tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 23, 2016 7:00pm-12:01am EDT
to look at, meeting the cleaner plant goals with the gas and coal firing would be quite interesting. so, again, i'm happy to discuss that. oh, and a third one, which i mentioned as a big game-changer if we can solve it but it's probably longer term, is the question of what are the technologies for economic very, very large-scale utilization of co2. >> thank you. >> that's a big deal, if we can solve that problem. >> gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the number one fan of the houston cougars from houston, mr. greene, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> well, mr. secretary. it's good to see you again. each of us have worn different hats over the years and i appreciate the job you're doing. let me start out on the strategic petroleum reserve. we import now 7 billion barrels a day. how long would it take if all of a sudden we had an embargo and
we couldn't ramp up in our own domestic production, which i think we could, to be able to draw anything out? >> well, we could certainly start withdrawing from the spr. i think it's a week's time frame, something like that. it's a rapid reaction. whereas going to the uncompleted wells would be a several-month activity. >> i was told it was much longer than that, because -- that's why some of the things we did -- >> i'll check on that but i believe it's more like a week. the -- it's not so much a technical issue as it is getting all of the -- sometimes all of the bids required for the distribution of the oil. >> because even though we have a great pipeline in louisiana and texas, like you said, the maritime issues that we have to actually get it -- >> yeah, also because of reverse flows in some of those pipes to
get incremental barrels out is probably going to require, as we said, much more maritime distribution. >> well, the main questions i have, and you've talked a little bit about it, is that in 2014 one-third of cyber attacks targeted infrastructure. in your testimony, speaking about cyber security, you say that we are seeing threats continue to increase in numbers and sophistication. this evolution has profound impacts on security and resilience of our energy sector. i hope our hearing today we can understand what's being done and on what more we can do in congress from protecting these increasing hazards. of course it's not just, you know, russians looking at republican or democratic but we're talking about refineries in east harris county, louisiana, natural coal and gas facilities. what's the most significant challenge in securing energy delivery systems against cyber attacks?
>> i would just add, if i may, the point you make about the interconnectedness is very important. as we've pointed out that electricity problems have led to enormous refinery and fuels problems, et cetera, et cetera. so, it's really important and cyber is just a growing threat. so, i think the -- the key is, a said earlier, working with industry is -- i mean, at d.o.e., let me emphasize, we have, i would say, three different kinds of cyber challenges. one is a standard big entity, you know, administrative systems and personal information. a second is our nuclear weapons information. and, third, and the hardest one in many ways, is working with the private sector on the energy system. so, it's really information exchange, including making technology available to the
private sector is really a key in many ways. a second key for us is to use all of our assets, including those at our laboratories and bring those to the table on cyber threats. and we've done enterprisewide. the one thing i would say is -- in terms of possible changes and maybe -- maybe legislative is -- and it's not only for cyber. it's for other issues as well, is that we need to make sure that there are not barriers which could be competitiveness barriers, for example, that are out there, for different parts of the industry working together on the -- on the response. >> well, i close with one example. when we are hurricane ike come through east harrison county and it shut down the refineries in
galveston bay and both united airlines, who they said we never lightered planes out of houston and we're having to do it, and the air force was there, too, saying -- and the navy because we need to have this jet fuel, and so that's why we need that -- the grid up. >> coordination. >> each plant has their own -- but you can't run a plant on generators. you have to have the grid to help. that's why it's so important. and i know in some areas, like in east harris county, we have a partnership both for security and other things, but i just want to make sure everybody is on the same page. >> coordination is important. i might add, for example, in may we ran a very big so-called tabletop exercise in the northwest precisely -- and lots of industry participation. many agencies. so everybody could understand the challenges of everybody working together on the same page. so, that's important. another thing i'll just mention is that, because the spr was
mentioned, is that even though it's much smaller, you know, we have moved out in a couple of product reserves as opposed to crude oil reserves. and that came into play in sandy when we released that to some of the first responders so that they would have the fuel to respond. >> the diesel and everything else. >> so that's another interesting discussion. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from the commonwealth, mr. griffith, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. thank you for being here as well. last time you were before this committee back in march i expressed my appreciation for the folks at department of so energy working with me to set up this meeting with the district of coal. mr. moeller came down to our coal-fueled region for a roundtable discussion with community leaders. a public symposium at university
of virginia's college was held on the future of coal technology, innovation and industry and i'll also highlight after we did all that with the opinion-shapers and business leaders and folks who work in the coal industry, your team went over to clintwood, which doesn't get many visitors. there's no four-lane highways in dickinson county, to visit students at ridgeview high school, which is a brand-new high school, built with a lot of dollars from the federal government because the county is not wealthy. it's in central appalachia and the coal fields, mountains, trees and lots of good people and not a whole lot else. that visit was particularly important for the students there in dickinson county because your team made it clear, there are possibilities in science that can affect the coal industry positively. it was just a great visit. i commend your folks for doing that. i also commend you for having
the leadership to have folks. i heard you talking about some other folks visits made by yourself and members of your team in other districts as well. i think that speaks highly of the work you're doing. while we may not always agree -- >> thank you. >> -- i think with your leadership at department of energy we're headed in a better direction. i appreciate that. >> may i say because maybe it's been provided to you, but just to make sure, actually at the end of august, we produced, i think, a very nice synthetic paper on all of coal issues we're dealing with. if you haven't seen that, we'll shoot it to your office. >> i haven't seen it. maybe my staff members -- i'll try to read that when i get home. but we had a lot of good discussions and we talked about a lot of different things on how we can get our coal miners back to work, how we can find continued future in the coal region, in our economy and in our electric generation fleet. it meant a lot to the people of southwest virginia and
particularly in the coal fields in those counties so i appreciate the hard work you did in making all that happen. now, one of the main things that i found particularly interesting in our discussions is we talked about the need for research, for clean coal technology. while you touched today already on some of the things with carbon capture and sequestration, i think that's the hot-buttonish shy and probably a good source in the short run, but with research, i'm convinced we can use our fossil fuels, not just coal, but other fossil fuels in better ways. can you take a minute and discuss some of the things you're working on with all the different fossil fuels and research and the importance of having parity with -- there's nothing wrong with renewables but parity in that research
because we'll continue to need the fossil fuels as well. >> well, first of all, on carbon capture, i want to emphasize that's not only about coal. coal is, obviously, kind of the marquee application in many ways. but -- >> natural gases. >> -- i believe ultimately we'll need it for natural gas and very importantly for a whole variety of industrial facilities. we also support like ethanol plants and natural gas processing plants, et cetera. that's important. i want to emphasize, you know, we have spent $5 billion on ccs. we also have an $8.5 billion loan guarantee program open right now for fossil technologies, et cetera. but, you know, one of the things that really excites me for the longer term, and would have -- and i mentioned -- i just mention one example of really breakthrough carbon management possibilities would have enormous implications for how fossil fuels than can be used in the energy economy. one of those is, as i said, the potential for really big scale co2 utilization.
and if i toss out, you know, like a holy grail of that, sunlight, water and co2 to hydrocarbon fuels. that would be a complete game-changer. some in the fuels industry might be, you know, would be challenged, but that would be, for example, a game-changer. there are negative carbon technologies that we should pursue. so, i think, you know, it's -- in terms of coal, i say coal there's three big thrusts. one is the innovation agenda around things like ccs, et cetera. another is the transitional assistance to economies and workers in coal country. and we just -- we just issued $39 million there. and then third is these really big breakthrough possibilities that could change the entire carbon management equation. >> thank you. my time is up. i yield back.
>> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognize the gentle lady from california, ms. capps for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to echo what my colleague mr. barton said earlier, and thank you for your -- you're a pretty regular witness here on our committee over your tenure at the white house. and you have been, by all appearances, very willing to answer all kinds of questions on this, which is the most pressing topic, so i thank you for the time you've spent with us. your testimony today indicates this is a timely and pressing issue before us. we're currently in a conference level committee, trying to negotiate an energy bill that will help define our energy landscape for the next decade. at the same time, we know these threats from climate change are real, so bold action needs to be taken.
communities across the nation are already facing the threats of climate change. in fact, i don't call it a threat anymore as much as dealing with the outcomes, which we are experiencing either through increased storm severity or flooding or as in california the crippling impacts of our drought. my area, five-year drought. we're building a plan. it's very expensive and the technology is precarious and the massive forest fires we've had to deal with, very costly, too. so, i believe it's time we stop considering these conditions as anomalies and addressing -- start addressing them as the new normal. we start implementing strategy not only to adapt to these scenarios but to the extent possible mitigate them by reducing our contributions to climate change that's happening. president obama has made real progress in laying out a framework to start this transition, but there's a lot
more work that needs to be done. we must expand the implementation of existing green technologies, such as solar power and increased energy efficiency and invest in the new technologies that will carry us into the future. many of our research universities are really leading the way in doing this, which will benefit not only our energy security but our national security and our economy at the same time. can you -- you mentioned this in your opening statement, but i'd like to give you a little more time to discuss the way renewable energies and investments in renewable energy and efficiency will bolster our energy and national security. >> well, i think -- again, well, the answer to the last part is i think pretty straightforward. again, the renewable technologies are not looking at -- there's no issue of importing or exporting the fuels. >> right. >> it's what we have.
and that's true anywhere in the world, basically. the mix may be different but that's true anywhere. so the importance of this as an element of our energy and national security is -- i think, is quite clear. now, in terms of moving the ball, again, i, of course, maybe not be totally objective but i think innovation is absolutely core to this. and that's good news for us because we lead in innovation and we've got to stay the leaders in innovation. particularly because, you know, as one of my -- one of our ceo friends in the energy industry, tom fanning, head of southern company, says you can't keep the waves off the beach. we're heading in this direction, in terms of lower carbon, and the paris agreement, no matter what one thinks about it, it tells you that we are developing
a multi trillion dollar global clean energy technology business. so, we also want to be at the -- you know, the head of that train. now, cost reduction is critical. and we have -- through innovation and through deployment, they work together, more deployment, more innovation, drives those costs down. we've seen that now for solar, for pv. we've seen it for wind. we've seen it for l.e.d.s, which is not quite renewable energy, but uses less energy. and now we have to keep that kind of cost reduction pathway going and do it for carbon capture and do it for nuclear and do it for offshore wind as opposed to, you know, the onshore wind progress. so, we just got to keep at this across the board. i remain an all-of-the-above guy aimed at a low carbon future where hopefully our
industries -- all of our industries, all of our people can be part of that solution. >> that's right. just the right amount of time, but a word to say thank you because this path of progress during your administration, your leadership at the department, and to the extent that we're able to work with you, is really made, i hope, significant progress. although, as i said, there's a lot more work to be done. but hopefully this is a movement now that will not be questioned as much as it used to be, but we'll see it as progress all along the way. >> innovation. >> innovation, that's a great word. thank you. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. the chair now recognizes a fellow texan, mr. flores, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for
joining us today. the u.s. is now the leading producer of oil and natural gas. and how is this new age of energy abundance benefitted our global competitiveness and allowed the u.s. to position itself as a global super power? >> oh,itis had on enormous impact on natural gas. first of all, we have not become major importers of lng. now we're going to be exporting lng. we expect to be net natural gas exporters in 2017. but domestically it's both led to a tremendous renewal in manufacturing, $170 billion capital invested just in the chemical arena. and, by the way, also reducing carbon emissions. on the oil side, again, we remain very large crude oil
importers, but the dramatic decrease in our net oil and oil products imports has had a tremendous balance payments impact. both of them have changed the world energy scene and we are now looked at in a very, very different way. >> right. you haven't even talked about the geopolitical implications -- >> that's what i meant. geopolitically we're looked at in a very different way. >> i'm talking about from a world stability, world security standpoint, but that's for another day. moving on, you talked about the failure of our nation's infrastructure to keep up with the new dynamics we have in this industry. not only with respect to transmission of electricity but transmission of oil and natural gas. so, the lack of capacity of the are you sulgd -- recent
infrastructure means the average consumer pays more than they should. are we headed for price spikes again this winter because of lack of infrastructure under the -- >> well, i would not want to predict, but obviously there's a vulnerability if the infrastructure is not there, you know, another polar vortex or who knows what would happen. >> right. >> but i would also add it's not -- it's not even just wires and pipes but as we pointed out in the qer, inland waterways, dock -- i mean, ports, et cetera. >> right, right. and also cyber as well, cyber issues. your qer devotes an entire chapter to improving north american energy integration, but it makes no mention of the issues that arise with cross-border presidential permitting in general or in particular, the keystone xl pipeline. do you agree that our current ad hoc or silent permitting process, as the qer puts it, creates significant uncertainty?
>> well, that's what the qer said so, therefore, we -- >> so you agree. so, that goes to the next question, that is, how is the inability to render a decision on the keystone pipeline impacted other energy projects? >> i cannot say i've seen any impact, to be honest. you know, again, i think the qer pointed out, i've forgotten the exact number, but we have a lot of infrastructure crossing the border. and certainly our electricity systems are essentially integrated with canada and now with mexico that's going to be increasing integration there as well. >> right, right. are you -- >> in fact, texas and mexico, as you know, do trade electricity. >> texas leads the country in all this, including wind power as well. >> yep. >> the -- let me ask you this. are you happy with the time it took to reach a decision on keystone? >> i think that's a question for that's not my responsibility.
>> okay. well, you're the head of d.o.e., so you have a dog in this hunt. >> that's a question for the department of state. >> all right. is there room to establish a more uniform coordinated modern process for the consideration of cross-border pipelines and electricity transmission facilities? i'm sure you've got an opinion on this. >> well, i think that's what -- the only thing more broadly, and it also applies to other d.o.e. responsibilities, is i think, you know, the congress has for good reason over the years put in all of these statutory, you know, assignments the idea of national interest determinations. and i think that's what we do for lng exports and that's what state does for their responsibilities. we also have it for cross-border electricity lines. >> of course, in my opinion, this is an area where congress needs to get involved and clean up the statutory underpinnings of the decision-making process
in this regard. and so i'm assuming you'd be willing to provide technical assistance to congress and trying to formulate those. >> we're always happy to provide technical assistance. >> thank you very much. and i yield back the baffle my time. >> thank you. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now calls upon the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, first of all, thank you for your service. i've been in congress 22 years and been through five or six secretaries of energy. you're, by far, one of the best. and you're going to be missed here. so, i want to say that right up front. just two quick things. i know we all agree on the importance of carbon capture utilization and storage. there's international consensus that it would be very difficult if not impossible to meet our climate change goals by 2050 without this in place. and also without additional
investment in this sector, the electricity sector, if we try to limit global warming to two-degree scenario without it it's going to cost $2 trillion over the next 40 years. it's not only necessary to meet the goal, but it's necessary to meet the goal in an affordable way. now, i know the white paper that you issued recently listed several bills here in congress of -- which would change tax credits or financing options for ccus, but my question is, do you think what we're doing is substantial enough? and what other options might we pursue? it seems like we've been talking about ccs forever, but it doesn't seem we're any closer to actually seeing, you know, implementation of this technology on a scale where it can be helpful. as you said, it's not just coal, it's natural gas, too. and what do we need to do to sort of make this, you know, a moon shot and get this technology out there?
in terms of where we have come, how far or how not far, depends on how you look at it, how far we've come, the point is that there has not been a price signal to the -- to the private sector there, and i think that's -- that's what we need to have, for sure. and i would just make another point, if i might, on this finance side. as you know, the administration has proposed now for two years tax credits for carbon capture. both investment tax credits and storage credits. in congress there's a lot of discussion around 45q as -- you know, they have some different numbers but fundamentally it's the same idea. i think a point that has not been appreciated enough and is
why i think, you know, congress addressing this with some urgency is called for, is that big capital expenditures by utilities, by investors, et cetera, have a long gestation time. and there -- i think that there are two signals that would be very powerful for pushing on ccus. one would be something like these tax credits that were put in place for a long period of time. okay, now i understand what i'm getting into. secondly, of course, is the carbon -- the clean power plant does that through the regulatory approach. there are other approaches, obviously, including a direct one. but all i'm saying, i think signals now, it's not saying,
look, ccs might be a big deal in 2030, so let's wait. you need the signals now if you're going to get those investments made. on the research side it goes back to this need to increase our innovation investments. now, in fy17 and '16 and '17, you know, we have -- we are moving forward into pilot project scale, 10 megawatt scale, for alternate technologies. you know, we could take a lot bigger steps with more resources. so, i think those are the two areas. kind of that signal side on finance and carbon management and the innovation. >> thank you. let me ask you quickly about nuclear energy, too. we're seeing some premature nuclear plant retirements and that could cause a threat to our diversity in the power generation. i know during the summit you emphasized some valuable attributes that nuclear plants provide like carbon-free electricity, high reliability,
reliable service, fuel diversity and explained these are not systematically valued by electricity markets. you further stated that the department is prepared to take action to help address the economic market and valuation challenges for nuclear power. so, could you explain the actions that the department has taken since the nuclear summit to ensure nuclear plants are compensated for the energy, security, reliability and other benefits they provide to the electricity sector. >> we don't have the authority to take those regulatory actions but what we've been doing and are doing is doing the studies of how to value those attributes. and then that will lead to some recommendations in our quadrennial energy review second installment at the end of the year. so, that's one thing. now, it is true we also continue to have discussions with ferc, which does have some authorities in terms of the price formation
for the wholesale level. that's going on. but, of course, a lot of the action is at the states. certainly one of the notable actions was the new york initiative in august for the so-called clean energy standard, so kind of technology-neutral carbon approach. that's very important. now, the other thing is in terms of nuclear plants shutting down is clearly the clean -- well, the clean power plant implementation plans and, you know, next year we -- you know, we are rather confident on the court side, 2018 is when the implementation plans are due. now, it would seem ironic to have lost zero carbon assets just as states are going forward with implementation plans. so, that's why this -- something like the new york activity and illinois is considering something similar, i think, are quite important.
