so anyone who's going to represent a whistleblower, any whistleblowers going to rowley, any journalist who is going to engage them in struts and principal you have to be ready as a whistleblower in a representative to engage the core public opinion understandable some pressures of what journalists do in the come together. the second thing is we start the relationship, it is essential as newt gingrich's mother might now remember to set the turn of the conversation. if you remember connie cheng said between you and me and i guess mrs. gingrich thought that this wasn't going to be on camera and of course it was on camera. it's important to understand the full terms by which a contact to journalism. everett on the record, everything will be used with your name attached to them at this, or so taken aback or on background, this is an important one because the description that you as a source for whistleblower and you're not use your name, but you're providing information you just afford at the beginning with the journalist and make sure he could the identity come your description i because i

i've had whistleblowers. they felt like they were getting divorced from me because we had spent more time with each other than with our wives and kids. you spent a lot of time getting to know the person and their pressures and you have to build trust. one of the things the journalist does to build trust is to verify information. you have to be able to have a candid conversation and say that doesn't seem to check out. that relationship of trust protects the public's interest of making sure what we report ultimately is accurate and precise and fair and balanced. at the end of the day, if you're a lawyer representing whistleblower, there is really only one thing journalists want more than anything else. facts. accurate facts. real facts. when you're dealing with a media person, know that we deal in the realm of facts. factual relaying back and forth builds trust and ensures that when the story ultimately comes out the public has a factual record to make a judgment about the allegations and the wrongdoing that ma

in dealing with a whistleblower with high-level information and you know the whistleblower has classified information and you're trying to make sure no classified information is ever disclosed, everyone who's participating in that process has a risk. and i know mr. solomon has personally had some of those issues and he can talk about them with some of the searches. but yeah, when you're on, when you are standing up for a client and that client is very controversial, not because they're good or bad person, but the information they had his electric, is radio act did and can cause change. there are risks both to everyone who's involved in that process and that has to be weighed. and again, if you are a whistleblower, you need to partner up with lawyers and with journalists who are willing to take that risk. if they're not, you know, they may abandon you and your time of need. on the other hand, it's the understanding and the respect for that risk that i think would lead to the caution necessary that you never have a disaster. not as kind of open about those comments to the other panelists if

to, whistleblowers can be difficult people. they can be a huge pain in the neck. i'm not saying that lightly. there are a lot of reasons why that enter into the calculation whether you should or could go ahead with the story. first of all, they all have, by their very nature, an axe to grind. they are trying to get their own story out. many of them have an inflated sense of what they want to rate or their own value to the organization that they are now reporting on. so today i thought i would talk about kind of the good, the bad and the ugly of whistleblowers and with a couple of war stories. whistleblowers are not truly sources, per se. generally, they are people who work inside a government agency or a corporation and they are desperate to tell their stories and go on the record and on camera and in my case, to often defy their bosses, disappoint and in some cases betray their colleagues to tell the world about some alleged wrongdoing. you know, i obviously appreciate what they do and the risks that they take and i'm proud of

you can intrinsically linked with your own whistleblower when you do the stories. >> so elaborate on that. i'm sure the lawyers go through this with their clients. i mean, when you meet somebody who is sharing all of this with you, like john said your domain, you know, you almost become a married couple. and, you know, if they're taking -- if they're acting bravely and their team in the interest of a higher principle, you can't help but like them often. but at the same time, at the end of the day, you're a journalist and you have a devotion to truth and you have, quite honestly, every card for your own career. and so you have to have this parallel set of relationships going on where you may have liked the guy and you may have wanted and you'll never want to do anything to hurt them, but you have to be ruthless about your pursuit of the facts and the truth. and when push comes to shove, for reasons of self-interest and there's reasons of what got you into journalism in the first race. you go with the facts. and i mean, one of the classic examples before my time at "60 minutes." i forg

