tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 24, 2016 4:00am-6:01am EDT
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,