>> thank you. thank you very much. >> gentleman's time has expired. the chair calls upon the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and mr. secretary, i too want to echo the comments of some of my colleagues. it's been a pleasure working with you. over the last few years. i -- you know, as we talk about these important ideas around energy security, i'm glad to hear you say that you remain an all of the above advocate. i certainly hope that as you transition, assuming you transition out, someone else transitions in, that you will pass that advocacy onto your successor in the sense that, you know, we -- one of these days, because we're problem-solvers
here in america, we always have been. you look back throughout our history. we won't go through the litany, but there have been a lot of them, some days somebody might solve the problem, i suspect, of harnessing the sun's energy and storing it up so that it can be made available on the energy grid for base load. same thing with wind energy, other alternative energy forms. i just hope that we can return once again to kind of a common sense approach to an all of the above energy policy where we don't throw out the baby with the bath water and we're not killing jobs and that we're looking more for market-driven solutions rather than solutions from inside the washington beltway because i think the american people are -- are screaming for that.
and i don't think we can forget about the impact we've made to our communities that have served our energy and national security needs. and i hope that we can continue to work together throughout the rest of your tenure and is that you will also pass along the importance of finding a long-term funding solution for those funding challenges at b. -- d.o.e.'s clean-up sites like the portsmouth -- the piketon facility. those are very important that we keep those projects on a path to completion so that we can redevelop those properties and put them into good use for the communities that have given so much already for our energy future. mr. secretary, as you know, d.o.e. as you know all too well is central to commerce markets
through what is known as part 810 process. under the atomic energy act, d.o.e. authorizes certain foreign interactions such as technology transfer and assistance on commercial nuclear power plants provided by our domestic nuclear industry. this authorization process has been the subject of scrutiny from both gao and this committee due to a long bureaucratic approval process. and i recognize that d.o.e. has been working to address these criticisms over the last several years by developing and implementing a streamlined process. are you or deputy secretary monitoring progress of these reforms? >> yes, we are. in fact -- and i'd be happy to share with you some data that i saw just maybe two months ago, i think, in terms of some progress actually in terms of shortening the times because there were -- one of the issues is we've
managed to -- within our agency because d.o.e. is responsible but yet we work with state and other agencies, and what we have, i think, succeeded in eliminating a lot of serial activity with some parallel activity. and so the data suggests that there's been some progress. i'd be happy to share those with you. >> all right. can you send that over to us? >> yep. >> that would be great. that would be great. in the remaining time, i understand d.o.e. after two years of talking about it has not yet deployed its electronic tracking system to incorporate transparency and accountability into the process and assist applicants. what is the source of that delay and do you have an estimate for when this new tracking system will be active? >> on that i'll have to get back to you and respond to the record. i'm just not up to speed on that. >> okay. if you can respond back on both
of those, that would be great, mr. secretary. good luck to you. i, too, have enjoyed working with you. and i appreciate your sound reason approach on most of the issues that we've dealt with here. >> thank you. and, mr. chairman, may i just make one -- >> yes, absolutely. >> -- going back to congressman's earlier statements. that on the job creation front, i do want to emphasize that things like the renewable space, energy efficiency, we have had tremendous job growth, so certainly in the energy sector -- and i know we're talking about oil and gas production, there's that, too, but we've had tremendous job growth net, but we also recognize there have distributional issues. that's not a uniform issue. that's why working with our communities and talking about transitional activities is quite important. but the net job growth has been actually quite substantial. just solar alone is over 200,000
full-time jobs. energy efficiency jobs, which are a little harder to define, i'd be happy to share with you a jobs report we did earlier this year, energy jobs report. it was quite surprising. 1.9 million jobs associated with energy efficiency in the country. but we have distributional problems, and, obviously, appalachia is prime among those. >> yeah. and the coal industry and the job losses associated with that. it's pretty hard to get my folks to look at a jobs report that shows all of this optimism that you're reflecting when we're seeing communities go into shutdown mode because of the coal industry. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now calls upon the gentleman from new york. mr. tonka, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. secretary, thank you for your bold leadership and for your visionary approach to what is a very difficult policy area.
and we as a nation have prospered from your knowledge base and your determination to make a difference. >> thank you. >> for the leadership of the past, and i'm certain into the future. thank you. thank you for leading us. the major player in our energy arena, the utilities, in the past tradition was spin those meters, assess the bills, print those bills to the customer and all functioned. as we transition and transform with technology, with renewables, with research, with distributed generation, with customer choice, how do we bring the utilities along in that effort to make certain that they're able to be as strong a player as possible assisting the
growth of commerce and responding to quality opportunities to the residential base and commercial base they serve? and at the same time, address national security? there's a big challenge there as we transition and transform. how can we best assist in that effort? >> well, i think with the link to security, certainly a critical element is their responsibilities and maybe opportunities to address resilience and reliability together because that's a new challenge. now, that has to be typically, of course, appropriately internalized in rate structures, which tends to be a state-by-state activity, so i think the congress would have to think through how it wanted to do that intersection with the states.
perhaps by incentivizing the build-out of infrastructure that we need, particularly for resilience against that entire threat spectrum that i mentioned earlier, including climate-induced threats, to physical threats, to cyber and the like. so, i think that -- that is a very, very important part. a second part which, again, would typically be at the state level because it involves the distribution system as opposed to the high voltage transmission lines, is the question of what are utilities able to do regulatorily and what are they able to do in a business sense in terms of bundling new services to customers along with electricity supply? because, again, as i said earlier, we don't anticipate, you know, a big growth in
electricity demand. maybe even eventually decreasing demand even as the economy grows. and, then, that means a business model needs to evolve as well into probably new services. >> well, as you know in new york, my home state, the process is up and under way and everyone is waiting for what that produces because it does, i think, look very strategically at the transformation taking place in this industry. again, with having lived through superstorm sandy, we saw what worked and what didn't. distribution had a major plus report card in the aftermath of superstorm sandy. >> right. and new york is certainly a leader and also, not in the policy arena, but integrated with the strong arm as well, the
state level. >> my old base before i came here. thank you for mentioning that. what do commitments to mission, innovation and other investments in clean energy research mean to a stronger outcome for national security. >> i think it's absolutely critical. as we sads said, first of all, the whole clean energy push is part and parcel of a modern clean energy picture. i've said it before that i think -- i said it will here, there's also an enormous economic opportunity we have to take advantage of. that wasn't exactly your question but i want to emphasize the question of doubling our innovation budget raises the question do you have the
capacity to absorb it well. i think we have so much unused capacity for innovation in this count country, that will not be a problem. i can go through examples, arthur each, funding 2 1/2% of proposals in a program that by any measure is extremely successful. i think there's a big payoff for us in economy, environment and security with that kind of investment. >> i agree. having watched some of those, activities, the ripple effects of sound jobs, sound paying jobs, is a shot in the arm for the economy. infrastructure renewal which is absolutely critical. >> thank you. we're all made stronger because of your leadership. >> thank you. >> gentlemen, time has expired. the chairman calls on gentleman from new york mr. engel for five minutes. >> mr. secretary, you get two
new yorkers in a row, that's pretty good. first of all i want to add my voice to thanks and accolades given to you. you've been accessible, you've been intelligent, you've been just terrific not only with energy and things this committee does, but on the iran deal, you were right up front in answering questions. we didn't always agree, but you were always brilliant. i want to thank you for your work. we really appreciate it. i want to start by talking about offshore wind energy that hasn't been talked about very much today. a small percentage of our global wind energy is generated offshore. much of the capacity is northern europe. we're now starting to invest in the united states. the first offshore wind farm is set to begin commercial operation in early november.
several others are being developed. in new york the long island power authority is currently working to approve a 90 megawatt wind farm that would become the largest in the united states. can you talk a little about that? what your take is on the future appetite for offshore wind generation in the u.s., what are the challenges security and otherwise that the federal government needs to address with this? >> this is a time for wind, offshore project they finished construction and started getting into the grid in november. that's the first u.s. wind farm, offshore wind farm. number two, last friday secretary jewel and i released a jointly developed offshore wind strategy. if you haven't seen that, we'll be happy to shoot that over to you. >> thank you. >> to kind of lay out the issues.
one of the issues is not kind of the technology we think about but there's a lot more data we need to understand the development of offshore wind. third, i do want to emphasize that in the block island project, i showed this, that there's really excellent collaboration between the wind people and the wildlife, like wildlife federation, protecting whales and this kind of thing. i think that's an important part of the development. that's kind of going well. then i think we are now also moving into an arena where we will start to see floating platforms. we have three pilot projects. one maine, one new jersey, new jersey/new jersey area, fisherman's wharf and lake erie,
so-called north coast that are looking at novel technologies. the main project in particular is a floating platform that will ultimately be for deep water. there's discussion of a massive deep water wind farm off of hawaii as well. so i say all of this that i think it's the same story i said earlier. technology, development, and deployment going hand in hand to drive costs down. so i think we're now at that place for offshore wind where we can anticipate trajectory of getting the cost down. block island project ppa is like 24 cents per kilowatt hour. of course for an island like that, that's a lot less than they are now paying by bringing in diesel fuel. so i think we're at the beginning of that virtuous cycle of technology, deployment
and cost reduction, then we'll see much more. >> it's exciting. i want to talk about one other thing, your testimony, which we've read touched on increasing including telecommunications and transportation. i want to talk about relationships among sectors apply to emergency response capabilities. talk a little about hurricane superstorm sandy. when it hit the east coast in 2012, impact on infrastructures obviously especially devastating, illustrated in many ways our energy systems vulnerable to disruption. as we all know, 8 million people lost power, fuel distribution networks were paralyzed. service stations couldn't pump gas in new york and new jersey, critical for petroleum and petroleum projects. product were badly damaged. since that time we've instituted a wide range of policies and procedures designed to better protect our citizens and infrastructure.
we've made tremendous improvements but still a work in progress. mr. tonko talked about the distributed generation. in your view, what are the biggest remaining vulnerabilities that need to be addressed. what steps should the government and private sector take next? >> certainly for sandy and obviously katrina and rita and go through the list, certainly in the coastal areas, the reality is that we have to be prepared -- preparing much more and hardening our infrastructure for the inevitable continually increasing sea level and water temperature, which both contribute to the amplification of storm surges and the damage that we have seen. so there's a lot of blocking and
tackling there we have to do. i mentioned earlier, for example, florida power and light, they are going through replacement of essentially the wooden poles, worried about substations in flood areas. but as they are doing it, and i think, you know, i'm sure they could do other things, too, but i give them credit. as they do the kind of straightforward hardening, at the same time they integrate smart technology. so they are getting resilience, reliability, and the possibilities also of more information for managing the grid. so i think there's a lot of that that we have to do. a second point i'll make, again, in new jersey, we have -- we did a project with our sandia laboratory after sandy was a major microgrid system with
distributed energy that will sustain the electrofied transport corridor, which is a pretty cal public safety issue. that went down, too, with sandy. so there's also now getting that kind of microgrid structure to make sure that really critical microgrid structure to make sure that really critical pieces of infrastructure can operate during these storms. so that's important. a whole string of things, but those are some examples. >> thank you. once again, thanks for all you have done. we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. secretary, whoo -- it's over. i want to close by saying thank you so very much for your patience, your expertise and your frankness. in tex awe say, you're a straight shooter. that's a very high compliment. no matter what happens in the future, come to texas 22, my district to see the project up and running. a big part of that at mit and
doe, she's coming online this december. she will capture 95% of co2 out of one stack of carbon made by power from coal capturing 95% of co2 using to get oil, the oil field about 65 miles south. it's the first economically viable sequestration project in america. a big part of that. thank you thank you, thank you. >> we're excited about it. >> we are as well. >> come by, too. give us a little more time. the best barbecue up there in rosenberg. also bob's taco station. the best tacos in ft. bend county. members you have five days to submit questions for the record. without objection, this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you.
tonight at 8:00, the legacy of america's first ladies. first lady michelle obama and her predecessor laura bush offer their perspectives as the two most recent first ladies. and discuss their support for u.s. service members, veterans and their families. watch starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. and tomorrow the smithsonian national museum of african-american history and culture opens its doors to the public for the first time. c-span3 will be live from the national mall beginning at 8:00 a.m. with the outdoor dedication ceremony. president obama and founding museum director lonnie bunch are among the speakers. and we recently spoke with african-american members of
congress about the opening of the new museum asking them about the significance of the museum to the country and to each of them personally. here's what new jersey congressman donald payne jr. had to say. >> congressman payne, in your view, what's the significance of the new national african-american museum for the country? >> it's a real opportunity, finally, to have the story that african-americans played in this country since before its existence come to fruition in a depository that is wonderful. the smithsonian institute is a national treasure, and we are just delighted in that the african -- the story of the african-americans is being told by the smithsonian in part of this history.
>> what are your views about the museum's location on the mall. is this the appropriate place for it? >> well, i think, you know, as i watch the structure being erected, it was hard to conceptualize it in the begin, but as it came to fruition and grew and, you know, the more parts were put on, it just seems like an excellent, excellent place to be close to the washington monument. and really, i believe, the last structure that will be built on the mall is what i'm understanding. so it's a real honor that this museum has been included on the country's mall. >> what kinds of stories do you hope the museum will tell? >> tell the real stories. the real stories of what african-americans have meant to this country. its development right up to
today. and it is an opportunity for some of the hard conversations that we need to have in this country around race. have a place where you can go and see what the contributions are without anyone else's commentary on it. and see for yourself what african-americans contributed. i've been very fortunate to have my father, who wias the congressman prior to me for 23 years, he -- dr. birch bunch has been kind enough to lay some of his possessions in the museum which was a great honor. dr. bunch is a family friend who hails from new jersey as well. so we're very proud of what he's been able to do telling this nation's story and i'm just delighted that he was able to be
the head of this whole venture. >> lonnie bunch the museum's founding director. what artifacts has your father contributed to the museum? >> they've gone through some of his papers and pictures, you know, he's done a lot of work in africa. and also just around justice and the downtrodden. people would be surprised to find out that the whole fight around liberty for the northern ireland, my father was a big proponent of that fight. and gerry adams to this day still considers him a true friend to the struggle. so wherever my father found there was injustice, he felt a need to weigh in. and i think whatever dr. bunch had taken will tell that story.
>> do you have a sense of the support within congress for this museum outside of the congressional black caucus? do you have a sense that the support has grown over the years? >> absolutely. and i think now once, you know, people will be able to see what it would consist of. even more -- have people understand how important it was for this project to go forward. so we're just delighted and can't wait. everyone is chomping at the bit to get in to see what dr. bunch and his staff has done with the museum. and they're just ecstatic about the opening. >> one last question for you. what does the museum mean to you personally? >> the museum means to me personally the opportunity for people to see what the contribution of african-americans have meant to
this country. as far back before the revolutionary war. and just to know that our history is american history. and it's woven throughout the fabric of this nation. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> watch our live coverage of the opening of the museum this saturday beginning at 8:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span3. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, we're live saturday morning at 8:00 eastern from the smithsonian's national museum of african-american history and culture with the opening ceremony beginning at 10:00. speakers include president barack obama and museum director lonnie bunch. >> what's most important is every exhibition of this museum has a goal to humanize these stories. that in essence, in most history museums, we tell the grand story of slavery or migration.
we want those grand stories told. we want you to think about it on a human scale so you can relate, you can understand, so that you're moved by the experiences of these people. just after 7:00 p.m., artist waddel shows his paintings. >> during president buchanan's presidency, harriet lane there in the blue dress, the japanese ambassad ambassadors. those giant, wonderful lights outside the white house that were taken out during the roosevelt rehab in 1902. >> sunday evening at 6:00, the moses meyers house was owned by the first jewish family in norfolk, virginia, in the 19th century. hear how the family maintained a large shipping operation and how the home has been passed down through several generations of the meyers family. >> when they did that paint analysis and dug under the layers of paint, they struck gold.
22.5 karats of gold which was largely intact. it only had to be repaired in a few places. but today it's considered one of the most elaborately gilded fireplaces in america at this time. >> for our complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. tonight on c-span3 from "washington journal," a discussion about police shootings and protests in charlotte, north carolina. then a house hearing on sexual harassment in the national park service. later, economic advisers to the trump campaign discuss his taxation and housing policies. and loretta lynch at a town hall meeting on drug addiction. on friday's "washington journal," we look at the police shooting in charlotte, north carolina. our guests were mark walker of north carolina and michele
jawando from the center for american progress. this portion is 1 hour and 20 minutes. >> at our table this morning, congressman mark walker, republican of north carolina. he sits on the homeland security committee and, of course, represents the greensboro area of north carolina, close to, some of your district goes close to the charlotte area. just want to start with your reaction to what's happening in your state. >> well, i think it's, first of all, it's a very tragic set of events. our heart goes out to these families that have suffered loss. as a former minister and having to deal with certain crises over my 15 years as a pastor, immediately your thoughts go to the family. and that's where we first have to start, making sure that we're trying to understand the heartache and suffering these families go through, whatever reason for loss of life. first of all, heart goes out to families. but some of the things going on in our home state makes me sad right now. >> what about it? i mean, what makes you sad? what do you think it does for
the state of -- what's the impact for your constituents, for the state of north carolina? >> well, i think there's a huge impact even economically right now. in fact, my wife who is a medical professional, they canceled the concert or the event they had this weekend, conference, i should say, there in uptown charlotte. so automatically we're seeing an immediate impact economically. but larger than that, it's another burden on our society when it comes to a place that we're not able to get to a place to talk through some of the issues we're facing right now. it's dually incumbent upon leaders, pastors, county and city officials to make sure they're coming to the table talking through these issues. >> we heard from a gentleman in tulsa, oklahoma, who said the difference between tulsa and charlotte is in tulsa, they prayed and prayed largely because their religious leaders led in the wake of that killing there and asked their followers to come to church, talk and
pray. and sort of making the assumption that that didn't happen in charlotte, north carolina. >> i did read some of those reports. i think it goes a bit deeper than that. i believe it's -- it takes a community to be proactive instead of reactive. those relationships, to be able to work through a tragedy like we did see in tulsa, is because there are relationships already developed preemptively in case something does happen. those are genuine relationships, and it makes a difference when you have a crises. >> what relationships are you talking about? >> it's incumbent for ministers, political leaders, business leaders to come together and begin to talk about how do they resolve some of these race divisions. there are some on the outside that are trying to stoke some of these fires. both on the right and the left. and i think it's incumbent upon us as leaders, whether we're in congress or local pastors, to make sure those conversations don't happen after an incident but are already beginning to develop specifically in these
communities to make sure that if something does happen that's egregious, that they understand that people are working together to overcome some of the stuff because a lot of these folks, we -- historically, we are a country of protest. but i think sometimes the story becomes on those from the outside who want to change the story with the egregious acts. >> family and police at odds on what that video shows. the family wants it released to the public. do you think it should be released? >> i think it's important it should be. i understand sometimes with friends in law enforcement you have to make sure during an investigation that there's a potential trial, some of those aspects you have to be careful. but i do approve the fact they showed it to the family. i do think the community has a right to eventually be able to see this video. >> do you think it's right at this point with tensions as high as they are to keep the public from not seeing it? >> i don't know what's in the
video. if there are certain things that affect a fair and speedy trial, you want to make sure you aren't putting someone in a precarious situation. like i said, i do approve of, like they did, immediately showing the family the video. i just don't know what it contains if it could be harmful to evidence in our potential trial. >> i want to invite our viewers to call in to give your questions to mark walker, republican of north carolina. 202-748-8000, democrats. democrats, 202-748-8001 and independents 202-748-8002. i also want to get your comment on this. charlotte protesters hate white people. and that comment coming from robert pitinger thursday in an interview with bbc saying -- said that the -- said people are protesting in charlotte because they hate white people and welfare is holding them back from being successful. >> i saw that last night. i was very troubled by those
comments. i know mr. pitinger is a good-partied person, but i do not agree with those comments in any way, shape or form. i spent my life working in different places. in the inner cities and places like cleveland and new york, baltimore, worked in refugee camps overseas. i try to look beyond any kind of scope of political persuasion or race to make sure that as a person of faith, god teaches us to look in the heart when we can. i don't approve of those comments, and i hope it was just a gross misspeak. >> is that reflective of the race relations in the state of north carolina? >> not at all. we have many prominent supporters across different communities, across different racial lines. not even something that we would even categorize as difference of -- people have a right to protest. the civil rights movement began at a protest. martin luther king jr. and others did it with grace. greensboro is famous. david richmond and clarence
hinderson and some of those guys. they changed the course of our history and our future. so, absolutely, people have a right to protest. and they should be able to it. it's our first amendment right. i strongly encourage people to be able to protest but, obviously, there is a line that you can cross. like i don't believe a lot of that comes from the protesters. >> let's go to rosie. houston, texas, a democrat. hi, rosie. >> caller: hi. how are you doing? first, i want to thank c-span for airing this so people can see how they feel and what i think about north carolina, if they wait just a little while and see until -- i think the police want to view the tape and the -- whatever they want to on it. you just have to wait for it and
not be so quick to want to see what's happening. all these people kant do nothing about that anyway. but if people don't understand, they don't know one person of one nation, all north carolina. we all come here from somewhere. >> thanks for the call, rosie. i kind of agree with our quarterback of the carolina panthers. probably the most prominent athlete in our state right now, cam newton, when he talks about accountability. but we have to be careful rushing to judgment which i guess is the point you were making. we have to hold people accountable which is looks like in tulsa, i believe there was a charge of manslaughter for the officer who was charged with the shooting. we do hold people accountable. what we can't do is making sure we're rushing to judgment in a way that hurts people, damages law enforcement and i believe
the verdict is still out. as we see more and more evidence to see what decision we need to make in this case. >> winston-salem, north carolina, a democrat. >> caller: i'd like to ask the gentleman, the governor mcrory had -- i see him on the news channel here wxii. and he had said obama said we have to have the cameras. he wanted to control when the cameras were released. that's why he's put this law that says it has to go through this, whatever, to be released. they couldn't release them. instead of making it public like the president said, he's not -- he's fighting obama. he's saying you can send the cameras, but i'm going to be the one saying when to release them. he gets on tv and says something
about -- what about the women being raped? what police are going to come in and -- mostly geared toward african-americans from the same thing. so people now think the sheriff is in charge of this. the reason he won't release them. it's not the sheriff -- i mean the chief of police. >> do you know what the process is? >> i don't know that the governor has jurisdiction to prevent those video -- or whatever the evidence is being released. i believe that's the local sheriff who -- >> up to the investigators? >> up to the investigators. i don't believe the governor has any say over that. >> even loretta lynch was asked, should the video be released? she was deferring to those that are investigating it but that they're monitoring the situation as well. >> as tough as it is sometimes whether it's a local sheriff, local law enforcement, local prosecutors, we have to have some kind of trust for them to be able to do the right thing. >> ft. belvoir, virginia, republican. good morning.