a lot of whistleblowers don't really get to frame the debate. the media frame set before them. a prime example that i had was after 9/11, we had information that was well-known that the nuclear power facilities are at risk for airstrikes and the federal government was covering up the fact. and we have bleached to us the information that dennis or did that. so something could have been to address the issue. and when we couldn't get anyone to take it seriously and the government and admit that they're lying to the federal -- or at least tell us something that made us feel that the country was did. we went to the media and the media ended up running the story about how this document was found in the public records at the nrc identified that it was -- to the new power plants were safe and that al qaeda could have gotten this. but the point of going to the media was to correct the problem. and after which ones you had what it enters the closing down and shutting off any information that should legitimately be out there so we can really assess what was going on. and so that was like

it came up once when i was doing a story about a medical researcher whistleblower who blew the whistle on a company that killed her research because it proved that the drug this pharmaceutical company was bankrolling was ineffective. and the company -- i tried to be even-handed. i talked to the whisle blower. she was on the record for some. she was in the background and off the record for other stuff. me and she was off the record for other stuff and i felt like i didn't know what the facts or because whistleblowers are complicated people and you never know and you want to hear the worst thing the other side has to say. so you can then backtracking figure it out. and at some point i came -- so i went on background and off the record with corporate executives and at some point i realized what they were doing was completely trashing her in such a way that they have no obligation, no responsibility for anything they were telling me. but i was obligated to check it out and ask her about it, you know, or collar people and get the rumor mill going. and so, at a certain point i realized what

i talked to the whistleblower and she was on the record for some and she was off the record for otherstuff and i felt like i didn't know what the facts or because whistleblowers are complicated people and you never know and you want to hear the worst thing the other side has to say. so you can then backtracking figure it out. and at some point i came -- so i went on background and off the record with corporate executives and at some point i realized what they were doing was completely trashing her in such a way that they have no obligation, no responsibility for anything they were telling me. but i was obligated to check it out and ask her about it, you know, or collar people and get the rumor mill going. and so, at a certain point i realized what they were doing and i just said, nothing is off the record, no more. and we just let forward. if you're not willing to sit on the record, then i'm not interested in hearing about it. so that was just sort of a twist, sort of the kind of corporate version of the scooter libby use of confidential sources. so anyway, okay. >> that actually remi

in a number of ways, it mirrors other whistleblower protection laws. so from that standpoint i can't find fault with you, but there are some differences that make a difference when you compare it to how the courts respond. whistleblower laws are extensively litigated, and the courts define how these laws will work. for example, the whistleblower protection in the false claims act has been substantially weakened by this supreme court. because of this, the negation it is imperative that we get something right from the start. i'm not come instead as this bill moves forward, instead of offering the amendment now, i'm going to work with a group of senators on the homeland security committee that i always worked with to make sure that whistleblowers are protected and that our whistleblower laws are uniform and defective become and will withstand the tests that await the courts. this provision in this bill, like the one in senator dodd financial reform bill, needs to be harmonized so that we don't risk weakening of the whistleblower laws that i fought so hard

most whistleblower stories ended tragically. the families end up suffering tremendous economic hardship. you have to be very careful. you have to have good attorneys and thinking three steps ahead of the bad guys. tavis: was it worth it? >> if you ask his team and that if we would do it again, no, it was too dangerous. we are lucky to get to the other side of this case. most whistleblowers that i have talked to, they say the same thing. they wouldn't do it again. tavis: finally in the ice of that boss who wanted you to compete with bernie madoff, have you been vindicated? >> i don't feel any sense of elation or vindication. the press likes to write that, and i don't. the case had a tragic ending. the investigation by the team and i was successful. the case was in failure. we shout we should have ended it sooner. he shouldn't have been able to wipe out the thousands of families that he wiped out. i feel more remorse than anything else, remorse and a tremendous sense of anger. >> his name is harry markopolos. his book is called "n

