that at all. it sharpened his mind, taught him rigor and enforced his work ethic. you can do anything you want
3:00 pm
you can be a grade school teacher, a cdo, -- ceo, a community organizer, a tv producer, a sitcom writer, a novelist, and some of those may sound far fetched, but i have law school graduate friends who have done each of those things and even in this group, who left the profession all together, each credits law school and lawyering with a good chunk of their success. but not withstanding all the choices you will ultimately have, i federal reservantly hope -- fervently hope you will keep faith with the law, that you will keep on a legal path, and why do i say that? because there are so many people yet to serve. there are so many causes yet to champion. there is so much justice yet to achieve. and who better to achieve it than you? and why do i say that? because the power of your degree gives you a degree of power that few possess, fewer know how to
42 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on