>> caller: hi. i understand there are some instances where you can question the reason for the shoot, but one thing i don't like, and i have family in law enforcement. no one ever talks about every day how many police officers are shot. no one talks about when the police officers have to go into the projects and deal with the drug dealers and that how the people in the communities will help hide the drug dealers and they'll attack the police. that's one of the reasons why caprini green was shut down in chicago. even for the ambulance to go in and try and save people. they would shoot at them. how would the people in these communities feel if cameras or video feed was released on what they do in their communities? it's very one-sided, and i do understand people being upset. i do understand that, unfortunately, i don't think all police have been fair, but there's a whole lot of people doing a whole lot of wrong, and
every day, when my family goes out, they go out there to protect people that they don't even know. >> thank you for that call. i appreciate the heart behind it. i want to tell you, i have a brother-in-law on who is a k9 officer. my wife is a flight trauma nurse. leading with doing the right thing with the right heart. you are correct. there are hundreds of thousands of men and women who put on that uniform every day. the stories that don't make the headlines. these heroes who are doing the work, spending their own money and own time to try to impact the community and make a difference. we seldom bring enough attention to these wonderful people. and i think it is an injustice not to be able to talk about some of the great work, whether it's the sheriff's department in our communities, the police department. so many men and women who put their lives on the line each and
every day that we can have that freedom of speech. we thank them for their incredible efforts. >> the caller referred to the risk for police officers. line of duty deaths so far in 2016, 91. you can see how these police officers died. due to gunfire, about 40 of the 91. you can see the rest of them there. let's hear from charles in dallas, texas, an independent. >> caller: yes, i would partially like to respond to the last caller. a lot of people want to know why the anger is at the level that it is in the black community. i'd like to explain why. if you have a toxic waste site, which is the equivalent of slavery in america, a designated area for toxic waste, if you put that in a land for a specific amount of time and then decide i want to make that land productive, it's going to take a
lot of time, effort and resources to change that land from being toxic to being productive. america is now wanting black people to be productive, but they're not willing to take the time, energy and resources to change us from the toxic waste that we had of slavery to make us productive because they do not feel we're worth it. >> charles, i believe you're calling from dallas. i don't know that i agree completely with those comments. i believe there are a lot of good investments and a lot of great people in all different communities who are already making a difference. i believe your sheriff there in dallas is an example of that who through his own personal tragedy and loss turned it into something that's really inspiring many, many people. he's recently retired but how he handled some of the shootings that went on there showed a man of integrity and a man of class and a great role model for the rest of us in deal with some of these race relations.
>> donald trump has said in reaction to what happened in north carolina is possibly the stop and frisk policy. he said maybe just stop and frisk for chicago. it worked in new york. others say it didn't work in new york. do you agree that we should have a stop and frisk policy? >> i can't unequivocally agree that stop and frisk is something we should be instituting. i believe we have to be careful we're not infringing on anybody's rights. your rights, my rights, different communities, wherever you're from, whatever your background or socio economic status. the great thing about america is you and i should have the same equal rights with no favorite to one class or the other. >> republican. hi. >> caller: good morning. i just had a few comments. i think one thing we need to do is stop referring to each other as black or white or
african-americans. if we're living in this country, we are americans. and it's embarrassing to see what's going on in our state. i feel like that in america, doesn't matter what race or color you are, we all have an opportunity to succeed if you want to. and one suggestion i thought about was cutting off all the welfare and food stamps to people unless you're 65, older or disabled. there's something about having to work for what you get that builds some character. and you would feel much better about yourself to go to the store and buy a tv rather than looting stores and stealing from people who have worked to have what they have. so i feel like some of these things need to be addressed. we've given too much in this country and people need to be accountable for what they are
getting. and i appreciate the representative here and what he stands for. i appreciate the lady who called earlier, giving her thanks to the military and the police. i, too, want to do that. they are a special breed. thank you. >> yes, they are, for the amount of money they make, they are certainly a special class of people. let me address what you were talking about. one about the different races. we have to understand from a sensitivity perspective that it was only a generation ago where that oppression really did exist in the african-american community and even in some spots until today. we want to come at this with more of a compassion aspect than a condemnation one. to your point about some of the welfare. we are out of control. food stamps, welfare, entitlements make up close to 80%, along with paying the interest on our national debt.
80% of our mandatory spending. we can't sustain that. we have to find a way to push back on some of that. i believe through the process, it's going to take some continued education but also some tough choices. we as members of congress are going to have to be able to, at some point say enough is enough. we've got to push back on some of the gross spending that we've seen here in washington, d.c. it's in our first term. it's egregious. and part of the legislation is to help refine some of that mandatory spending and begin to reduce it and cut it. that's part of our job here in washington, d.c. >> alyssa in north carolina as well. democrat. what's the name of your town? >> caller: mebin. i was corrected when i first moved here. thanks for taking my call. i really appreciate the congressman's sincerity. i see it in his eyes. my question is, i have suffered quite a bit of a culture shock here. i was raised and educated up north and worked there my entire
career as a professional nurse. and i have retired to mebin, north carolina, to discover that there is a fierce, very tight-knit system here of everything that's done, and there's a restriction on things here. like no other place i've ever worked or been in. another way of putting it may be jim crowism. is there anything that the congressman can think of that really might start moving this horrible, horrible curse off of the black community especially down here in the south, in all parts of the south? it's not just north carolina, as the congressman, i'm sure well knows. and until we start really talking about what's actually
happening, all of this is just, as the kids say, flipping your gums. and we have to do something. these children are not going to tolerate what my generation did with the bent back and bowed knee saying we'll be good children and respectful citizens and grow to be something and then grow up and the black men get killed anyway because they look too big and like big, bad dudes and so you just get shot. there's no de-escalation training to our officers. all respect to all good officers, but you have to admit, there are some who are scared to death and they have a gun. >> okay. alys alyssa, let's get the congressman to react. >> i appreciate the call. i certainly enjoyed hearing from mebin, north carolina, one of the cities in our district. being married to a nurse, talking about special groups of people, i don't know there's anybody more special than nurses
who take care of certainly our sick in our community. as far as oppression, we're against all kinds of oppression. any time we see it, we're going to speak to it. it's been our life, our heart. at the same time, we want to make sure that our language and our tone isn't creating additional issues or additional problems. that's part of my work as a political leader in that community is to call anything that i see that's egregious out. you're welcome to contact our office there. we have one about ten miles from you in graham, north carolina. if there's any kind of specific concerns you have please let us know. i appreciate your call. >> pennsylvania, fred is watching there, an independent. >> caller: hi. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think part of the problem we're having with transparency in the police, when they have a videotape, they should release that stuff asap to de-escalate any kind of protest. and further, you know, if there's something done wrong, then they can prosecute who they
have to prosecute. what happens when you delay with these tapes, it creates the opportunity for perception of possible flaking. flaking is a rogue police practice. they stop an innocent person like that, gets into a terrible situation, the person gets killed. next thing you know, a gun is planted. oh, he had a gun or drugs are planted. oh, he had drugs n it's like people in the family in the community know the person. they had nothing to do with guns or drugs, and just makes the credibility issue. and then you talk about drugs in this country and white collar crime. the citizens that work for a living, everything that's goes on in their life is a reflection of the leadership of this country. and you talk about scams and people paying too much money for things and all kinds of nonsense going on. we have got to get back to god because god put us all here to love each other. and that is something that the politicians we currently have in
washington, d.c., have no respect for. >> i think our congressman here does. >> i certainly appreciate that last comment. god does call on us to love each other. if we can do a good job of that it can really permeate some of the issues and concerns we have. specifically to your issue that we should immediately release the video, i have some concerns only because if you and i were stopped over -- pulled over and i don't know that we'd always want immediate video release until we have our certain rights are making sure they're taken care of. i also put some on the community that there should be some patience before there is any kind of specifically hard line protests. obviously, no call for violence regardless of any situation, but sometimes it's not just on the police department. and let's speak to that for just a second. most law enforcement people that i know spent 25, 30, 35 years.
my friend b.j. barnes has been 40 years. many of these guys, there has never been any kind of history of any kind of gross negligence or any kind of a targeting community. i'm not seeing the rogue situations or rogue officers from time to time but i would put that person up against any other vocation. i want to make sure as we talk about it that we're also bringing attention to those who have distinguished honor and careers and serve in law enforcement. >> how did you become a baptist minister? >> well, greta, i spent about five or six years in business and finance right out of college. my mid-20s, my father was a minister. i promised i would never do that. sometimes as we say, never say never. but i went back to divinity school and served about 16 years there in the winston-salem, greensburg area. as a pastor you work for people from all walks of life, all different races, socio economic
backgrounds. you lay out a vision, a clear objective. you learn sometimes there's arbitration involved. sometimes mediation involved, whether it's a marital situation or family situation. sometimes there's many different sides of the story. one thing that helped me the most was to just listen. instead of coming with a preconceived notion or ideas, to be able to hear -- i think transitioning over the last three years into, not being a career politician, obviously, but to go in the different communities and just to sit down and listen. sometimes that means sitting in the back row of a church you're visiting in the different communities, but understanding what's important to our different communities. unless you're willing to put the relationship before policy, policy is going to be weaker. the relationship has to be genuine. >> have you listen to the transgender community about the bathroom law? >> yes, we heard loud and clear. >> what's your position on that, and how does that impact your district? >> our district is not quite as
impacted immediately as it was with charlotte. i struggle, even though it's a state issue, i know the president a few months ago doubled down on it when he issued his own executive order. six-page mandate. there were two specific places i struggled with. one, talked about allowing the student to override both the parental and teacher discretion. if you think about that, students and children as young as 6 or 7 years old overriding both teachers or parental discretion? we've talks to parents who may have a child going through identity crisis. a lot of times that's been discreetly handled between moms and dads and parents and teachers. to take that out of their authority. but the biggest issue, i think page 4 or 5, where the mandate from the president talked about get away from the stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. i have an innate struggle with
that because of my faith but even science tells us in this move to push things toward this gender neutrality, there's a distinguished difference between male and female. we can overshoot the runway, in this case, i think that's what we've done. >> the ncaa has pulled out, basketball tournament there. the acc may follow suit. "the wall street journal" says the city of charlotte has lost more than $100 million in business from the fallout of the controversial state bathroom law. are you seeing any economic impact as well? >> well, i think when you have people who travel throughout the state, charlotte is a little over an hour. if it affects charlotte, it affects our entire state. and we have seen it impact. the acc, they have pulled out as of last week. it's damaging to us. it hurts us. the ncaa, with the director, a little disappointed he pulled the championships out, and even
returned some to his home community of connecticut. i thought that was a little duplicitous on his part, but i think that we're going to have to come together to work out something that doesn't continue to impact us. yet, at the same time, i don't think it's outlandish, even most north carolinians, some of the polling we've seen, they don't have a problem with making sure that you keep the labels on the bathrooms, men and women's bathrooms. it's kind of crazy to even have that conversation at times because most people would say, yes, i want my children to go in -- they are a daughter, i have two, i want them to go into the female's rest room. if i have a son, i want him to go into the male's bathroom. >> jan, republican. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. my comment is if they want to see oppression, why don't they take a trip to an indian reservation.
you talk about a lost society. and what has been done to the american indian, they live on reservations, pieces of ground. the tribes that live up north in our country, they are living in shacks. they don't have heat. they don't have air conditioning. they don't have storm sewers. they don't have their handout. they're not out there saying that somebody -- excuse me -- that somebody owes them somethi something. they can't get jobs. they can't get an education. it's a whole concept of lack of respect for the law enforcement officers, and -- who don't make enough money, in my opinion -- and -- >> janet, can i jump in? you think in every incident it's because of a lack of respect? >> caller: yes, i do. >> okay. congressman?
>> well, i think even our court findings show that it can't be every incident. listen, i work in the federal government. and sometimes the government is wrong. and part of our job is to be able to have the right to freedom of speech. now i do think that sometimes there's a gross exaggeration on some of the things, the charges, the accusations to our law enforcement. i'm going to err on the side of trust but verify. i think we had a president who used to say that a lot, ronald reagan. but to say every incident is due to lack of respect, i struggle and i don't agree with that. >>pensacola, florida, eric, independent. >> caller: yes, that's derek. >> derek in pensacola. >> caller: the problem i'm having is every time a republican calls in, the first thing they call in, and they complain, just like the last caller is all about disrespecting the police no matter that the police -- it wasn't disrespect.
it was just straight shot. and why is it that the people always think it has to do with welfare and handouts, and we're talking about a police shooting. that has nothing to do with welfare. so why is it always put together? >> okay. we'll talk about that with the congressman. you have any thoughts? >> derek, thanks for calling in this morning. i grew up in milton. my father was a minister there about ten miles from pensacola. to your point here, i don't know that -- maybe some of the callers sometimes in a small pocket can skew it, but i know many republicans who are working diligently and have a heart for all communities, whether it's for the people on welfare, whether they are in school programs, whatever it might be. part of our job as the caller said earlier is making sure we're looking for -- seeing these people the way our faith calls us to see different folks, different people, whatever community. whether it's rural, urban
communities. sometimes a caller or two may call in and say, as we just had, but every time this is a situation that's always on behalf of the victim, law enforcement, our job is to look at each case individually. and that's what we're called to do and what we try as well. >> we'll go back to florida. pompono beach, pat. a democrat. >> caller: you do a good job in coming in and looking at the camera in your face. you say you are a man of faith. i was wondering if you ever read 28/68 because i didn't believe that the bible was talking about the nation of israel, which is the black people. the lord, not the people, the lord allowed the nation of
israel to come into slavery because of disobedience. and you being a man of faith, i was just wondering, have you ever read deuteronomy 28:63. >> i actually have. i try to start each day reading a little bit there from the bible, from some scriptures to help us focus through the day. a theological discussion, i'm certainly happy to go that route just in a brief comment. i don't believe the african-american community is the same as israel in the bible, though there some are parallels when it comes to the oppression throughout history that both people groups have served over the years. >> tony in claremont, florida. another independent. >> caller: i'm glad to talk to a man of faith, and my question s
is, when god brought the children of israel out of egypt, he said i'm going to put you in the land where i can teach you my ways. so that's the reason i believe slavery would never work in -- freedom for black people will never work in america because the people that were in slavery are the same people that we have to work under. and the mentality is black people just brought here just to do free labor. without that, they were never brought here to be productive citizens because even the meaning of police. the police were created just to round up slaves. so once we start getting that mentality right, we'll understand what god want us to be. and i appreciate you letting me talk. >> all right, tony. >> thanks for the call. historically, i'll put it this way. i recently had a chance to do a preview of the african-american
smithsonian. what a powerful, moving presentation. you can't walk through that place without your heart being just moved incredible ways. at the same time, i don't believe we can base current situations on things that happened some time 200 and 300 years ago, sometimes, yes, decades ago. but we have to look at each situation differently. i get a chance to meet these wonderful people who serve in the capacity of law enforcement for sometimes mere wages that take their work home and serve this community, up on saturday volunteering their time, part of book drives, community workforce developments. all these different things we see sometimes. i want to make sure that as we look at these situations, we call out wrong where wrong is. yet, at the same time, don't bypass all the good that, whether it's our local sheriff's departments or local police departments. we want to make sure that we're understanding, these are people that we live with each and every day in communities that are doing their best to make a difference in their own way.
>> c-span is covering the opening ceremony for the smithsonian national museum of african-american history and culture. and that's this saturday at 10:00 a.m., tomorrow. c-span, c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app as well. pat in south carolina, a republican. pat, are you there? >> caller: yes, i was out looking at the tv and department s -- didn't see you. >> listen through your phone. go ahead. >> caller: i want to talk to the congressman about the committee that he's on. >> okay. you're on the air with him. go ahead. >> caller: i want to talk to him about the committee he's on. the oversight committee which i think is absolutely a waste of taxpayers' money. you all hold these meetings, and like the gsa, irs, all of these people you find that's wasted millions of money. you can't lock them up. you can't have them arrested.
they get to retire with full benefits. nothing is done for punishment. i would like to suggest that when a department of the federal government is caught cheating, stealing, abusing the taxpayers' money, that department's budget needs to be cut that amount of money. at least then you're doing something. >> okay, pat. we'll take your suggestion. >> thanks for your directness. i do appreciate it. i would push back a little bit. these are actual factual numbers. the house oversight committee has been able to force 20 out of the 23 resignations we were looking for, specifically one that stands out was michelle leinhart, director of the dea, when we found out some of our secret service agents were behaving improperly with prostitutes in south america. i guess there's no way to pretty that up. we found out the penalty was only a slap on the wrist. it was two weeks paid leave of absence. that's a gross injustice for people that are supposed to be
serving and protecting our president and other leaders. we were able to bring her in on a tuesday or wednesday. she resigns on a friday. so we are having an impact. even though it does cost money to do these investigations, our responsibility, kind of the hall monitors if you will. we have full subpoena power, is to make sure we're going after the different agencies that may be overstepping their boundaries. in this case the dea or epa. but there are some results that are being -- maybe not doing a good job of communicating or messaging some of the things we're able to accomplish. the house oversight committee is a very important committee in the congress. >> you are supporting donald trump this election. >> i am. >> north carolina, a battleground state. what's his support like in the state? >> the recent polling shows he's up by 5%. in our district specifically, he's up by 9%, if you read or look at the polls. and i think that's of this -- first of this week, actually, was the most recent poll. >> you had some misgivings about
him early on. where are you now? >> well, i certainly support -- when you say misgivings, my concern was some of the comments, specifically early on. i guess maybe you are basing your comments from a "new york times" article that asked me if i found some of his comments offensive? i said yes, but the second part is i find some of the things that secretary clinton has done offensive as well. you have to understand secretary clinton is some problem who has no problem with third trimester eabortions. i believe we're at a battlefront right now with some of our religious liberties coming into play. i'd have great concerns with a secretary clinton being elected president. >> let's talk about washington. you're here with us. and we thank you for staying in town. many of your colleagues have already left because you're waiting on a deal to fund the
government temporarily past this september 30th deadline. what have you been told about one of the hold-ups, the sticking points, and will this get resolved? >> a lot of it has been waiting impatiently in the senate to figure out what they want to include in the cr as far as a continuing of funding the government, whether it's the short term or longer term, the six months. we're hoping to have that resolved sooner rather than later. obviously, military construction, one of the things we're worried about making sure that's funded to the ability that our men and women not only have their resources but that we're being proactive, readiness, if you will, as we move forward. we're waiting to see. hopefully we'll have this resofld by the middle of next week. >> do you think it will be a stop-gap measure that goes until december 9th, or will it go past the election? >> i believe what we're hearing is it will be december 9th, the short term. we don't know for sure as far as what will all be worked out. but if i was to guess, i believe they're looking at december 9th. >> okay.
congressman, we really appreciate your time this morning. congressman mark walker, a member of the homeland security committee and sits on the oversight and government reform committee as well. republican of north carolina. thank you for talking to our viewers. >> greta, it's been a pleasure to be with you and to answer the calls as well. >> we want to welcome to our table michele jawando at the center for american progress. vice president for legal progress. thanks for being here for this conversation. >> thanks for having me. i want to start with the police shootings in north carolina, in charlotte and tulsa. and talk about the trend. "the washington post" has a story this morning that police shootings are on par to be what they were last year, around 1,000 police killings. >> so, you know, as we begin to kind of consider this moment again for communities of color, particularly the african-american community, there seems to be a vicious loop that continues to play out.
and i think sometimes we separate the hash tags or seeing the protests, and we forget these are family members. these are husbands. these are fathers. and while we as a country are reel'iing with this tragedy, the families, those communities are individually impacted in ways we can't begin to fathom. for many communities, they look at what's happening in charlotte and what happened in oklahoma, and i think many americans of all stripes are saying, i think we can do better than this. there is a systemic pattern here, and i think as americans, we have to start to think about, well, what are the things we can do either in law or policy or what are good old-fashioned conversations we can have at our kitchen table to get us on the right track for the next generations. >> what's happening with policing in this country that is leading to these police shootings, these fatal shootings? >> so, i think there are a few
things. i think it's important to also recognize that historically, for particularly the african-american community, the role of policing has always -- has some origins in a very ugly history. i think about the fact that this weekend, the opening of the smithsonian museum will happen, and there are many exhibits that look at the beginning and origins of policing in this country really started with slave patrols. there were officers who were looking for runaway slaves. now, obviously, we have come a long way from there, but i think we have to also recognize that there are vestiges of kind of either disparities and treatment for some people, particularly in the context of law enforcement. when we talk about what are things we can do to kind of change what some may see seems to be the norm, i think it goes back to training, accountability and transparency. when we look at the fact that, according to the bureau of justice statistics, between 2011
and 2013, there were about 178 hours of training for local and state law enforcement. but only about 21 hours of that time was spent on use of force. and that use of force training also included de-escalation training. the rest, firearms training, rapid response training. when we think about it, is that the balanced approach? most would say it's not. >> what is your response to the charlotte situation, as someone who practiced civil rights law, what do you make of this argument that the video should be released and should be released right now during this investigation? >> well, i also attended law school in north carolina, so this hits near and dear to me. i have many friends, colleagues, law professors who are still in the area. when the governor of north carolina signed this bill earlier this year, i knew that this moment would come.