i don't believe in a responsible whistleblowers. who just had a really bad week with the wife and they are just furious and want to cause trouble. but there's nothing in me that says that we can't find a way to separate those out and today, not just the 1800 number phone calls, which are removed, but make the whistleblower system work. so, mr. chairman, i thank you for letting me come here and i look forward to this. >> thank you very much, senator rockefeller. again, my personal thanks to you for your great leadership. and so many areas but in this area which i'm also care so much about, along with you and senator isakson and others. it's been mentioned that congressman nick rahal is here in the audience who represents the third district of west virginia 434 years. born and raised a. that's where the upper big branch disaster occurred. i served in the house for several years with mr. rahal, as to do, ranking member, and again, you're welcome here, congressman rangel. if you'd like to join us up on the floor. or if you'd like to joi

and after that, who looked at whistleblowers -- a look at whistleblowers' relation with the media. a discussion on conservatism and what sparks the new capitalism and a look at what free-market systems must do to survive in today's global economy. that is here on c-span. >> i know what the challenges, but we need is policymakers in washington developing the road map so that we can get it done. >> something about energy policy that you would like to talk about on your blog? you can search it, watch it, put it, and share it. from yester day or 10 years ago, every singles -- every c-span program since 1987. cable's latest gift. >> now what discussion on relationship between the u.s. and russia. there is a been a recently announced nuclear weapons treaty between the two countries. from the carnegie endowment for peace, this is about one hour and 25 minutes. >> central to the reset, is the strategic arms relationship and nuclear proliferation and other nuclear issues. so i think it is particularly fitting this morning at carnegie to have one of the leading experts on their own staff and

i hope that the crises that the whistleblower is in when they turn to the journalist will not become an impediment to be misunderstood then is used to four word the public interest. with that i would like to thank everyone for coming. thank you very much on behalf of the national whistle-blower center there will be more information posted at our website which is whistle-blowers did work. thank you very much. [applause] >> you are watching c-span. coming up next, first lady michelle obama talks about workplace flexibility programs. an iranian photojournalist and others on the state of journalism in this country. it will be followed by a discussion on u.s. business competitiveness, hosted by the american enterprise institute. >> this weekend, this is our guest on " the "booktv." the former white house counsel to president nixon. he is an author of 10 books including an updated edition of "blind ambition." that is sunday at noon eastern on quality "booktv." all this month, south carolina the wonders of the student cam video documentary contest. students submitted videos a one of the cou

i hope that the crises that the whistleblower is in when they turn to the journalist will not become an impediment to be misunderstood then is used to four word the public interest. with that i would like to thank everyone for coming. thank you very much on behalf of the national whistle-blower center there will be more information posted at our website which is whistle-blowers did work. thank you very much. [applause] and could we have a second round of applause for our incredible panelists. [applause] [applause] >> thank you john, katherine, and andrew for that very warm welcome. my good friend, ambassador, good to see you here i hope you correct me if i go straight. i am delighted to be with so many friends here and as you all know so well, i come from a coulter spent 10 with the speeches, and love with the oral method of communication in. so much so after delivering a long speech, i would sit next to my wife and like all men who are vain and insecure i've looked at my wife. [laughter] feeling confident i would say to her, what did you think? she would give me a look that only a w

the whistleblower can get a sense of vindication by having their issues resolved.-blowers have worked with the news media from the beginning of the republic and i hope that they will continue to work with the news media. our first speaker is the producer for "60 minutes." he has been a producer for 22 years. that show needs no introduction. he has won awards for journalism, including five any awards. he has covered a wide range of stories on terrorism, the middle east, and exposes about government. and corporate misconduct. he did an extensive investigation on the anthrax investigation. he worked on the case showing how the fbi pursued the wrong man in the espionage case. he did extensive interviews and worked with richard clark. he has worked with corporate whistle-blowers, including shot him all -- chuck hammell. he is currently working on a book about iraq, which is expected to be published next year. it is a true honor to have him here. to many whistle-blowers that we have worked with have worked successfully with 60 minutes. it is a premier program and we're t

>> i believe it is critical in corporations that whistleblowers be heard at the highest levels.so that their concerns should be responded to so that the highest officers are held responsible if they don't respond. my own experience with some of the other -- it has gotten better in corporate america. significantly better. >> the risk-management function did not have a direct line to the board. also learned not only were they moved off balance sheets and presentations made to potential investors that made things look better than they actually were

after the interests of the bernie madoff, this inspector general report about your whistleblower programis troubling to me. it indicates that the level of energy which we expected in response to bernie madoff and the embarrassment he brought to your agency and to the government would create a whistleblower program to try to save some of the investors and savers who could be exploited by people like him. >> i would like to address that. when i arrived i ask that we build a more robust and effective whistle blower program simply because the inside trading program haven't been effective and that is in part because inside trading rarely has brought to the attention of the sec. it's generally discovered as a result of surveillance on by the exchanges or surveillance done by the sec itself. so we need a program that was far more effective and covered much more than the inside trading which is a small proportion of the cases we bring every year. so the sec had in fact crafted the whistle blower legislation that we believe would be far more effective addressing the issues raised in the inspector

there are investigative leads provided by whistleblowers and other sources. creation of a single searchable database. we will at risk analytics, and quickly and efficiently identify patterns across the data. we're also collecting analysis and distribution of a disclosure document. this will allow us to monitor macro trends. well supplant to complete improvements to the case available to our enforcement and examination program. while we will never match the technology available to the institutions reregulate, the ability to search the data we collect will make our team much more competitive. new technology will be accompanied by comprehensive training, allowing staff to navigate the financial environment. and we will also continue our pursuit of rulemaking that looks after the interest of investors in response changes in the american financial marketplace. key goals include a thorough review of a rapidly evolving equimark the structures, helping shareholders effectively exercise their right, and giving investors better information to make sound decisions regar

they're using the whistleblowers are cordially paying reports for people to come in with information because when you come and you take a and you take a new career best and you may be running yourself a ticket out of the industry. but if you can come out of the smoking gun e-mail and a transaction documents are fraudulent, when you come in with a cookbook that the government knows nothing about, that's worth paying for because it saves the government tons of money investigatory resources for the would've never figured out on their own. it's also about as small before get so big that it threatens the entire economy and puts tens of millions of americans out of work. >> host: right, something assemblers forcing hedge funds to do their trade through many different financial institutions and of the trade confirmations sent directly to the customers, without it helped a great deal that she's got a rule that says madoff has to do is trade from five different firms whether it's a big firm, small firm and the customers are getting to throw them away, but at least there's something if you're

number two, they have whistleblower rhys many. an angry spouse, somebody in there leaking another bad situation for goldman. and lastly, if they win, it's sort of a pyrrhic victory. look for the s.e.c. to really gear up and continue to look hard at goldman. >> anthony, we're going to leave it there. we have some static on the line here, so it's kind of hard to -- but thanks for calling in. we appreciate it. >> my pushback to anthony is what other types of spouses are there? angry spouses -- >> mrs. adami, guy apologizes. >> good luck getting to the front door tonight. >> that door's locked. >> yeah. doghouse for you, guy adami. >> with that broken electric blanket maybe. >> good line by me, though. i'll take the line, though. >> he's pretty much on the same page as this desk, saying that goldman sachs has trouble ahead. you know, when we cited john roque of wjb capital saying that $100 was the technical down side for goldman, people sort of were lying what? 100 bucks in it's too much to the down side. but at this point it looks a

they're putting off for the whistleblower and paperwork for people to come in with information drivenconomy take undue career-best and you may be writing yourself a ticket out of the industry. become a smoking gun e-mails in the transaction documents that are fraudulent. that's worth paying for because this is the government tons of money investigatory resources that they would've never figured on the opponent stops the phone with mom to forget the big threatens the entire comment with tens of millions of americans out of work. >> host: something as simple as forcing hedge funds to do their trade through many different financial institutions has betrayed confirmations sent directly to the customers, without helped a great deal to achieve better world that has madoff us got seduced traders are fried chicken firms whether it a big firms, small broke her firm maybe they're throwing them away, but at least there's something if you're not getting anything, as you know, sub i've had a huge advantage because he had no outside group thing has cut $65 billion, but he doesn't have any money. >>