and the reason i say that is, whenever you are trying to build trust between communities and law enforcement, those who are going -- who you are there to serve, you want to create an environment where you can build trust. where there's accountability, transparency. when you are hiding information that is public record, you cast dispersions on whatever investigation is happening. so, y es, we are hearing report from the sheriff and law enforcement about what's on the video. but i think for most people, as they hear this, they want to see it themselves. it is public record. i think if you want communities to kind of take a step back and believe, then you also have to show the american people, you show your citizens that, yes, we believe you. we trust you. and we want to show you that we're working on your behalf. >> remind our viewers what law the governor signed. >> so earlier in the year,
governor mccrory signed a bill that would essentially withhold police and dash cam video from the public. and that law also meant that families could view it but families couldn't release it. their counsel could view it, but the counsel couldn't release it. and you have to wonder and you juxtapose what's happening in oklahoma. you don't see riots in the street. you quickly saw the charges come down. and you juxtapose that with what you have seen three nights of demonstrations and protests in charlotte. you have to ask yourself, what's happening here? and you see that transparency is a part of the problem. >> what do you think the introduction of body cams and dash cams and people using their cell phones, what has that done to what we're seeing here in the criminal justice process? >> well, without question, it has been revolutionary. it is definitely a disruptive
technology. but i say that if we only look at bad behavior, and we don't fix the behavior, and we don't update the training, it's not enough. we have to have a conversation about this country -- in this country about race and how implicit bias plays into our work. earlier in the year, a number of my colleagues and i released a report at the center for american progress where we talked about implicit bias. we talked about the fact that there's research that's has come out that says african-american men, according to some empirical evidence, are seen from law enforcement as hypermasculine and, therefore, maybe more prone to violence. now when you have those biases, how are you going to react in split-second situations? the only way you can overcome that is when you have directed training that speaks of that issue where you continually are talking about use of force, and you also recognize how can i prepare my local law enforcement
leaders and to prepare for these situations and these instances. how do i diversify my police force so that we make sure that we recognize that diversity is a strength, particularly in the law enforcement context. >> these changes that you talked about, are they included in the criminal justice reform bill that's pending before congress, some of those ideas? >> well, sadly, i'll say no, not yet. many of these ideas were included in the president's task force on 21st century policing. i was very happy to see some of these recommendations take hold in many jurisdictions across the country, like in dallas. we've seen some of these trainings also take hold in california and new york, so this is something local law enforcement can move on without having to wait for congress. and i also think that the -- this work should be ongoing. this isn't we take one of step and we finish. progress is not completion. to the extent that we recognize
these are things that we as a society have to grapple with and be aggressive about dealing with, i think we'll see some of the type of success that we need to rebuild the trust in our communities. >> let's get some calls in from arlington, texas. malik, independent. >> caller: how are you doing? >> morning. >> good morning. >> caller: first and foremost, i'd like to say that there's been a hundred-year history of police brutility. during the church committee hearings, there's been a situation where law enforcement was in ka that'ses with in ku klux klan to murder and assault members of sclc. we also know these loaded phrases like saying they felt threatened or they were in fear for their life or the person was going for their gun have been rehearsed and have been legitimized because there's a culture in this country that has said, black people are not
human. we've been that way. it's been that way. we're on welfare, so the world, the country is better off without that burden. so if one gets killed, let's deflect from that argument of injustice killed, let's deflect from that argument of injustice, and talk about chicago or drugs or maybe he was on drugs or the hypothetical that he may have been threatened. i was in fear for my life. these are all loaded phrases to remind people to say this is a black person. they are not human. they are not here to be a part of our system of justice. this is not law enforcement. police don't enforce law, they gain facts. people render judgments. innocent or guilty or a judge will render innocent or guilty judgments. and it's the people, the citizenry that enforces laws. >> okay, malik, we'll take your comments. >> first of all, malik, i appreciate your comment and
particularly about the origin of law enforcement. you know, there has been a lot of conversation about what "black lives matter" means. and i think the caller basically touched on this fact that the saying "black lives matter" in some ways is just a reaffirmation of the blacks in this country. and i think the reason it has taken hold has been because of a powerful, positive force in this country. because if you look at the statistical facts, well is an ongoing disproportionate situation going on, of all the unarmed individuals, 40% were african-american men, but african-american men only make up 6% of the population. and this is the unarmed shooting by police in 2015. so there is something very real
there so when you hear kind of the anguish and quite frankly the passion of your previous caller it is speaking to that fact that you continually see these instances. and you say you know what, something has to happen. this is not right. this is not my country. and sometimes quite frankly i don't feel safe in the country that i live in and i call home. >> let's go to charlotte, north carolina, welcome to the conversation, go ahead. >> caller: thank you, caller i was there wednesday at the park where there was a peaceful march and everything. we went down to the center, everything got really turned up. and the priests started lining up, talking about they don't care about "black lives matter." but "black lives matter" are not hyper active ready to fight our time, we just want respect like everybody else does.
we're not hear to start trouble. if the police are so scared when they see blacks, why don't they get another job or profession, you're so intimidated by somebody, a big black dude, why don't you get another job. you can't be scared in your job. >> you know, anthony speaks to something that is highlighted in our reports. there is research that shows that african-american men, even african-american boys are seen five to seven years older th. and when he was shot one of the callers called in and said i see an african-american, you're a young man. i believe around 18 years old. and so when the officer showed up and shot him in less than two seconds, he immediately didn't see a 12-year-old boy with a bb
gun gu gun, he saw an 18-year-old man with a gun. i might add that ohio is an open carry state. so that is something different to speak to. but somehow how we play on it our implicit bias, which causes us to act in a split second. ongoing training can't happen only at the academy. it must be ongoing and continual and we need to have a conversation in this country about why we don't have national standards around use of force. what has been seen as kind of reasonable use of force in these instances. if all you can say is i was in fear of my life, but we've seen empirical differences, there has to be a reconciliation on how you view those two things.
that is why we see research and training is important to appreciate the differences on how this occurs. >> we'll go to robert on our line for republicans in brooklyn. >> caller: hi, good evening. i want to ask about perception, and not in north carolina, but 28 states are -- they bring up the black thing in north carolina, i would like to answer a question, when president clinton pulled away the confederate flag, and called black children predators, it's because of people here and the view of the country. >> so you know, there are a few things. you know, north carolina, actually as the caller stated has really been the epicenter of a number of major issues. you know, i was there in the late '90s and early '2000s.
and north carolina, you saw a great number of services in school, and restoring services for the justice system. i will tell you, unfortunately in the last few years we've seen a huge shift and change away from kind of practices that would create a more open and diverse and welcoming community for all different people, whether you're talking about the lgbtq community in the context of the transgender bathroom situation. or seeing the massive rolling back of voting rights, 2008 was the first time blacks in the state out-voted whites in the state. and you quickly saw an omnibus of what was called the worst voting rights bill in the country passed by the republican legislature. at the same time, you have now seen the governor put forth kind of really these draconian
justicebills to sort of hide the dash cam videos and such. that is why you hear people like reverend barber saying the state is better than that, and they know they need to move forward not back wards. >> and we have had him on the show. i do want to follow up on the legislature that the governor passed because one viewer says you said with hold, but the law says unless directed to release by a judge. >> yes, but one of the things i will say is whenever you put yourself in a situation where public again, public evidence that belongs to the people has to be litigated before a member of the bench, we have a problem of the there is no reason why we should start from the frame of you have to go through a number of different steps before you
release information that would both lead to greater trust and belief in the process of your community. so you know, i recognize that that is a point. but quite frankly we see now that there have been over three days of protests, in the state contrasting that with oklahoma where that video was immediately released. and i think one of the things you can point to is there is a lack of transparency, which leads to a lack of accountability for all involved. >> what do you think regarding the state of carolina, and charlotte, and others with the stop and frisk policy, donald trump said it worked in new york. others say it did not. it did not lead to a successful end. but what would lead to the october of that? >> so i am a new yorker and so excited that you asked this question. because what we saw in new york after the removal of stop and
frisk, we actually saw crime not only go down but you saw greater community involvement in solving crimes s in completes. so it says to us when you put forth policies that are not rooted in data or any type of fact, but you are making a massive kind of profiling you again erode the trust that you need. whatever we do in this country, we have to figure out how to do it together. law enforcement is not separate from our communities, communities are not separate from working with law enforcement. but you have to figure out what you can do to foster the relationships. and when you have draconian policies like stop and frisk, and we saw crime go down, after stop and frisk, we know that is a problem and not a policy we should bring back. >> let's go to connecticut, james, i, good morning to you
you're on the air. >> caller: so how are you doing today? thank you for taking my call. can you hear me? >> yeah, we can. you're on the air. >> caller: first of all the federal interest rates is one of the problems here in america that is really causing a lot of the shootings and killings. so we don't have to money to be able to invest in the communities, it's really hard for us to elaborate on the poverty in those areas. the second thing is the job monopoly, they have a plethora of companies that are owned by so many i guess individuals that don't have blacks' interests for mind. they exclude blacks from hiring. we look at the record and statistics. you will find real fast that a black man is the highest unemployment rate, as you showed
it on c-span before. the unemployment rate for a black man in flint is i think somewhere like 80%. and the schools, the schools, a person on probation for ten years, 20 years. these are the things that stop people from getting a good education and get a job and be active in society. see, we're not active in society so we can never ever have the ability to actually follow the rules the cops are asking us to follow. >> let's get a reaction. >> i think your caller raises a very important point. the reality is one in four african-americans live in an area of extreme poverty. and what we know is that in areas of poor communities, they live in areas with higher crime rates. so we don't want to talk about how to reduce crime in our completes. we have to look at poverty and
generational poverty and look at how we continue to pour resources, job, educational opportunities in these communities. if we do that and again, that is a wrap-around full-scale solution to the area of crime. i think there was something that the president said in his dallas speech that i thought was very important. we often ask our law enforcement officials to do too much. we often ask them to be social workers and education providers. and he raised than excellent point that we have to figure out how we speak to these communities and provide greaters resources, whether it's health care or education. and we have to address poverty, something we don't hear people talk about it these days, but is definitely an ancillary as we talk about crimes. >> to me, the whole problem, mass drugs, incarceration, we don't hear this talked about
much. the chief mandate of the criminal justice system is not to prosecute the guilty but to safeguard the innocent from wrongful convictions. just read the bill of rights. how can any american with a brain be satisfied with america being the number one in incarceration. the united states is -- no industrial eized nation even ha the death penalty. it's iran, china, iraq, we're the only country that has for-profit bail bondsmen, then we take millions of driver's license away from people. then what do you expect. to quote thomas jefferson, when justice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. but the whole thing is the mass incarceration. the blacks have destroyed, you saw in new york times.
1.5 million black men missing from life. it's broken down, i want to ask this lady. you need to start asking your friends or colleagues or who you debate or talk to, why do you think we have the 21st amendment? it repealed the 18th amendment which was alcohol prohibition because all the white folks were shooting each other their kids were shooting each other and they were being locked up. so all the women came out and said we thought stamping out alcohol would be a good thing, we have to admit we were wrong. and look, some of the banners in 1930, '32, red, save our children, end prohibition. >> okay. ed. thank you so much. >> you know, so ed raises an incredibly important point, particularly about mass incarceration. we are the world's leader, one of the few industrialized countries that still have the death penalty. that is why i have been so
heartened to see kind of the actions of the obama administration this year, particularly, and even as we sit here on capitol hill seeing a bipartisan coalition emerge looking at the issue of criminal justice reform. particularly in the areas of sentencing. although right now, i'll be honest that some of the momentum has stalled because we are in the election season but i hope we can move forth. getting rid of draconian mandatory minimums. looking at issues of why we still keep young people in solitary confinement, in state and local systems, it was out lawed in federal, but it's something we have to look at. the department of justice recently announced they will no longer use for-profit prisons. these are conversations that as a country we haven't quite had the bravery to address and the
courage to address. we're starting to see a bipartisan coalition of voices and actors emerge everywhere from cory booker, my president working right alongside people like grover norquist, saying that something must be done and that gives me hope. >> barbara, from tennessee, a republican. barbara, good morning to you, you're on the air. >> caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i have a comment and i'd like a response for your guest. nobody talks about this much, but it really bothers me. how about improving relations between communities and law enforcement by complying to what they ask you to do when you get pulled over. take a poll and see how many people walk away from a cop, i don't care if your hands are up or down, that is a red flag. nobody is above the law, it don't matter what color the
skin. but it seems to me some people are. that is a red flag right there. >> so barbara, for the video this tulsa, some people say that the officer told the black man to walk back to his vehicle. >> uh-huh. >> and that he was obeying the officer in that situation. >> that is exactly right. and again, this speaks to why that video was so important. but in this video that we have seen thus far you have someone who is complies with the officer's commands, who is walking back to his car with his happens up in a position of surrender. and this goes to the larger issue of training and use of force. if you are put in that situation. also coming to the psyche of terence crutcher. he has his car, he called for help for a broken down car. his father was a pastor and talked about the training that he gave his son from a very young age. quite frankly, it's the talk
that everyone in the african-american community has with their child from the moment you start to drive. i remember quite frankly the conversation my parents had with me. and these in some ways are life lessons that take away the innocence of our children but it recognizes we have to do something different and unique from other communities to bring our children back safely. there is a litany of stories that circulate around things you can be killed from by being bla black, whether the walking around, reading a book, buying skittles, or sitting this your home. and when these stories play out, and stories in oklahoma where you see somebody who definitions to comply and yet never makes it back to his four children that is something all americans should have affected by. h this is not a good thing in our country, we can do something
different than this. we're better than this. >> the officer is being charged, first degree manslaughter coast guarded against this officer, legally, what does this officer face? >> so it is a huge step that this charge has even happened. i think it is important to both recognize and acknowledge that. but the step in the journey towards justice is a long one. so this is actually the first step in the process. you will now see if things move forward towards an indictment or if a judge will see if those charges are the right ones that will be brought. we know in these situations and we can look only at the freddie gray case in baltimore, where somebody died in police custody, and no one was actually ever officially indicted for his death. and so we know that there is a
long road between charge, indictment and sentencing. but i will say it is a step in the right direction. and hopefully, quite frankly, we don't want these instances to happen. we want better training. we want law enforcement officers to go home to their family. but we also want african-americans to go home to theirs. and i think recognizing that we can live in a society where we can both care about law enforcement, but we can also respect the humanity of others and say that we need better training so that these instances do not become as common place as they are. >> wayne, harris burg, pennsylvania, democrat. good morning. >> caller: how are you ladies doing today? the main thing i'm looking at is jobs. the black man is under so much pressure. i have four sons. they go to work every day. on the job is pressure. their boss messes with them. their supervisor, then you have the women, the kids, black men want to do for their family if
you give them a chance. even with the police, now, if you have all of these problems in a daily -- daily effect, you are going to be pissed off. you are going to be upset. and the minute somebody -- the police approach you, they're scared. you're upset. now, i have 35 nieces. a couple of them work for the correctional institutions, right? all of their boyfriends do not have jobs. how do you think that makes them feel? >> i want to take your point, wayne. >> you know, wayne spoke to something that i think is important and was highlighted and i think in a "the new york times" article this week kind of is what happened to the psyche of communities after you continually see these shootings. there is a quote in an article that says it seems to me we're seeing modern-day lynching play
over and over again on social media. i think that is something you don't quite acknowledge, that there are people who are walking around with traumatic stress syndrome related to these incidents. there has been some research that has recently come out about young people living in areas like chicago and certain areas that are dealing with the same level of ptsd as we see for our returning veterans. what does that say about us as a nation? it says we have great work to do but there has to be an acknowledgment that affects communities differently. training is important. having the cultural competency and having the understanding there is a problem, there is something here, there is a segment of our american citizens that are affected differently from everybody else. and that means that we have to do something above and beyond to make sure that their lives are as valued and sacred and important as everybody else.
>> i want to see your reaction on this, in the herald in north carolina, trying to reach out to residents rattled by the killing of a woman this week and the shooting this month that left five wounded and one dead. >> i think that is the type of leadership we see from law enforcement officers all over the country. i remember growing up, we had the police athletic league in new york where local law enforcement would set up basketball games, boys and girls, all during the summer. what we saw was lower crime in those communities where these police athletic leagues were happening. whether or not we're talking about community engagement and police forming, just knowing the community you serve. and there is a power and
relationship there. again, that is how you build trust and bridge these gaps. >> let's hear from hyran in orlando, florida, independent. >> caller: good morning, ladies. what i want to say is our constitution is ready for truth and love. and the most important thing in our lives is our life. you just don't take a life. it's a son of god. and if we start the top and everyone tells the truth, see, a lie is the easiest thing to tell but then you have to tell something else to cover it up. and that is what is wrong with the nation right now. back up there in carolina, if a black person gets a position -- he has to go along with the program. they got to tell a lie and tell a lie until they're washed over.
and this is why it's so hard now because the blacks have said they're tired of taking these lies and it's going to get worse and worse and worse until people start to tell the truth. god says tell the truth. >> okay, hyram. >> you know, he talks about love. and i think that that speaks to an issue that one of your other callers alluded to earlier. how do we have greater respect and compassion for one another? that is why some of these things we can move forward in law. and some of these things we can move forward in public policy. but quite frankly these are conversations we have to have with our children. these are the tough, honest conversations we have to have with our co-workers. how do we understand and respect the humanity. and quite frankly, the indignity of these moments and what this means to our fellow brothers and sisters along the way. >> couple of more calls here,
margaret in franklinton, north carolina, democrat. >> caller: yes, i have three questions or comments for the guest, please. first of all, i hate to say it but i feel like some of these officers actually -- they already know what they're going to do when they have these encounters. they already know how they feel and what they're going to do. and second, why do they need to be trained not to use deadly force against non-african-americans. the trend seems to be working pretty well if the person is not black. and third, i always felt like since they have the power of life and death in their hands they need to be required to have a four-year bachelor's degree in criminal justice. that is the way i feel. >> thank you. you know, i think there are a few things there. so one, we go back to we do not have nationwide use of force standards for these situations.
and when the standard is just what is a reasonable moment, it lets us know that the training we currently have is not enough. that is why looking at communities like dallas that have the ongoing bias training, you have former gang members coming in to work with local law enforcement to have this training. that is incredibly important. we know these officers who are doing the wrong things, we do know that there are quite frankly some people who should not have the honor of wearing that badge. because of their behavior, things they said in the past, and we can't be afraid to identify those people and remove
them from the privilege of serving as a member of law enforcement. i mean, if we are going to fix this problem we have to be honest. not everyone should have the badge. not everyone should have the great authority that we give our local members of law enforcement. with great authority comes great responsibility. and we know not everyone is worthy of that. >> new cumberland, west virginia, don, a republican. >> caller: good morning, ladies. i think the problem is in the police training academy. we have to quit militarizing our approximapolic police, they have the attitude that their life is more valuable than the one they are pointing the gun at. >> i think you are very right, that is why i was very heartened after ferguson. those images of literally communities walking into
peaceful constitutionally sanctioned protests, members of law enforcement looking like they're preparing to go to war against their neighbors, against members of communities. those are not the type of images that should be coming forth. and you saw bipartisan voices, senator claire mccaskill, and others coming out saying we need to do something about that. you saw obama coming out to move that would restrict the law that gives military equipment to local law enforcement. that is one of the steps, but again, getting rid of the equipment is one step. training is another. again, understanding use of force, making sure that community policing is not just something we say but it is part of our approach to policing and living and working in these communities. >> and robert from henderson, kentucky, independent. >> caller: good morning, ladies.
the police are never held accountable for anything they do. please bear with me. when you have a organization that has hugo black, that sat on the police force, the nation's fabric is sewn in racism and built on violence and theft. and when you have people like mike pence and donald trump flaming the flames of racism, saying things he knows are not true, some people recognize and acknowledge that police are wrong sometimes. and when good police officers stand up and speak out that will bring about a change. but this constant jumping on people fighting the fight against racism, it's not right. >> yes, robert speaks on a number of things. you do have a history of some people like hugo black who sat on the supreme court with a
checkered past. but you also have progress in the form of sonia sotomayer. and saying quite frankly, we live in a country with different law enforcement than other areas. there is a power in having someone with her background sit on the supreme court and state that in the supreme court opinion. i also say that listen, the progress of this country has been long. again, we'll open the museum this weekend, with the african-american president cutting the ribbon. we have made progress. but it is important to recognize the legacy and also see how that legacy continues to affect police today. having those honest conversations are not the wrong thing to do, in fact it's what we must do in order to overcome
it. those disparities are real, we see them play out from places like charlotte to oklahoma to places like baltimore. and until we have the tough conversationings and look at these issues we won't make the progress that our country deserves to see. >> by the way, our cameras will be there for the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the museum, at 10:00 a.m. on c-span.org, you can also listen on the radio app. michelle jawando, thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> viewers can go to c-span.org for more. and listening to issues that impact you, coming up saturday morning, politics editor for the washington editor will join us for the first presidential debate. and then gerald carr talks about
race relations, and with the opening of the african-american museum of history and culture. watch live beginning at 7:00 eastern, join the discussion. leading up to the debates between hillary clinton and donald trump we'll look at past presidential debates saturdays on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern, this saturday, it's the 1976 debate between incumbent president gerald ford and incumbent jimmy carter. >> we were faced with heavy unemployment, 12%, but in the last 24 months we've turned the economy around. >> we have 500,000 more americans out of jobs today than were out of work three months ago. and since mr. ford has been this office the past two years, we have had a 53% increase in
unemployment. >> the debate with ronald reagan and former president jimmy carter. >> when i made my decision to stop all trade with iran as a result of the the taking of hostages i announced then and have consistently maintained since then, that if the hostages are released we'll make delivery on those items which iran warns. >> we had adequate warning to either strengthen our security or remove our personnel, before the kidnapping took place. >> in the 2000 presidential debate between vice president bush and al gore. >> i will balance the budget every year and pay down the national debt. i will put medicare and social security in a locked box and protect them. >> i want to take one half of the surplus and dedicate it to social security.
one quarter for important projects, and i'll send one quarter back to people who pay the bills. >> watch past presidential debates saturday night eastern on c-span, watch any time and listen at 8:00 p.m. and listen on the c-span radio app. on thursday, the house looked at sexual assault allegations, utah representative jason chatfetz faired the hearing on the oversight committee. >> without objects, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. we have an important hearing today entitled the examining conduct and mismanagement at the national park service. in june, national park service director jarvis spoke on the
issue at the park service, suggesting things could potentially get worse before he got better and boy was he right. we have been able to illuminate and find more problems that unfortunately have been festering in the system for far, far too long. since director jarvis' testimony, numerous employees have contacted us to discuss the misconduct at the park service and today we're hearing what the park service has done to stop the harassment and find out why it keeps happening. there seems to be some patterns here there are just not anything that we should come close to tolerating. these incidents are happening at our country's most loved parks, from yellowstone to the grand canyon, these are some of the most famous, visited parks in the world. unfortunately, they also face
allegations of disturbi ining misbehavior. it's difficult to have these conversations in a young setting, and i warn the parents that some of this will probably be a little touchy and inappropriate. but it is what we do in this country, we illuminate things. we shine the light on them. we're different in the united states, i say time and time again we're self-critical. we better come to a reality, because far too often the people accused of these terrible behaviors, need to see results. at least 18 employees say there is harassment, and lay the blame
on top at dan neubacher, the investigation concluded this, quote, the number of employees interviewed that described terrible working conditions lead us to believe that the environment is indeed toxic, hostile, repressive and harassing, end quote. i don't know that it could get any worse than that, but that is his conclusion. these are the words of the park services' own internal committee, not the staff or the office of the inspector general. currently, superintendent neubacher is still running yosemite. he is still there. if this was the only park suffering from these problems it would be enough of a serious concern. yet recent allegations from the nation's first park, ye
yellowstone, include sexual harassment so terrible that it is disturbing even to discuss. with accusations so alarming you would expect the washington office to step in immediately and insure that employees in yellowstone are safe. while we appreciate the inspector general to step in, the park service must be more aggressive in protecting the park service. we see it time and time again, it's not good enough to just say we're going to ask the inspector general to do it. the park service and the other agencies need to do their job in providing immediate relief, not punt it to somebody else to start to do it. it's not good enough to just say we're going to do a survey. i'm tired of hearing about surveys. there is a problem. in our june hearing, we heard about problems in the canaveral national park, since then it is concluded that the supervisors that allowed this conduct to
occur in the park were not just punished, some were even promoted. what in the world does it take to get fired from the park service? in most of the cases, it's not just one he said, she said. here is a case where well is 18 people. 18. who are talking about this. leaders who fail in their obligations to protect the public or their employees they need to be fired. if they're not going to take action and protect the employees of the united states of america then they should leave. we had hoped our hearing with director jarvis would have prompted change. instead it seemed to have been merely treated as a speed bump. based on what we've seen, the crisis has been to require additional training for managers and to realign the eeo, so that it reports to director jarvis. of course, this is the same
director removed from overseeing the park service ethics program because of his own integrity failures, including lying to the secretary of interior. i'm glad to see that director jarvis has announced his retirement. i think that should have happened quite sometime ago. but it is kind of stunning that the director of the park service is prohibited from administering the ethics program because of his own ethics problems. and then we wonder why we have a hard time implementing ethical reforms or implementing things at the park service. how are the employees supposed to trust the eeo process when the person in charge has not followed the rules themselves? something needs to change and needs to change fast. i would like to acknowledge we are joined today by two argue service employees testifying in a whistle-blower capacity. these brave employees have come
forward despite the fear of possible retaliation. i have to tell you, we'll have nothing of that. mr. cummings and i, democrats, republicans, are united in the idea that we will go to the ends of the earth to protect people who step up as whistle-blowers. it takes a great deal of guts to come testify before this committee in a voluntary situation and explain what you have seen firsthand. for that, we're exceptionally grateful. it's a difficult thing to do. i can't imagine you ever -- imagining in your life that you would be in this situation testifying before congress. but as i said before we take this responsibility very seriously. we can't fix it if we don't know precisely what it is. we have a pretty good indication of what it is. but to hear from the front lines what is really happening is a
pivotal concern to us. we want to thank you for your courage and willingness to step forward. and we expect candid answers. and we will do all we can to protect you from any sort of repri repriceals. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i do indeed thank you for calling this hearing. no employee in the federal civil service should ever feel afraid to come to work. simple statement. but it's very, very important. and no employee should ever feel retaliation, if he or she steps forward to report misconduct that makes him or her feel afraid or uncomfortable.
i thank kelly martin, the chief of fire and aviation management at yosemite national park and ryan healey, fisheries program manager at the grand canyon for being here today. i thank them for their courage and their willingness to come forward and share with this committee their experiences over decades of work for the federal government. i also thank you for your service. it should not have been necessary for them to be here today to testify. a task force convened some 60 years ago to commission a study of women in occupations in the park service. here is what that study found. some individuals in positions of
authority appear to condone either by their action or inaction sexual harassment and discrimination. the system used for handling complaints is not trusted by the employees. nor timely in its ability to bring resolution to complaints. that is a major, major problem. it went on to say employees feel retaliation if complaints are voiced. that was 16 years ago. the task force concluded, and i quote, it is critical for the national park service to show a sense of urgency in ensuring that all employees are working in an environment free from unlawful harassment.
task force developed a five-year action plan with nearly 30 year recommendations. so correct deficiencies within handling complaints and improvements. and sexual harassment prevention. however, the park service's own admission, by their own admission, few of these recommendations were ever implemented. obviously, there were folks that did not consider it to be that important. they did not feel a sense of urgency. so that task force report was filed away, put on a shelf. gathering dust. ignored. 16 years later, the inspector general has issued a report finding and i quote, the evidence of a long-term pattern of sexual a harassment and
hostile work force environment in the grand canyon district -- river district. 16 years later, the inspector general has issued a report finding and i quote, a pattern of harassment. involving a law enforcement supervisor at the canaveral national sea shore. and 16 years later, allegations have been made at yosemite and yellowstone national park about hostile work environment and even sexual exploitation. today's hearing will enable is to hear from the park service with regard to specific measures. it is plenimplemented to insuret all employees work in a facility where sexual harassment is not
tolerated. the agency's culture work force supports and reflects the diversity of our nation. i want to hear about the specific reforms that the park service has implemented to insure that all complaints are handled in a fair timely and thorough and consistent manner. i want to hear about the reforms that are implemented to insure that the disciplinary process holds consistent and fair discipline across all park service facilities and cannot be abused to retaliate against employees who file complaints. and yi want to hear about the reforms that bring the equal opportunity employment in compliance with the model program. in ms. martin's prepared testimony, she wrote and i
quote, with steadfast resolve to work together and confront the serious and subtle misconduct issues we currently face. we will set the north star for culture change for the national parks district employees. the commending of parks employees, i'm confident we are on the right course to reflect longstanding patterns in retaliation for park service patterns. i thanked them before, but i want to thank them again, because they're not only here about themselves and things they have seen but they're trying to make sure that the park service is a place to welcome generations yet unborn. however, to make the changes that clearly need to be made we have to hold the park service's feet to the fire. 16 years ago, there were those
that sat in these same chairs and tried to hold feet to the fire. but apparently the fire was not hot enough. well, we're going to have to do it again. i'm continuing to hold hearings on the park service every 99 days, until all employees feel safe coming to work and reporting this conduct whenever and wherever it occurs. as i have often said from this committee during the committee hearings when i see things that are not right, i often say we're better than that. and we are better than that. and i want to thank our witnesses for coming forward to help us get to where we have to go. with that i yield back. >> thank the gentlemen, i will hold the record open for five legislative days for members who would like to submit a written statement. for now, we'll welcome our
witnesses, michael reynolds, deputy at the parks service. ms. kelly martin is the chief of fire and aviation management at yosemite national park, of the national park service of the united states department of the interior. and mr. brian healey, fisheries program manager at the grand canyon national park, the national park service and the united states department of the interior. we thank you all for being here. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will need to be sworn before they testify. so if you will rise and raise your right hand. [ witnesses sworn ]
we're going to be pretty lenient, if you go over five minutes you will be just fine. your entire written record will be submitted as part of the record. mr. reynolds, you are now recognized. and you have to -- make sure you turn it on, but bring that microphone very close to your mouth. there you go. thank you. thank you, chairman chaffetz, and the ranking members, thank you for the opportunity to update the steps that the department has taken to update at the grand canyon national park, as well as the broader national incidents. the cases in grand canyon and the national park service presented us with clear and undeniable evidence that we must begin our investigation as we make to the protection of the nation's most extraordinary
places. on behalf of the senior leadership of the national park service and on behalf of the 20,000-plus employees who are outstanding employees, i share your disgust with the behavior outlined in the reports. in response to the allegations the leadership team at the national park service has committed to making long-term and substantial changes at the agency to stop sexual harassment and to insure that every employee has a safe and respectful work environment. this kind of change is neither easy nor fast. we will need to develop trust and respect among our employees, visitors and congress to make the changes that are very necessary. this hearing today is one step in that journey. prior to becoming department director in august, i worked for 30 years in similar capacities. my focus has been accountability
and performance management and change. as the new deputy director i am personally committed to providing a work place of transparency, inclusion, respect and accountability my main maki this a place for everyone to work, we want to become a model agency. i'll start by outlining the specific actions we've taken at the grand canyon and c canavera we have appointed a new superintendent, closed the river district for now, taken actions to hold employees accountable for misconduct and acted on 18 items and recommendations in response to the oig report. at canaveral, we have removed the director from his duties, who has been accused.
moved the superintendent, and initiated the action for the misconduct. the employees have received sexual harassment training sessions. nationally, we're working with the department of the interior and to change the culture, some including mandates for all employees to district the specific issues. and the staff to support the work force, the professionals, new reporting options, which includes a hot line which will be operational within weeks. the service is independent and confidential for employees, a service-wide work force harassment survey to be conducted later this year. an eeo office that reports directly to the director, and the initial support for their critical work, updated guidance,
equal employment opportunities and discrimination diversity and a mandatory 14-day deadline. these efforts will be insufficient without a long-term plan to fundamentally change the culture. the culture change begins with leadership commitment and accountability. and sustained ongoing training and employee engagement. in our centennial year, the leadership has focused on what we want it to look like in the second century and are committed to transparency and focused on the accountability. thank you again for inviting me to testify before you today. i'm happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. >> thank you, ms. martin, you're now recognized. >> chairman chaffetz, ranking members, i was requested to come
before you today with regard to the misconduct with the national park service. my name is kelly martin, the chief of fire management at yosemite national park, i have been in my current role ten years, prior to that i worked for the forest service for 15 years. i have 32 years of distinguished service for the american people. my testimony provided for this hearing focuses on management diligence to address this misconduct over the course of my career. my motivation for the statement is the culture created when leaders of our organization fail to take disciplinary action and hold perpetrators accountable for their action. it is not without note that the majority of people working for the park service, it's an honorable and noble profession,
myself included. i'm here today to tell you my story but more importantly regarding the testimony of dark clouds of misconduct that is not seen in the public view. when i began to work in 1984 as a college student i was sure, i found my dream job, working with others in the importance of public lands and improving resources for the american public. imagine for one minute being 20-something again. we have an idealistic view of the world that is equitiable and just. my ideal was soon shattered when i became the victim of sexual harassment, not once, but three times. one of my perpetrators was repeatedly caught in voyeuristic behavior, before his recent retirement. this is very difficult to come before you today. as a matter of fact, this is the first time i have come out publicly to describe the painful
scars of my past in a hopeful effort to eliminate these types of experiences happening to young women entering our work force today. i did find my own way to push past these experiences and decided to prefer my opportunity for career advancements, my experiences would go unreported until now. this is a highly personal decision a woman must make and it is almost always an embarrassing, arduous situation to endure. what brought me to testify today is due to a hostile work environment at yosemite park where dozens have come forward to report gender bias and favoritism. while not rising to the notoriety of the harassment, it is unlikely confined to one park like yosemite as you will hear today. the time has come to recognize
the hostile work environments that affects employees on a day-to-day basis in our agency. all members of the team that allow it >> the subtle overt nuances of hostile work environment and diminishes the full potential of most valuable resource. the people who cared so deeply and their desire to reach their personal and professional as pi rations. we owe this to our men and women who current resource challenges. as i walk through my 32 years of service i want to leave here today with a strong conviction of hope. hope for the future generation of park service conservation that will not know what it's like to experience sexual harassment, sexism in hostile work environments. hope for national direction to encourage engagement of women
and men to recognize behavior patterns. hope we can identify misconduct and take swift and appropriate action against perpetrators. the agency has many great men who will come forward to be champions of womens contributions to encourage and support equitable work environment. to women who are hopeful that my full written testimony will be the catalyst that's needed for change in our culture that is acceptable to everyone. thank you for the opportunity current situation and park services dire and needs immediate attention to ensure future generations of employees have access to workplace free from harassment and hostile work environments. i will be happy to answer any questions you have at this time.
>> good afternoon, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. i hope the information that i share will provide additional insight into the full scope of the sexual harassment and work environment issues and the efforts of the national parks address misconduct at the park. the vast majority believe in the mission are hardworking, selfless and willing to cooperate to meet management goals. nevertheless as this committee has seen in the office of inspector generals reports on the previous preva zif conduct there are exceptions. my testimony today may anger some of my coworkers and managers. based upon on my speercexperieny fear, safety, numerous protections in place for whistleblowers. thus i'm using caution how i
characterize these experiences to protect the privacy of individuals. i know this committee is particularly in findings of misconduct by the oig. i can report on the progress of 12 of the action items. first, in august, a boat operator that was implicated many of these sexual harassment incidents has been reviewed from this position. in addition, training sessions were held to address sexual harassment and reporting of confidentiali confidentiality. it provided training and the agency is making progress on development of hotline of reporting harassment, however some actions did not have the desired impact, by shutting down grand canyon districts and contracting, we learned that we had limited ability to problem vote operators for ensuring work as contractors. in addition, innocent employees that have worked at the river
district may be negatively impacted by having the duties changed. we could have avoided this uncomfortable situation altogether if they were held accountable for their misconduct. . remains in the chain of command and river district supervisor was assigned to chief raker position at another mark. the this appear to be a promotion to grand canyon employees. the individual and deputy superintendent and distribute related to victims of sexual harassment to the perpetrators which is a violation of regulations and potentially put the victim's safety at risk. despite reasonable and cost effective alternatives the forced my work group to continue to work with the river district which will become hostile work environment in 2015. it's not limited to the river district nor have all the issues
been addressed. beginning in 2013, i reported multiple instances of bullying and threatening behavior by members of the trail crew and program manager to superintendent, deputy superintendent and human resources staff. examples included retaliation by some members of the trail crew, directed toward an assault victim that reported assault for law enforcement. the confidentiality was breached and she was labeled with an expletive by members of the trail crew. the witness was later allegedly threatened with violence on two occasions. according to those involved, it appeared that the managers did not follow through with appropriate investigations, in some cases made excuses for this behavior. investigation into these incidents involving the trail grew which occurred in 2013 and 2014 was finally initiated in
2016 by the region the findings have yet to be reviewed five months later. years of unchecked misconduct by the river district and some members of the trail crew and termination of two employees that had reported sexual harassment and had employee morale and perceived work by safety. they remain fearful. i've heard the term, i was afraid to report harassment because i feared retaliation countless times at my seven years at grand canyon. reporting is discouraged. i was told deputy superintendent viewed me as a winer and my own supervisor -- lower my performance rating due to brian's problems to river district and trail crew. in closing, our new superintendent is improve the work environment for all employe employees. this summer the regional office received almost 100 complaints or concerns related to workplace issues at grand canyon. cultural change is difficult and will take time. the retention and promotion of
managers are perceived to be implicated may continue which will discourage future reporting and harassment and challenge employee morale and leadership. i sincerely hope that this testimony will lead to continue positive change and agency, thank you. >> we'll now recognize the woman from wyoming, one of the most beautiful states perhaps, second only to utah, one of the more beautiful ones in the home of one of our most treasured national parks will now like mr. -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're primarily focused here on grand canyon and yosimity national parks. it seems that more problems are popping up in the system. mr. ren nalds, are you aware of allegations by bob hester of misconduct among employees at yellow stone national park.
? >> yes. >> in an article published just before labor day weekend, mr. hester alleges that there was sexual harassment and exploitation as well as retaliation by supervisors at yellow stone, the article mentions allegations also financial misconduct, you know, who is currently investigating these allegations? >> the ig, inspector general. >> have they begun interviewing witnesses? >> the last information, as i understand, is they have not, but they have an arrival date of september 27th in the park. >> when was the outside investigator scheduled to begin interviewing? >> i had a first phone call around september 3rd, and i believe the following week, the week of the fifth superintendent dan wade began to put together the right mechanisms to bring an independent investigation team. >> one of the things that
concerns me, mr. chairman, about this is that in instances where the superintendent of a park is not implicated in the charges or the allegations of sexual misconduct and then attempts to investigate it or initiate an investigation quickly maybe the ig stops the investigation that's going on. i think that this was the case in yellow stone where superintendent was beginning an investigation and bringing in outside investigators to do an independent inquiry and was prevented from doing so because the ig was brought in, there by, delaying the opportunity to
obtain statements while people's memories were fresh and potentially providing for opportunity for certain of the alleged perpetrators to retire -- how do we protect the information that's being brought forward. at the same time, make sure that these investigations are conducted in a timely manner. >> i agree completely with your concerns. one of our new policy shifts that alluded to in my testimony that i'm doing is to establish these third-party investigation units that would be able to swiftly go in. i'm going to recommend a 24 to
48 hour turn around once we have a report. superintendent had begun that process. i would like to have further conversations with the i.g. i think they're doing absolutely their job to come in and do this. i'm not sure that they want to have a clean investigation. and so they did ask us to stand down a third party investigator, but i know the superintendent has expressed his dismay to me about how he's worried about the time for that. so we agree. >> okay. well, in the case of mr. wayne, there were no allegations against him. there were no allegations, to my knowledge, that he knew and looked the other way. what about the case where that is not true. what about the case where the superintendent of a national park is implicated, how do you deal with that situation. >> it's very important that we have somebody from the outside managing that process so that you don't have any problems, if you will, tainting an
investigation, right. so our policies to develop in one example we have a different region, an eeo director from a different regional office of the other park to direct the investigation and to work with the regional office. in our chain we have seven regions that oversee these different parks. to bring in some sort of third party that way in our current plan and current policy. >> well, before my time is gone, i want you to know that we're going to be watching park service, mr. heelly is treated and other whistleblowers are treated as a consequence of their bringing their allegations forward and that we're going to be watching the national park service because this should not be tolerated. it should not be unaddressed and it has been inadequately addressed and thank you mr.
chairman. i yield. >> thanks to gentle lady. we'll recognize the gentle woman from the district of columbia. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate this hearing. mr. reynolds we're grateful for they run with most of our neighborhood parks. but our neighborhood parks are owned by the national parks. we have good relationships with the park service. i want to know if this notice that these two parks and these allegations, these issues have come from are in the west, are they ours are people courted together or are these nationwide problems. >> congress, if i can ask just to clarify, do you mean in in other words are these unique problems. >> to the western part of the united states where parks, where the large parks, i don't
understand whether or not the staff. >> there instead of going home. >> right. >> very diverse system now. >> i will be happy to let mr. -- things can be exacerbated when you have communities. >> let me ask you. in the park where you're located in cabin, men and women and how do you operate, that's the only parts i know are the urban parts. >> many employees are housed, but then there are times when they're working out of bunk houses in the back country,
myself, i work -- it -- i work in flagstaff it's about an hour and a half away. >> i do live in yosimity valley in a cabin, a lot of our seasonal staff that's on a fire crew that will be housed in one house or one bunk quarters. >> there are opportunities there that could potentially lead to a hostile type of environment, especially with our young folks, so we do have. we do have close quarters men and women do work on a regular basis. >> would you caution the national park service to take such matters into such account. mr. hely, your testimony on page 8. you speak of a contractor. it goes to issues like you name alcohol abuse, drug abuse.
so i'm interested to how policies relate to contractors. >> i wasn't aware that contractors were treated any differe differently i do note that you said in your testimony that the concerns would not considered when the contract was ordered. i suppose that i should ask mr. reynolds. matters of like abuse of a contractor. alcohol abuse, i take sexual harassment are not taken into account when a contract is aw d awarded. >> i'll be happy to investigate what happened in this. >> he said he was told that his concerns were not considered, not even considered. that's what caught my eye when the contract was awarded. >> i would be concerned about that if that was true.