we look forward to working with the committee on strengthening whistleblower protections for miners. i think is necessary to examine the current statutes, regulations and policies, and ask what more can we do to ensure the health and safety of america's miners. there are miners, mine operators every day that run safe operations and save my. and miners go to work and come back every day unharmed, free of illness, free of death. that is the standard we need to put in place across this country. minors have the right to go in safely after every ship that i did go to working with this committee and will be happy to answer any questions that you have. i thank you again, mr. chairman, for calling this important hearing. naked. >> thank you very much, mr. main, and thank you for your leadership. just one question i have for you. you said tragedies taking a look at regular changes. that will simplify the criteria for minds in the pattern of violations program. i guess, if you don't want to get in all that now i would ask you to get, to submit to us what those rigor toward changes are that you

that is whistleblowers. the last person in the financial sector is doing 40 months in federal prison how do you get from the inside if you are prosecuting the people who step up and move their hand. second of all, as far as jobs go. there's two things the president could do. first of all, he could eliminate cap and trade and just have cap. could you imagine all the jobs that could be instant if we did just cap on greenhouse gases. it would be overnight. second of all, public option on healthcare >> bill, we'll leave it there. surviving the storm, rally and debate. it was the second debate over there. we covered it live on c-span. if you are interested, go to c-span .org .org. we are going to take a look at last night's debate and the election over there and get your phone calls and comments about that. we'll talk with the political analyst from that organization as well as adam bolton who was the moderator of last night's debate. chris on the republican line, go ahead. caller: i think the investigation is a

around for long time, and there has been pushed for many years to give greater protection for whistleblowers speak up. this goes back to the most famous whistle-blower with the pentagon papers and disclosure about vietnam. there has been a great deal of interest in this. many who worked in the government who speak up and when no problems, and later justified by independent analysis and reports -- they go under tremendous financial hardship. and that is while they're trying to serve their countries. host: good morning. caller: i have a solution for this campaign problem which is really disrupting transparency with politicians. we need to set up a separate tv channel for they can speak whatever they need to to run their campaigns and front of all of america so they don't have to spend millions to support their campaigns, and cut off their ability to receive campaign money. the campaign money is basically kickbacks in advance from corporations influencing legislation. host: what do think of that idea? guest: the caller is talking about using public money to give candidates an equal playing fiel

modernize safety protections for workers across all industries through stronger penalties, effective whistleblower protections and accountability when employers break the law. four years ago i made a promise to the families who lost their loved ones at sayingo -- sago disaster. i told them we would do everything we could to heed the lessons of those disasters and keep miners safe. unfortunately i have had to make the same promise to families at crandell canyon mine disaster and now upper big branch. this has got to stop. on this worker's reformial -- memorial day, we should remember all workers who lost their lives on the job. we cannot afford to let another year go by without meaningful reform. i thank the tolerance of the chair and the gentlewoman for yielding time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. ms. woolsey: i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. hare, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from i

so those are kind of some of the pitfalls if if you will of dealing with whistleblowers. nell just for the good part i guess. as rich has said, i consider whistleblowers, many of them to be real heroes and in some cases patriots, who helped expose evil and wrong wrongdoing in our country. i am thinking of, with "60 minutes," dick clark, jeffrey wein and in the tobacco case. daniel ellsberg with the pentagon papers, and so many more. in my own career, i haven't had any of those big-ticket items but i have worked on some stories i still think are important. steve mentioned bunnatine greenhouse. those of you who don't know bunny, she was a predetermined official in the pentagon who came to nbc news and i worked primarily with lisa liars at nbc, and told us that her colleagues, other federal contracting officials had bent the rules regarding handing out contracts to halliburton. and, while mac, i don't know if you remember, donnie was so nervous during that interview. we rolled a 20 minute beta tape. we never used one sentence from it. she just was so nervous and she had neve