>> and we would like to know whether or not they're considered generally and whether or not that was an exception. >> any period of contracts performance, that should be to your point when you're living and working 24 hours a day, if you will, on the river, that may be where we have some. >> there was a similar report of systemic harassment of women and there were specific recommendations made, are you aware of that report. are you aware of that task force report of similar problems. >> were any of the recommendations p implemented? >> no, they were not as far as i can ever figure out.
how can we be sure since worked on but full implementation apparently did not occur. >> it's very regrettable action. apparently in that report, 16.3% of the park servicewomen in law enforcement, park rager and special agents who are women, what is the percentage of women in those positions today. >> i believe we have about 247 women in law enforcement out of about a force of 1,664, so.
>> so do the math. >> i'm not the best in math, but about 15% or so. >> going down or up. one of the first things that agencies and private sector does when this problem occurs is, of course, increase the number of women in law enforcement or in the applicable mission. thank you, mr. chairman. >> now, recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you mr. chairman. thanks to the panel for being here. and we hope this is a very worthwhile for yourselves, but also for the people you serve with, having spent many weeks in national parks, north, south, east, west. the kid my family camping, hiking, fishing and then was my family doing the same thing even as i look forward to being out in glacier national park this next august. impressive territories we have. impressive treasures we have and every case we've -- i -- my
experience have been treated with great respect and professionalism by the staff. it is concerning to hear some of the behind scenes. >> myself, personally, i have been the chief there at yosimity for the last ten years and the marker point for me was when we had the rim fire of 2013 and i happened to be off unit on another fire and returning. my duties have been to act as the agency administrator
representative for the superintendent when we have large incidents in the park. i returned, i told my supervisor i would be returning and i could assume those duties and for whatever unknown reason, i was not allowed to perform those duties that is part of my official duties of my job within the park. >> it was for me to not be able to perform that job and that function, wild fire cooperators and even our park internal staff that i was not able to provide that leadership. >> any rational reason given to you for that? >> no, sir. >> any reason at all? >> no, sir. >> so it was just an arbitrary decision that was made by the superintendent to not allow you to function? >> i requested to be able to
split the duties between myself that i have a deputy fire chief that took over two roles, both the agency administrator and also in the role of incident commander trainee. i was not able to truly perform that in that role. >> in your testimony you mentioned the fear of retaliation speaking out about what was happening at the park, can you describe for us this concern and where it stems from and are you aware of other employees that share same concern. it's not necessarily in our culture to come forward and to describe hostile type of situations or toxic type of environment. ours is certainly dealing more
with a hostile work environment. it's not dealing with sexual harassment, so that's not at issue right now. >> we have a superintendent and deputy superintendent who has been vacant for three years. so unfortunately there's concentration of decision making of one person that was not necessarily shared with -- within the deputy superintendent and the -- >> had that been done for a purpose, keeping it -- keeping the vacancy there. >> i'm unaware of why that remained vacant for the last three years. >> do you believe the superintendent's actions to be an isolated incident or are they
reflective of larger cultural in the national park service. >> it's hard for me to address the larger cultural. i have reason to believe that it probably is a larger cultural type of issue. i do believe that it is important for the image to be in house and for us to kind of take care of things in house and for us not to be able to share these types of issues publicly. i think it's very very important for the women that are -- that have left. the women that are currently there at owe similariyosimity t understand in daylight, the behaviors that really truly cost people's integrity and reduction in morale. >> thank you for your testimony. i yield back. >> i have -- just a follow up to that. mr. reynolds, there's two things
the committee would like to see. you have been unwilling, so far, to give us the expedited inquiry to the yosimity situation, is that something you'll provide in the committee. >> mr. chairman, we did give your staff, i think they call it an encamera. >> not sure what that means. >> i know we've had exchange in correspondence. it is an active investigation, i guess is the short answer that i can give you. i am not unwilling to share with you data when i can. i just don't want to infringe on something -- >> in your possession congress would like to see it. can you name anything that we shouldn't be able to see. is there anything classified? >> no, i don't disagree with your ability to get that. i'm just hampered. >> don't disagree -- you won't give it to us? >> at the moment we're having conversations about -- >> what's the conversation? what's the hesitation?
>> to keep -- to be candid with you, sir, to keep the investigative process as clean as we can while we're getting it. >> you don't trust congress, is that what you're saying? >> you said you're trying to keep it clean and won't give it to congress. >> it's just for public data purposes during the investigation. i will pledge to you -- >> i want you to pledge to give it to congress. >> i understand that, sir. >> do you need a subpoena, what do you need? who makes this decision? >> it will be a decision that i'll talk over with our solicitors, predominantly. >> i would also like to see anybody who has been fired, dismissed, or retired from yellow stone since 2013; is that something you can give to us? >> yes, i can. >> when will you get that to us? >> i'll get it to you within 48 hours. >> fair enough, thank you.
>> we'll now recognize the gentleman -- >> i want to pick up where the gentleman left off. this whole thing of retaliation -- and i was listening to you, didn't help but think about the question of how do you tackle a culture. it's not easy. in the police department i asked for practice investigation, the reason i asked for it. the things are going bad and wrong but they did not feel comfortable talking about it because they were worried that they would be retaliated against their comrades would do some
things that might be harmful to them. and when we got that practice report, it was ten times worse, ten times, probably 20 than i ever imagined with regard to african-american men and the way they were being treated by police. so, you said something that really kind of struck me, it said, i feel as if my career and possibly my safety and the safety of other grand canyon employees may be at some risk. that's a heck of a statement. and it's one that i feel pain that you have to even think it, let alone say it. the mere fact that you have said
it in a public form, it should even, i would assume, one thing to think it, it's another thing to say it in a public forum. what can we do to help, because as i see it, the culture that i talked about before, and i think that ms. martin is alluding to, and probably you, too, is one that is -- i mean, you almost have to dig deep and pry out probably a lot of folks, and almost start over again. so i'm trying to figure out, what is your hope. i mean, what do you hope -- i'm sure you thought about this, said to yourself, you know, there's got to be a better way. what is -- i mean, how do you see that way. let me tell you something, the
reason why i'm raising this is because, you know, in my opening, i talked about 16 years ago, guess what, most of these people weren't -- none of them, none of these people were here 16 years ago, accept me. they weren't even here. so another group of congress people were addressing this, supposedly and yet it has not been corrected and the culture grows and me tme tas size and i gets worse. i want you to be effective in your position. i know that you have your concerns about retaliation, about comrades being all upset. but it would be a damn shame if
you came here, you gave your testimony, and this is by great fear, and if it was not effective and efficient at what you tried to do. that's a loose move all the way around. you back and said say why did you do that. help me and looking at what you see, i think ms. norton said one thing, ms. martin -- how would you like to see us try to break this culture and if you have confidence, you made some complimentary statements about some of the things you've seen being done. then you came right back and talked about the negative impact of some of the positive things that were supposedly be -- that
were happening. so help us. help us help you. >> thank you. what can help if we can assure are protected at the same extent that i am. i think, you know, in preparing for this testimony, i went back to some of these individuals that had bad experiences at the park and i asked them to help me deliver that message here and i heard a lot of fear from those people. holding those people accountable is a really good step and i'm not really sure how congress can assist the park service in doing
that. >> for folks on the ground doing the work like myself or my coworkers that have experience and understand the risks in making some of those decisions and i think if the park service leadership were to more effectively engage its employees in developing solutions for these problems, then we would go a long way. >> what about you, ms. martin. >> thank you. i believe that we really have to start with the awareness and the culture that's been created over the years and we have to really, like you said, we have to rule it out. we have to really understand what's at the root of this type of which you will hur and this type of behavior that then supports sexual harassment. i think that's truly our first step is awareness of the issues of how those behaviors actually
ascend to these types of situations. >> now, on the board of visitors for about ten years. and one of the things we had sexual harassment problem, what we found is that a lot of the -- i'm going to some sense. >> a lot were doing things that were harassment and they claim, some of them, i believe, some of them i'm not sure about. she said she didn't know it was harassment. >> at some point we have to create an environment that's open and transparent with our leadership to be able to talk about these issues.
until we get there we'll continue to have these misunderstandings between management and employees to he said she said. and until we get to that point that we can provide this transparency and really expose it for what it is, we need to really talk about the behaviors and be able to communicate that. right now there's so much fear being able to communicate what that is. and being able to communicate what it is that creates these types of situations. >> i'm sorry, please. >> and then at that point, how do we then best educate our employees so that we don't have these kind -- we don't have these 16 years from now or five years from now. we've got to think about things differently in terms of how we can be more communicative, you know, with our senior leaders, right now that's not happening.
>> to convince us that you get it and your folks get it. i'm telling you after these lights go out. -- and then they've got to go back, they've got to go back. i mean, how do you assure them and people coming into the service or people that are there that they don't have to go through this crap. this is crazy. >> yes. >> and unacceptable. >> first off i will join you in protecting my colleagues. >> how are you going to do that. >> the first thing i'll do is we
really need to dive into the cultural issues as well as if you will the fundamentals. >> what about the person who is watching us right now who is sitting there laughing and i mean, i can't wait until they get back. pie parentally there are a quite -- how do you deal with those people because apparently there are quite a few. >> we can't let those lights go off. it has to be transparent from here forward. it has to be an accountability that everyone can see and touch. with our culture we're trying to pull together parts of the organization. we've never had affinity groups in the national park service or other employee groups that might come together and we're trying to attempt to do that in order for there to be a cohort, there can be another protective kind of place, people a safe place, if you will.
for management to be able to listen to those groups and employees to what the concerns might be. >> all right. thank you very much. >> recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. based on the actions of the director. further oversight of the national park service is desperately needed. this is actually my third hearing on this matter as a part of oversight of course, we're here in june, but also natural resources subcommittee, we were with director jarvis in may i want to thank ms. martin and mr. healy for your testimony this afternoon and what you've endured. director reynolds let me start with you.
based on your testimony i know you're aware of sexual harassment cases, specifically, cape canaveral, the operation there, can you tell me just how many complaints, total complaints came from there even, you know, those that are on going or resolved cases. >> yes, congressman. i believe there's about three complaints, but i believe there might be a few more ig reports that i'll follow up in on a confirmation with you on that. >> okay. there's actually been four. and, in fact, the washington post reported in early july that four investigations there since 2012 is an unusually high number they said for such a small operation of national park service as you just mentioned, these are the ones that we know about that have been testified to today, people are scared, who knows how many other cases have been swept under the rug because
of the culture of fear. during the time of these investigations in 2012. who was the -- the superintendent in charge. >> in 20 12, i believe it was superintendent pelfrye. >> that's correct. i don't represent the good people of florida, but just yesterday came across an article on florida today and they reported, like i said just yesterday, that superintendent is promoted to position of special assistant to the southeast regional director, are you aware of that? >> yes, sir. >> and as she has been promoted, she gets to work at home. she gets comfortable, $116,000 salary. and you mention in your testimony a few moments ago that the chief ranger at cape
canaveral was no longer at the location there, but you failed to mention that the superintendent has received a promotion to the southeast regional director. do you know where the southeast direction -- regional director office is located. >> it's in atlanta. >> if i could offer, sir, that -- >> let me go on. it is in atlanta and that's in my backyard and that raises a great deal of concern for me personally. you're also aware that he testified over a book deal where he failed to secure proper permission for that book, you're aware of that? >> yes. >> mr. chairman, you know, my point in all of this is the pattern that is clearly unfo
unfolding under the direction of jarvis that's under accountability for management and unsafe work environment and that has permeated throughout. >> he has to go through silly monthly ethics training once a month for the duration of his time. and so it's -- so here is the what people are -- what people are getting at the park service. these types of slaps on the risks and/or promotions. this is insane. this is absolute insanity. and then, mr. chairman, on june 16th. i had wrote a letter to the president. president obama, asking for the resignation of director jarvis and i actually have a copy of that letter here that i would
like to go on the record. >> what what we've heard yet again here today and what continues to be prevalent. i just want it on record that i stand by my position in requesting the immediate resignation, the director jarvis and with that, sir, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. we now recognize the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for five minutes. >> you know, the national park services are a great treasure, it's unbelievable if you've been to the national park site. i go to one every year. it's pretty sad to hear about this. my experience is one of just enormous appreciation of the staff that i meet from the bottom line up. it's really quite wonderful.
my census in general are the enormous generation for the work that. people who work there, it's a way of life for them. they love the outdoors, nature. they love the history and tradition. so it's very sad that have also parts of is a situation -- part of it is a situation that you're all describing. i want to thank all three of you for the work you've done and for coming forward. i'll start with -- with you, mr. reynolds, the culture i miss it's got to be away for zero tolerance. the culture in how employees are expected to work come from the top and that has to be viewed from the top down and then reinforced in every way. so what concrete steps can you take to do that, if the leadership doesn't take this deadly seriously, then no one
else will. >> we have to get this right. this has to be our top priority. one of the first things that i would like to do, i'm in day 52 here in this new job, so i'm just -- i found the bathroom, so now we need to get going on some very big focus through the chains of command we'll be meeting next week with some of the field leadership and i would like to be able to tell them at that point what we plan to do with a diversity inclusion outfit, it would be tied to my office. and that could start working on the cultural issues. you're right. we have some of the most outstanding public employees and we have to give them that kind of management. >> yeah. i don't quite know what that means what you just said. i don't think it takes a big meeting. it's like, look, folks, any unwanted advances just aren't
allowed. i mean, how complicated is that. >> we have put out quite a bit of extensive refresher, if you will, and reminder and zero tolerance policy. but i agree with you and i think it needs to be a step further, which is actions. actions will be louder than words in this in terms of the accountability. >> the action is, i think, all the people we wangt to get more women into leadership positions as well. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yeah. >> what was your job before this. what were you doing at the service? >> you were in charge of hr. don't lead him to believe you were in day 546789 you've been running the hr department since
2014, so your words are a little bit hollow in your hey, well, you know, we've got to do some refresher. and can you give me a single instance where you -- you said you have a zero tolerance policy? are you kidding me? show me an example of zero tolerance? >> first of all, i understand your perception and i've been trying to revamping the whole work force. we have a zero tolerance policy and i guess my point is to bring it into action? >> it's mr. welch's time, haven't gotten there yet, you have the job, when did you first take on the job in human resources? >> two years ago. >> april of '14. it's your time, but i -- >> i appreciate the questioning.
>> what is the culture that people in that environment are expected to live by? and people reinforced culture that's the way it is. it comes with pride. it comes with a mutual respect. give me all the policies in the world, but employees are not going to be thinking at the time they may want to do something that they shouldn't be doing, whether this is a violation of subsection four of article five in chapter two. it's just going to be -- we don't do that around here. and that i really do think is a top down responsibility. it's just every single day in every way. the reason i got a little nervous about your answer is that it suggested to me or this is the implication i have that may not be true. if we write the right policy that will take care of it. you don't have to write anything
and make me take care of it by having management make it clear that any unwanted advance totally out of line. >> i just have one question. when you were running hr, what does zero tolerance, what does that mean? because i hope it's not about writing a memo to do a refresher course. let me tell you something, the people watching this at this park service when they hear you say that, oh, boy, we're in great shape. we'll keep doing what we've been doing, tell us a lot of people when they ask their questions will know what you meant when you were at zero tolerancing.
>> we need to have a much better set of professionals. >> what did it mean when you were doing the job. >> it should mean that we have -- >> no, no, no, no, no. i'm asking you, you were head of hr am i right. ? >> work force director. >> all i'm asking you talked about zero tolerance, that was your thing, all i'm asking you is what did that mean? the reason i'm asking this i'm trying to figure out how you're going to ask in this position. because they've got to go back, i'm going to write a little memo and send them a refresher course. those guys are laughing at you like you're a big joke. >> right. >> you know what happens, they get screwed.
>> it meant to me to make the safest place we can to our employees. it meant that we'll have the ability to report that they will be protected. we have so far. >> i recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> levelheaded, reasonable minded, one of the most decent human beings. but you have managed to even get him upset. >> getting mr. cumming upset is not as much of a challenge. getting peter welch is. i think what upsets him when you have a fact pattern of someone
spying on another person while they're taking a shower, you don't need a policy change and you don't need a new memo. you need handcuffs and a trip to the sex offender registry, that's what you need. ms. martin you said a couple of things in your statement that resinated with me. you said it is a deep, conflicted and risky decision for me to come forward and speak up today and you said many women feel shame and fear of coming forward to report misconduct and cannot bring themselves to be the one who have the difficult and painful tasks of speaking up. here is what i want you to help me do. i want fear and the difficulty and the pain to belong the perpetrator, not the victim. i want you to tell us as much
about your fact pattern, your story, and i want you to stop and decide all of those instances where something more could have been and should have been done and do it on behalf of the women who maybe don't have the ability to speak up like you do. >> thank you congress for this tu opportunity. it is a conflicted position that i'm in right now. this happened, i was a victim of peeping tom at grand canyon in 1987. it was a very difficult and painful experience for me. i reported it to two supervisors immediately that first day that i was able to positively identify a park ranger in uniform that was peering through my bathroom window. i reported it to two
supervisors, visibly shaken, it was very very difficult for me to do. it was very embarrassing. i didn't think anybody would actually even believe me that something like this could happen. i was given options, i could say nothing and move on. i could file an eeo complaint or a criminal complaint. i had to think about that for a couple of days as to how i wanted to proceed. and i just did not want to make this an issue. i just did not want to come f forward and admitting a complaint this point in my career and be labeled as a troublemaker. >> to sit down tw the two supervisors that i reported this
to. along with the perpetrator. he assured me that this had never happened before and that it will never happen again. for me this has been with me my entire career. so when i think of zero tolerance. i think this is where the hardest part for me is to -- it just did not feel like zero tolerance, for me. i've had to live with this a long time, this particular individual continue to be moved through the park service that just recently retired. for me, i believe that this was the tipping point for me to come forward and tell my story, that this is why i could no longer remain silent. there are a lot of other women out there that i represent, that these very same things have happened, very similar things and they just fear that management will not take action and then we become victims again for coming forward. >> so the perpetrator went on
and finished his career with park service and is now enjoying the purpose of his retirement? >> that's my understanding. >> i'll just say this, you should never have to choose between your career and justice, ever. i'm sorry it happened to you and i appreciate the courage it takes for you to come and share your story. >> thank you, gentlemen, we'll now recognize -- >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for being here this afternoon and sharing this somewhat uncomfortable discussion with us here. we all know that there's an urgent need to stem sexual harassment discrimination by increasing female representation in the work force and, particularly, at senior leadership positions and
individuals having a say. ms. martin you wrote in your prepared statements and i'm going to quote, the jew wells heavily favor men in the most powerful position of superintendents, deputy superintendents fire and law enforcement mr. reynolds, how many national parks are there and how many park superintendents are women. >> we have 413 parks and, as you know, there's not a superintendent necessarily in every park. so i believe i'm going to find the actual number for you, but i think it's around 258 superintendents and i believe about 127 are women, just give me a minute and i'll give you the right number. >> it's about a 60/40, slightly under 40%. >> 60% are -- >> men. >> and then those positions
below that of the deputy superintendent level? >> deputy superintendents i have 58% men, 42% female and i will clarify for you, 62% men, 38 female on superintendent. >> and the parks that the women are superintendents over, are they the same size and scope in terms of geographic size as well as personnel as the men that are superintendents because there are different kind of superintendents. >> correct. i think it's pretty evenly distributed. we could look at that more carefully, i have not heard a concern on that level other than our demographic numbers. >> okay. i know that there are two initiatives to expand the presence of women in the park service. you said that it seems to be evenly distributed it's not exactly what the demographics of our country are but it seems easily distributed as much as
possible -- what are the initiatives that you're doing to increase the number of women in that work force. so we have the same number level at leadership, a 60/40 split. do you have a 60/40 in terms of middle management and in terms of the workers that are in the park. >> i have to pull out exact numbers. in our regional director ranks and associate director ranks. we have some initiatives in general to diversify the park service. we also have strong majority numbers of our employees. we're working across the board. we've set up a new recruitment office to be able to focus the hr community on that very topic. >> i know you have the women's employee resource group, the fire management leadership board. how are they bringing benefit to
the parks -- >> i think they're a start, but they bring us some tools and some awareness and some requirement on our leadership l considering those things. >> what are the goals? >> well, the employee resource group, there's a number of them that we're trying to form to give people, again, a safe place to have a cohort to bring forward, for example, if it's the women's -- we call them erg's,'m plo iy resource group, that they can bring issues forward that can represent a voice, they can be a defensive place if they need it. that kind of thing. >> i would be remiss if i were not asking -- i know we're talking about sexual harassment against women but how many people of color do you have as superintendents of parks? >> i don't know the answer. i can get it to you, though. i will tell you our work force is generally 80% white across
the board. >> i'd like to know how many men and women of color are superintendents and deputy superintendents. >> i'll get back to you. >> we now recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. reynolds, what steps has the national park service taken findings to the grand canyon's oig report? >> yes, thank you, congressman. we have about 18 steps that the oig asked us to endeavor on and this included everything from some of the training and awareness kinds of programs we talked about to disciplinary action. >> one of the action items outlined by the park service and in ons to tresponse to the oig s that appropriate disciplinary action would be taken by may of 2016.
to date, what, if any, disciplinary action has the park service taken against these managers? >> i believe everybody in the canyon, and mr. healey can back me up on this, have been removed from the job that they had. the boatman has been removed from the park and is undergoing a disciplinary process as we speak. >> well, as i was listening to testimony earlier, it seemed to me that mr. healey felt like some of the action that was taken was more in the context of a promotion than disciplinary action. did i misunderstood that or did i hear that correctly? >> i'm not any -- >> mr. healey. >> i'm sorry. thank you. the supervisor former river district was given a temporary promotion to another bark. >> do you think that was appropriate?
>> i don't and a lot of employees at the park feel the same way. >> let me read something to you that i find particularly troubling. it's a quote from the national park service expedited investigation from two trained investigators who interviewed some of the victims and it says "it's difficult to articulate in words the emotions that exuded from those interviews. it's apparent these employees have suffered in their positions and are traumatized by the harassment they are subjected to. during the interviews, the emotions inconsolable tears, anger, frustration, helplessness and regret." in that regard, mr. reynolds, do you think appropriate actions have been taken? your microphone, please. >> sorry. i believe what you were reading from, sir, is the yosemite expedited inquiry?
>> it doesn't -- well, i mean, it seems that there's a pattern across here that women were intimidated, other people were intimidated, they were traumatized and you gave one guy a temporary promotion. has anyone been fired? has that question been asked, mr. chairman? has anyone been fired? has anyone been terminated? >> no one has been fired yet, no. >> that seems to be a pattern. >> but disciplinary actions are under way and the one thing -- >> let me go on and ask a couple other questions. november, 2015, the oig found that the deputy superintendent of the grand canyon improperly shared personal information of the women who wrote to secretary jewel reporting the egregious sexual harassment. one former grand canyon employee who submitted a statement for the record stated given the culture of retaliation and hostility towards the victims within the grand canyon river district i, along with the other victims of diane shallfont's negligence am rightfully
terrified that the alleged perpetrators will contact us directly to retaliate against us. i'd like that enter that statement into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> the what action has the park service taken in response to the disclosure of this personal information? >> the actions that we've taken to date is to recognize that there was inappropriates actions for the eoe process. >> well, that's great that you recognize it but i want to know has anyone been fired? has anyone been demoted? >> no. what i can do under the interest of the privacy act for these kinds of things is to personally debrief with you on what we're doing with disciplinary actions. i can assure you that they're under way. >> all right, are i just wonder given all of this how any park service employees can trust that managers will keep their information confidential, that any park service employees can be confident that if they are haar harassed in any way that they'll be listened to and that action will be taken to protect
them. i find it -- it's disconcerting to me, mr. chairman, that we've had hearings with other agencies and that it just seems that this goes on and on and on and no real punitive action is taken and as long as we have that stance, as long as no real punitive action is taken, these type of things are going to continue to happen. my time has expired. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i now recognize myself here. let me go back to the expedited investigation at the yosemite. it's our understanding of the 21 people investigators interviewed, every single one of them with one exception described yosemite as a hostile work environment as a result of the behavior and conduct of the parks superintendent. why isn't there immediate relief? >> we -- i'm sorry, mr.
chairman, that was to me. >> yes. >> we are actively engaged, the regional director who's in san francisco -- >> wait, wait, let's explore the relationship between yosemite and the -- and the region. is there a problem with that chain of command there? >> the regional office that oversees yosemite is in san francisco, we have a regional director, we have -- >> what about the deputy? who's that person? >> we have three deputy regional directors. >> yes. >> and one is in seattle and two are in san francisco, along with the regional director. >> come on, you know what i'm getting at. >> one of the deputies is the wife of the superintendent at yosemite. and we have -- and if i may, mr. chairman, we have consciously stove piped that by having a third party in the midwest region, our eeo manager help run the investigative process. >> okay. so -- but here's the problem.
you have these -- these things didn't just spring up overnight, right? this has been a long-standing pattern. you have somebody who's essentially protected and empowered by his wife. i mean, people are afraid of actually coming forward and filing a complaint. one of the complaint is that the complaints get back to the superintendent and so when your chain of command and your ability to tell supervisors is impeded by the fact that they're husband and wife, how do you let -- how do you make -- how do you let that happen? >> it's even more important why this investigation is important to me to understand -- >> how long has it been going on? >> -- if these allegations are true. i am not sure, mr. chairman. >> what do you mean? you're the head of the work force and then you got a promotion. >> i don't know in terms what have the time scale has been, but that's what i'm asking the investigative teams to look into. >> who do the -- you mean the inspector general? >> the inspector general now is
involved. we were going to be doing our own -- >> okay. ms. martin can you shine some light on this ongoing problem? >> the expedited inquiry took place about the first part of august, so i can appreciate the fact that the investigation is now turned over to the ig, but with substantial credible evidence of a hostile work environment. that was number of us that did fear that the superintendent did release or did have a list of names when the regional director came out with the expedited inquiry looking for individuals that would be willing to make statements, either in person or written about their perceptions but of a hostile work environment at yosemite. so there was a number of us that feared that the superintendent problem got our names. we don't know how. maybe it was through the regional office.
we don't know. but there were people that felt they were not going to come forward and provide a statement based upon this expedited inquiry because the superintendent had a list of names ahead of time. >> were there any repercussions for that? what -- did you -- are you aware of anybody who had any sort of retaliation against them because they had stepped forward and made a statement about the reality of what was going on? >> not at this point. because it still is under investigation, we don't have -- we're not hearing about any -- no names have been shared. we only have an informal network of individuals that have come forward but we -- this is the first time i'm actually hearing what some of the additional allegations are in the statements that have been made. >> can you share with us any of your other personal experience? you mentioned that you had been
a victim three times and you were very candid in your -- in what happened in the 1980s. but when you came back to the park service, what was your experience? >> i came back to the park service after working for the forest service for 16 years. when i came back in 2006 i was very excited that my career was coming back to the park service. i really enjoy working for the park service. the but i -- experienced the culture that's very closed in terms of being able to talk about these difficult issues and when i came back to the park service, my fear was that the first individual that was the perpetrator for my first sexual harassment was still working for the park service and, indeed, he
was. and it was up until just recently that i -- this is why i made the decision to come forward, is that i really felt that it was important to shine light on the fact that this was the tipping point for me and so many other women that needed to have this heard. >> and this is a person who was arrested in the year 2000, high-ranking national park official accused of peeping at naked women at a ymca. then there's another incident report in 2001, they were having voyeurism issues, a police officer was sent, this person was found to be behind a home or a build iing. n highly suspicious behavior in that situation and, again, nothing happens. it seems to be a little bit of a
pattern. these are just the ones that they caught. so what we're -- if you don't mind my asking, and i hope you don't, what were the other two incidents that happened to you? and also maybe if you can contrast the difference between forest service and park service. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the other two incidents, one, while i was still working at grand canyon, i don't remember the exact year, there was an individual that, between the park service and the forest service we worked very closely together on wild land fire incidents and so this particular gentleman worked for the forest service, took pictures of me and put pictures -- my pictures up above his visor in his government vehicle. was quite bold about it and showed other people that he had pictures of me in his government vehicle. one day alone at my office on the south rim of grand canyon he was bold enough to enter my
office and tried to kiss me and i pushed him away and very, very visibly shaken and upset told a friend of mine about what had happened, went to his office, the forest service office and proceeded to confront the individual. i never had any problems after that, but i do not feel safe at grand canyon. this particular gentleman had applied for the chief of fire and aviation job at grand canyon and at that point i proceeded to notify the deputy superintendent at grand canyon at that time that this particular individual was sexually harassing me. i do believe that my conversation with the deputy superintendent most likely prevented that individual from getting a job at grand canyon. >> and the other incident? >> the other incident was when, after i left the national park service i was working for the u.s. forest service and there
was a private -- it was a work-sponsored meeting at a private house and i was sitting next to a superior of mine in my fire chain of command, was sitting on a crowded couch, proceeded to run his fingers through my hair. i immediately got up from the couch, removed myself from the situation, i talked to my immediate supervisor about it the following day. again, these are very embarrassing situations. it seems so ubiquitous in our culture, in the wildland fire culture that i just didn't feel that i could expose that as part of my -- preserving my career. but at one point i did mention it to upper management in the forest service and the appalling reply when i told him about it "well, it's his word against yours." so i think at that point i really began to really believe that there is a culture of
tolerance and acceptance of this kind of behavior in our work force and i have been powerless, although maybe i could have come forward with more formal complaints. i do not. i honestly felt that the preservation of my career and my career status with my peers was more important than filing a complaint. >> with some indulgence here, one more question. mr. reynolds, during your time heading the work force how many people were fired for sexual harassment, sexual misconduct or anything in that genre? how many? >> i'd have to look up a number and get it to you today but i am not aware that there were that many fired, to be honest with you. for those actions that you state. >> were there any? >> i'll confirm with you. i -- i don't have any recollection of any at this
point. >> i guess i'd like to know how many complaints came -- were filed during that time. >> yup. >> let's take the end of 2013. >> okay. >> to present day. >> got it. >> how many were -- complaints happened at any level and how many people were fired? thank you. >> thank you. >> i now recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for having this hearing. mr. reynolds, you're the deputy director of operations? >> yes, sir. >> so you in that responsibility oversee all of the national parks in some fashion. >> through their regional directors, yes. >> yeah. how long have you been on the job? >> since august 1. >> and why did you get placed in that job on august 1? >> we had a retirement of my
previous boss, peggy o'dell and the director asked if i would be willing to be reassigned into that job. >> so it wasn't because of some policy shift or shoring up enforcement or making a statement that now we're taking it seriously. >> in this case, my understanding is they needed a replacement for a retirement. >> okay. so you were filling -- >> yes. >> nothing wrong with that, but i mean -- just wanted to make sure. we weren't making a statement trying to deal with what's in front of us here. >> no. >> so how long have you been with the park service? >> 30 years. >> okay. so it's fair to ask you this question, i think. i mean, i'm looking at the fact that we've got problems at the -- you know, in the last few years at the grant canyon, cape canaveral, yosemite, yellowstone. i mean, you know, why shouldn't the public be led to believe that, you know, behind the redstones -- i mean behind the redwoods shenanigans are going on, people from being harassed
or worse and nothing is being done about it because the culture is a "so what" kind of culture, frankly. it doesn't take this seriously which has lots of ramifications for would be employees in terms of the desirability of service, in terms of the integrity of the national park service itself. the public wouldn't think this is a good idea or tolerate it and it would be very distressed and is distressed to hear these stories repeatedly. so help me understand. is this a systemic culture that has to be weeded out in the national park service in secondly would you, by way of self-criticism, agree with ms. martin that up until now it has, frankly, not gotten the serious attention it deserved? >> i would first like to say that i think a majority of our employees are some of the best serving employees i've ever seen in the federal workplace,
including folks like these. and they deserve a much, much better culture than we have. i hope it's not as systemic as it appears to be. >> wait, wait. they deserve a better culture than they have. that seems to be saying there is something -- >> we have a problem. >> -- systematically wrong with our culture. >> i believe we have a problem and i believe we should be making very urgent change to that culture. >> do we have -- is there training or orientation before i put on that uniform as an employee of the national park service? >> there is. >> on this subject? >> there is a little on this subject, it needs to be more. >> all right, when -- tell us what the -- what is the s.o.p., standard operating procedure, when you get a report, it's anonymous, i assume you have a hotline, i want to protect my identity, i'm miss martin but i don't want to be fingered because i'm on the job surrou surrounding the people perpetrating the harassment. so do i have an anonymous hotline i can call and have it
follow up on. >> you have to clarify, there's a hotline, if you will, a reporting mechanism, in each region for the eeo operation. we are establishing a new hotline as well, a third party. >> does that mean each region has its own s.o.p.? >> in general each region has its own offices. they should be operating from one park service wide s.o.p., and that's something we're shoring up as we speak. >> so there is a manual that -- if i'm a regional director -- >> yeah. >> and i'm new on the job, where to i go to get guidance? >> you go right to your eeo officer. and some folks have ee oh, collateral duty which is a fancy way of saying "other duties as assigned." they might be in hr, depending on the size of the park. >> sticking with s.o.p. because i'm trying to understand what's going at national park service. so i'm so-and-so and i have been harassed. i go to my supervisor, i don't do it anonymously and i report
fire ranger "x" as put the hit on me and very uncomfortable, i should haven't to put up with that, it's degrading, humiliating, i didn't sign up for this and i want action. what happens? >> they are referred immediately, if the supervisor does their job right, to an eeo specialist or to somebody at the hotline of the place that we were referring to. >> but you heard ms. martin's testimony. her testimony is that when that happened, i think, to her, the answer was it's your word against his. right? is that right, ms. martin? >> that's correct. >> so, mr. reynolds, going to the eeo person didn't work. >> yeah, we've got problems that i have to fix urgently. >> mr. healy. a lot of the complaints focused on the grand canyon, which shocked me. the grand canyon is so spectacularly beautiful i can't believe that you are focused on anything other than the beauty
but apparently our park service rangers are. what's going on in the grand canyon by way of trying to address this issue so that it does not recur and that we've actually shifted the culture at one of the great icons in the world, the grand canyon? >> we do have the park service respond to the oig. there's 18 action items. but i think very positive step was the assignment of our new superintendent, chris leonards. people at the park feel comfortable with her and she's -- she called me on her second day on the job. she's definitely someone that will listen to us and i think has been approaching our issues directly instead of pretending they aren't there, you know? she's -- she's there to make change and i think that's a big positive step for us. >> final question because i know my time is up and i thank my classmate and friend from wisconsw
wyoming in indulging me but would you agree that we have a lot of reform that has to happen in the culture? >> absolutely. >> thank you, thank you, madam chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you, first of all, there was an incident referred to by chairman chaffetz before and i'm going ask mr. reynolds about a situation where at first blush the wife was kind of over the husband, is that true? >> in that situation she does not directly supervise her husband. she's in the regional office, which is the next level up, sir. >> how long did that situation exist? >> i would have to confirm but i think it's been many, many years since they were in service. >> where she's -- >> long-serving deputy, maybe more than ten years at least. >> okay. i'll give you another general weapon and this, to me, is just more evidence why no matter how
tempting it may seem to my deletion you never, ever, ever, want the government to do anything more than they have to. mr. healy -- well, one more question for mr. reynolds. you said that you never knew since you're the head of hr anybody being fired for sexual harassment, right? you couldn't remember that? is that true? >> i'm going to follow up for the chairman on the data but it didn't hit -- i was managing systems and processes. >> how long were you head of hr? >> two years. >> two years. how many people do you have under you? >> there's about 18,000 permanents, upwards of 20,000 by the time the seasons come in. >> if you were tso you were the over 20,000 people, right? >> in general, the way our system works is our regions actually run their own hr programs. we have sort of the overarching system in process oversight. >> do you know in those two
years how many people were let go period for anything? >> we fire quite a few. upwards of at least 100 people a year for various infractions. >> okay, what do they usually do? >> there are often conduct issues, they might be caught stealing or they might be -- the normal range of things that you might have happen. >> okay. mr. healy, thanks for coming by, we've got to ask you some questions. how pervasive is the situation at the park service? >> i'm sorry, can you repeat that? >> how pervasive do you think retaliation is at the park service? >> my experience is limited to grand canyon and it's -- with a couple of the individuals that are still at the park, i think there's a pretty extensive pattern of that and that was all described by the oig during their investigation. >> okay, are you afraid of retaliation for showing up and talking to us today? >> yeah, i am. i am somewhat, yeah.
yes. >> okay. i guess this question is kind of obvious but do you feel the park service has adequately held managers accountable for their part in allowing harassment to occur in the grand canyon? >> i don't at this time. i'm optimistic for the future but, you know, it's -- it's been quite a while since the oig investigation came out and the park service response to that and, you know, we're in september and we still haven't seen some of the individuals that were implicated by the oig leave. >> slow moving. maybe i'll switch back to mr. reynolds. are any of these managers under any jeopardy of losing their job for their slow moving here? >> again, as i offered earlier, i'd be happy to talk to you in person or the chairman. >> well, are they in jeopardy for poking around here? >> for many of these actions as they are found true, yes, they
are in jeopardy. >> okay. mr. healy, according to your testimony, a former supervisor at the grand canyon district breached confidentiality of victims and was given a temporary promotion to chief ranger. what affect does that have on the morale of the employees when they see this sort of thing going on? >> i think it has a severe impact. i think it really does. i think that was probably a setback for employee morale and moving forward after this thing. you know, this is a really -- really big deal for employees. >> what was his position before and what was he promoted to? >> he was supervisory park ranger, i believe, and his temporary promotion was chief ranger at a park. so the highest ranger position at another park, from what i understand. >> okay. would you feel comfortable saying what park? i won't have you do that, probably? >> it's cure conte, it's in
colorado. >> okay, okay, interesting. i'll go back to ms. martin. i'll ask you the same question. how common do you think retaliation is at nps? >> thank you, congressman, for that, i'm fearful more of the repercussions, the retaliation i have not been a victim of and i think everybody knows that by coming forward we're trying to really truly have a stronger conversation about what sexual harassment is and a hostile work environment is so i actually feel somewhat confident that retaliation will not happen. but there are people that do fear that and will not come forward with honest statements. >> because of retaliation they feel like they're less likely to be promoted themselves in the future?
>> i think people don't want to rock the boat. they don't want to come forward for what they really see is going on so there's a handful of us that believe that this is an extremely important topic to bring forward and so i'm cautiously optimistic, i guess, that we will not be retaliated against. >> okay, mr. reynolds, in your past statements you said you were doing what you can to increase the number of women in management at the park service. could you elaborate? >> we are beginning to venture into much more aggressive recruitment. we've opened a recruitment office that we will -- we really have not had. recruitment has been done at the supervisory management level so we're trying to centralize that to focus on both diversity in all of its forms. >> okay. well over my time so thanks for being patient with me. >> i thank the gentleman.
mr. micah is recognized for five minutes. >> well, thank you, madam chairman and ranking member. i hadn't been able to participate, i got waylayed on a host of other things but i did stay up last night and read some of the testimony and the staff report. it was absolutely appalling to see what took place in some of these instances and it also, to me, is disgraceful that the federal government could be a partner into the abuse of women and employees and others and let them be subject to this type of activity. i just was stunned at what's going on.
when i -- when we came into the majority in 1995, i was the first republican chairman of civil service in 40 years and i got to look at the civil service system and you want a civil service system and it was created to protect employees from political interference. but it wasn't created to protect them when they abuse their fellow employees, violate laws, protocol, rules, and that's what i read page after page. it is just stunning. then i saw the movement of people from within the agency from department to department that one case -- and i'm sure it's been relayed here -- where you get promoted after you commit sexual acts against -- no one would tolerate in any other
form of employment. i sat here, i've sat through irs, i've sat through -- i never remember -- never forget the head of secret service, she came to me after she was brought in. julia -- she went to the university of central florida, was a police officer. eminently qualified. first female service director. and after she was there for a while she came in and she says, "this is almost impossible to control, i need assistance to determine -- to be able to hire and fire poor performers." and whether it's secret service, whether it's irs, whether it's gsa, fbi, other agencies and some -- actually some of them
are exempt, there's exempt and non-exempt. mr. reynolds, are your hands tied? >> congressman, thank you for bringing this up. it is a complex system. >> it's very complex and it's very difficult for you to navigate and it can take a long time to get rid of these people. >> i don't want to cop out by saying it's the process, well, i'm not copping out either but i'm telling you, it's the process. we've set up a system where nobody gets fired and when you do egregious things you don't get fired. it's easier to transfer them around and we've seen examples and examples. i read it last night and it didn't let me sleep well last night. >>s that gao report that says it takes six months to a year to terminate people at times. >> and that would be a speedy termination and the alternative is actually that they're moving people into other positions and
then what kind of message does it send when they actually get elevated. one of the most troublesome cases was getting elevated to one of the highest positions and everybody knew what was going on. it's disgraceful. well, i think the way to cure this is, again, you want to protect people there. we have thousands and thousands of wonderful employees in the federal government. you have them in the park service, i've seen them. they stay there late, they work extra time. they neglect sometimes their family but they serve the public. they're public servants. got a few rotten apples in the barrel and they're staying in the barrel and it's -- to me it's disgraceful that we haven't fixed the system that allows you to do your duty to clear the deck of people who need to be
fired, removed, and held accountable. would you agree with that? >> i agree. we need to move as fast as we can. >> well, again, madam chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. this is an important hearing. this is to the core of the problem we have across the spectrum of the federal government. i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman from florida. i have seven statements that i would like to include in the record. without objection so ordered. mr. healy, have you ever seen someone -- let's say a problem person, a sexual predator within the national park service either transferred laterally or promoted? >> i don't believe so.
>> ms. martin, have you ever seen someone who was known to be a problem employee for the reasons we're meeting today either transferred laterally to a different nps property or promoted? >> if you refer to my testimony regarding my first sexual harassment incident at grand canyon, that is an example of how an individual was laterally moved and promoted. >> well, what we've heard today are terms like "toxic work culture," "a closed culture." we've heard "go along to get along" culture and we know that within the national park service there are plum assignments. people will stay regardless of how long it takes or what they have to put up with to get to some of those crown jewel properties because they love
their jobs so much. in some respects that's rewarding loyalty. in other respects, it can create a toxic work culture. and it appears that the national park service, especially since we've had reports of this for 16 years, and that these matters are not being adequately addressed that perhaps promotion from within has actually hurt the national park service from addressing cultural systemic problems. n this area. so i will be asking the chairman and ranking member of this committee to prepare memos for the transition teams for both the republican and democratic presidential candidates to inform them of what is in the record here about what is going
on at the national park service in terms of a toxic work culture and how maybe it's time to get, as mr. mica said, some of the rotten apples that are still in the barrel out of the barrel. and maybe that's going to require people who have made this their career and have been looking forward to being considered for some of the very highest positions within that national park service to not attain those goals. because this has been tolerated. it has not been swept under the rug and now some of the people in leadership positions are just finding out about it. it has been tolerated and it appears that people have tolerated this in order to advance their careers into the highest positions in the national park service. it is time to ferret out that
kind of toxic culture. and either new president is going to be in a position to do that. so i will ask the chairman of this committee and the ranking member to prepare memos to the transition teams of the democratic and republican nominees for president and present them to them so when they're going through transition and preparing people to go before senate committees for confirmation that they know exactly what's going on in the national park service and they are prepared to address these problems. i thank you for your testimony today. it builds on testimony that we have in writing if. it builds on reports that we've had for 16 years that have gone inadequately addressed. it informs the next president that they better start lawyering up these agencies with people
who are experts in personnel rules and disciplinary rules because they're going to take a whole bunch of people through processes that have not been used enough within the national park service. i now recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> i want to thank the chair lady and for your words and i agree that it would be a good idea to get those letters out to the two transition teams and i think hopefully it will have some impact. to you, ms. martin, and to you, mr. healy, i thank you for coming forward. this is not easy. it can't be. when i think about you, ms.
martin, having left and then come back and i was just reading the file of the person who was a peeping tom you should not have had to go through that. and you know, i often think about how people come to work everyday. someti sometimes they have things that they have to struggle with at home, all of us do and then they -- but no matter what they get up, they come to work and when you've got a job like the ones that you all have dealing with the public you've got to put on a good face and you've got to be the best that you can be. but the idea that you come to
work and you've got people who place you in a position of discomfort, knowing that they could have not only an impact on your career but on your way of life and then to be able to function at your maximum with allover that over your head, that's quite a bit. and then to seemingly have an administration at the park service that through neglect or just a sheer sense of lack of urgency does not back you up, that's the problem.
the other thing that i guess goes through my head. is what i said a little bit earlier. you've been bold enough to come here to give your testimony and the idea that you might not have the impact that you wanted to have and go back and get hurt because you step forward is the worst thing that could happen. so i want to vow to you, and i'm sure our committee, everybody on this committee feels the same way and let me send the message to all of those who are thinking about, thinking about, thinking about retaliating or bringing harm, that we will come after you with everything we've got. there's no way that we will correct this culture if you have
to be in near and if they have the position that they can do whatever they want and get away with it. and to those who feel that way, feel that they want to retaliate, i would invite them to leave the park service. go do something else. because we want our employees to be able to be content. we want them to live a -- we want them to have a normal employee/employer existence. normal. this is not normal. it's not. it's got to be stressful. everyday. watching your back. who's going to hurt you? who's going to block your path? what's going to happen when you come up for promotion? who's going to be whispering things, "oh, she's not this, he's not that." and then you never even know who
did it. so all of that, that's got to be stressful. and then i go back to what you said, ms. martin, with regard to that whole balancing thing, do i tell or do i be quiet? do i say something because if i say something my career may be ruined. and then what am i going to do? how am i going to feed my family. those are real decisions. and so, you know, i know there's a survey coming out, mr. reynolds, but the thing that struck me is that 16 years ago a similar survey came out, is that right? and when folks were asked about sexual harassment that they've asked this question, have you personally experienced sexual harassmen harassment? 52%, hello? 52% of the females in law enforcement positions in the park service said yes and an
astounding 76% of the responding females in the united states park service answered yes. what's that about? and did you see that? did you see those things when you were there? we talked about these incidents when you held the position that you held, head of hr or whatever you called it, did you see some of this? >> i did see incidences coming through in terms of cases, not -- we haven't had the data to understand it the way that survey describes, which is why we want to do a second -- this new survey and to do it right this time. >> but this was 16 years ago. >> yes. >> all right. we've got problems. >> yes, sir. >> and we've got to correct them. >> and i would like to say you may hold me absolutely accountable that these people
will be protected with their careers and their lives. >> and, see, they know the names. they know the names. they know the names. but you know what? you can know the information and know the names but when you've got this culture, even giving up the -- just the mere giving up the names will cause them stress. am i right, ms. martin? >> without a doubt. i know that i have -- i'll be probably more -- i'll be facing serious repercussions. but i just have to go on record to tell you i have that a tremendous amount of support of women behind me. they could not do this, but the other important thing is that there's men that want to see our culture change, too. >> well, that leads me to my last statement and i'm so glad you said that. i want to say this to all the people that you just talked
about, the ones that back you up, the ones that care, the ones that support you. >> absolutely. >> they are -- they have to understand that they are the solution. they really are. they have to be that critical mass. they've got to stand up. they've got to back you up and hopefully more and more will come forward. and if changes need to be made at the top, they need to be made but they have to change it, help us change it because they're there. you're on the ground. i've often said, through our pain must come our passion to do our purpose. your pain has allowed you to come here with a passion and that passion has allowed yo tow do your purpose and hopefully we'll be able -- that purpose will be about bringing a new day to the park service by shining a bright light on its problems.
with that, madam chair, i yield back. >> i thank the ranking member. the tone is set at the top so the tone has to change going forward. i want to thank our witnesses. mr. chairman healy, thank you for coming here and for your bold statements. ms. martin, thank you for your testimony today and for representing other people within the national park service who are similarly situated but your ability to speak on their behalf is deeply appreciated by this committee. mr. reynolds, thank you for your testimony today. you've got your hands full. i hope you're up to the task. god bless you in your work there. with that, the committee on oversight and government reform is adjourned.
[ indistinct conversation ] [ indistinct conversation ] hillary clinton and donald trump will participate in three presidential debates before the election on november 8 with the first one being held monday night at 9:00 eastern at hofstra university in new york. we'll bring you all of the debates live on c-span. the c-span radio app, and cspan.org. white house spokesman josh earnest was asked about monday's debate at his daily press briefing.
>> all right, so monday night, the president have any plans, he going to tune in and watch. >> "monday night football," the president is pretty fired up. i don't know who is on the calendar for "monday night football" this week but i'm sure the president duds. look i would anticipate the that the president will watch much of if not all of the debate. i didn't talk to him about that today. but i think there will be millions of people across the country who will be quite interested to see the two candidates together for the first time and i imagine the president will be one of them. you, too, can watch the first debate live on c-span. our road to the white house debate preview begins at 7:30 eastern time with the debate getting you should way at 9:00 eastern. you can listen and live with the c-span radio app and watch online at cspan.org.
our c-span campaign 2016 bus is in ohio this week and asking students and voters which candidate do you support in this election and why? >> my name is wes davenport, a freshman business management major at ohio northern. this campaign i'm going to be supporting gary johnson more so because the other candidates i can't really just trust. i think both of them are very poor options and gary johnson is the only sane candidate on the stage so hopefully he can debate. >> hi, my name is taylor phillips, i'm political science senior at ohio northern university and i'm a part of pi sigma alpha the political science honorary. i'll be supporting hillary clinton in november, 2016, as i believe she's most qualified for the position. she believes in the same things that i do and i think she's running on a more unifying platform. thank you. >> hi, i'm reed farrell from
ohio northern university's college republicans and i am supporting donald trump for president. that i believe donald trump is the best candidate for us because he provides the most sound policies on national security, will turn our economy around and make us great again. >> i'm austin fitch from wright state university. i'm voting for gary johnson because not only does he try to understand important issues to people my age but i agree with a lot of his policies. voices from the road on c-span. c-span, created by america's cable television company and brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. next, a look at the economy as a campaign issue in the presidential election. two of donald trump's economic advisors participated in a panel that examined his tax and housing policies. this was part of the steamboat institute's freedom conference held in colorado last month. it's moderated by "wall street journal" editorial board member
mary kissel. is. >> thank you, thanks so much for that very generous introduction, jennifer, it's wonderful to be back here at the steamboat institute and i notice that jennifer didn't mention my msnbc appearance which is i would rather forget. [ laughter ] but i am absolutely honored to be moderating this panel. it's a very esteemed panel and really some of the finest minds in america. i will go from left to right starting with amity schless. if you don't know her, she's the author of multiple "new york times" best sellers including my favorite "the forgotten man, a new history of the great depression." [ applause ] can you buy it out front, amity, or no? you can, she's a good capitalist. "coolidge" and "a greedy hand, how taxes drive americans
crazy." she chairs the board of the calvin coolidge presidential foundation, she's the winner of the the bastiat prize. she was the head of the 4% growth project which is important for this panel and she was in a previous life a "wall street journal" editorial board member so thank you for being here, amity. just to amity's right is andy puttser, he is the ceo of cke restaurant which is owns karls, jr., and other chains. he earned a juris doctorate in 1978. from washington university school of law in st. louis, he started his career as a commercial trial lawyer. he's the author of "job creation, how it really works and why government doesn't understand it." he lectures frequently. he was an economic advisor to the romney campaign and he, too, writes for the "wall street journal" op-ed pages. last but not least steve moore, a distinguished visiting fellow
at the project for economic growth at the heritage foundation. he is a senior economic advisor to the trump campaign. if anyone knows what donald trump is thinking, it's probably steve moore. he founded the club for growth, an advocacy group that focuses on pressuring lawmakers to vote for free market, limited government ideas and he, too, was a member of the "wall street journal" editorial board. so no prizes here for the theme that is constant on the panel. so our panel today is a call to unleash american prosperity and it's a very opportune time to have this particular discussion. i don't know how many of you turned on the news this morning and saw that our annualized growth rate is now a whopping 1.1%. that's really an extraordinary thing to think about for a country that used to average annual growth double that, triple that after downturns.
businesses aren't investing, and yet we have half of the country -- or maybe i shouldn't say half -- we have the political left in the country saying don't worry about it, it's a new normal. we don't need to unleash american prosperity, growth is secondary, what we really need to do is redistribute growth from the people who have it, prosperity for the people who have it, to the people who need it. i don't know if you remember joe the plumber, the answer he ill lis -- lis ted from pennsylvania, he said "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." but is it? it's really a basic question, it's a basic divide. and it's an important divide because, as we've heard from the other speakers, it is provoking a lot of political unease. we had the tea party on the right, we had occupy wall street on the left. we now have donald trump and hillary clinton. really we have bernie sanders in the form of hillary clinton.
so let's dive right into this. i want to start with a very basic question, amity you're sitting closest to me so i want to start with you. is this the new normal? is 2% growth, the average of the obama economy, really the best that we could hope for? is there something different about the time that we're living in? >> 2% is the current normal, mary, but it doesn't have to be the new normal or the future normal. i was excited that senator sass was talking about teaching kids and all kids should learn the rule of 72. that you can -- how quick you can double your economy if you increase one of those two numbers. eight years, 9% growth. you're doubled. but if you have 2%, well, that's a long, long time till you double your economy, right? over 35 years to double your economy. we could teach that to every fifth grader for a start.
they can do multiplication. so to accept 2 is to cause thgrt shortfall which the senator described as $75 trillion, to cause it to be fact for sure or worse, right, steve? kbausz so because some of the math is posited on higher. of course we can change it. i'll say one more thing and let the gentlemen speak. probably the answer won't come alone from a policy solution cobbled together by policy experts but also by a reset, as uber reset the taxi medallion cartel business, by an innovation that so inspires people, maybe from one of you, that the whole mind-set of the country changes and we can talk more about that. but of course it's still possible. you need policy people and you also need innovative excitement to go to 4%.
>> before we go there. i want to give people a framework through which to think about this question. so what i hear from you is that we need to unleash economic growth, that not only is it possible but there are other benefits that come from unleashing growth. okay, fine. but andy, as a business person, are you able to do that? in this current environment? >> absolutely. the biggest problem we're facing right now is the government and we need rational tax policy, we need rational regulatory policy, we need an energy policy that gets us energy independent where we stop sending billions of dollars to the middle east because our biggest problem really isn't the global warming it's radical islamic terrorism. maybe we should stop sending money to the countries that sponsor it. and we could if we developed our energy. [ applause ] and we need rational frayed policy. look, trade is good, even donald trump said trade is good, i think he understands it very well. but we don't need massive trade
deficits. there's nothing wrong with trade deficits but they don't need to be massive. if we had better negotiated deals and enforced the deal wes had we've have a more rational trade policy and finally we need rational immigration policy. we need immigrants, we need talented people in this country, we need educated people, we need seasonal workers but we don't need sanctuary cities, we don't need a border that's porous where people can just cross. we need rational government policies and then we could grow. but the problem is a broader problem of what do we address? do we address the underlying problem which is economic growth? economic growth would solve all these problems, it would solve income inequality, it would solve wealth redistribution, everybody would have more of a bigger pie instead of smaller and diminishing equal pieces of a smaller pie. so the problem isn't for example income inequality, the problem is a lack of opportunity and too much poverty and if we had
economic growth we would increase opportunity about decrease poverty which is the way we really get around the issue of whether or not we need economic growth, we obviously need economic growth. the policies we're seeing now out of the obama administration and proposed by hillary clinton are problems that try and take the results of economic growth and produce them without any economic growth. in other words they want to lift people up from the bottom but they want to do it from taking people at the top. >> but we have countries that have done that. amity and i were talking before about japan, for instance. they haven't grown for 20 years. they're happy redistributing the pie. hillary clinton would say that's fine, we should be happy with that. what's the counter argument? >> well, there's something we have in the united states that you don't have a lot of in japan and that's earned success. you know, since these 13 ko colonies broke from england and
ins opportunitied democratic capitalism we went from within 110 years from being nothing to being the world's largest economy. an economy that's driven growth worldwide american capitalism across the globe over the past 20 to 30 years according to the imf and the world bank have lifted a billion people out of poverty. we've gone from a huge percentage of people being in poverty 5, 5%, down 21% living on poverty wages. this is due to american free enterprise. this is other countries like china adopting red capitalism and leaving their militaristic socialism. it's the soviet union lifting the lives of the eastern europeans. it's india opening up its markets and seeing incredible growth. something something that can lift everybody worldwide. it started in the united states, we showed them how to do it and if we back off and stop doing it i fear not only for our country but the world.
i want to see my children have the same opportunity i had and in hillary clinton's america or japan they don't have it. >> steve -- [ applause ] >> i'll clap for that. i'll clap for that. has the right lost the argument for economic growth? >> oh, no, i think the left has lost the argument, frankly. if you look at what they promised what they would produce and what they've had there's no question that you mentioned that news this morning. the economy now officially has grown by 1% over the last six months so we've down shifted from 2% growth down to 1%. by the way i don't know if you heard the other news, but nancy pelosi, kbabarbarra streisand, michael moore have promised that if donald trump wins the election they will leave the country. [ cheers and applause ] mary, i know you've been skeptical about trump but i thought that might pull you over
the top. so we've had 1% growth and the left has a lot of explaining to do. the way i put this, in fact, i brought a couple quick charts i wanted to show you. can you put that powerpoint up? i wanted to show you the problem. here it is. what i like to do is compare the record of reagan versus the record of obama and it's a nice economic experiment because as you know, andy, both of these presidents came in during terrible times for the economy. how many of you remember 20% mortgage interest rates and double digit inflation under reagan? that was -- i would argue that was the worst period ever for the u.s. economy since the great depression but the economy was imploding under the melees of jimmy carter and what was reagan's philosophy? it was cut tax rates, get inflation under control and
provide stability in our currency, reduce regulations and in one sentence, mary, i would say the reagan philosophy was, remember this one? government is not the solution -- government is not the problem -- >> government is the problem. >> that's what the reagan philosophy was. obama came in during a period of incredible economic crisis, we had the housing market, the stock market had imploded. we had 7 million lost jobs, no questions both these presidents came in and look at obama's agenda was to fix the economy, it was straight line -- they took every page out of the liberal play book. remember the $830 billion stimulus bill for things like solyndra and food stamps and unemployment insurance and remember those shovel ready projects and then we had obamacare then we had three tax increases on the rich and then we had -- we borrowed $8 trillion over the last eight years. we've borrowed more under barack obama than we borrowed from
george washington through george w. bush. we had three minimum wage increases as you know, andy. so there's not much left they could do. they tried everything they thought of and the results are shown that -- can you put the chart back up? look at this, the black line is the obama record for recovery. what i'm doing is comparing economic recoveries. we've had nine or ten recessions since the end of world war ii. the black line is the obama recovery. we've grown 15% now. and, by the way, that doesn't include the latest quarter numbers where we grew by 1.1%. the blue line is the average recovery. so i looked at the last eight recoveries and said what was the growth path? and what you can see there is that even relative to an average recovery this has been half the growth rate. now, here's the killer for liberals. look at the reagan growth rate. and look at the difference there. we had 36% growth in the first seven years under reagan versus
15% under obama. if you're a liberal, how do you explain that? they don't have much of an explanation, frankly. the number you see at the top, $3.1 trillion. that mary, is what i call the growth gap. that is the difference between where we should be if we had had a reagan expansion versus where we are today.