>> tonight, the house oversight committee looks into allegations of sexual misconduct at the national park service, senate leaders comment on the shooting at an orlando nightclub. and how presidents use power in conducting the war on terror. an inspector general's alleged sexual misconduct by national park service workers at the canaveral shores. jonathan jarvis addressed the allegations and discussed efforts to prevent sexual

harassment. congressman jason chaffetz chairs this two hour long meeting. >> good morning, the committee comes to order and without objection the chair is authorized to call recess. we will have hearing about the national park service. 2016 represents the hundred year since the park service was founded. we find an agency in crisis. we have good, hard working people who do good service for this nation. they serve the public as attending the parks at record

numbers but we are having problems. we should be working to increase visitation and providing recreational opportunities to the american people. the mission of the national park service to is honor the values for this generation and future generations. but that doesn't work when you have multiple cases of long-standing employee misconduct that is distracting the agency from the mission. there is no doubt when you hire tense of thousands of people there is going to be bad apples. they will cause disruption and heartache to a lot of people if not dealt with in a swift and appropriate manner. during the last few months, the

department of interior inspector general issued reports highlighting the failures and the park service is failing to protect employees in particular from a rash of sexual harassment. when the employees suffer harassment they are discouraged from reporting it and sometimes retaliated against. the inspect patience general issued another warning showing a pattern of behavior in another part. across the country, sexual harassment at the river district was so bad it took a letter from 13 victims directly to the secretary interior before any action was taken. this behavior had been going on allegedly for a decade. the superintendent of the grand cannon himself had a history of inappropriate behavior. 2008, the inspector general determined that he unethically profited on the sale of land to

a park who oversaw. he was found to made misleading statements related to the sale and at the time his supervisor was superintendent jarvis who decideded a letter of repremand was enough punish. the director was there to protect his friend instead of firing him and offered him a cushy job in washington, d.c. for over a decade, the service failed to meet the eeoc requirements. claims can take years to process and services consistently maintain to function in the program. the grand cannon has taken two years to realitate from whistle blowers.

we are seeing the disregard for the eeo process shows the failures that are multiplied by the park service. they are not adequately overseeing their contracts also and hopefully we get into that. but they fail to maintain ethical standards at the highest level. jarvis was removed from the ethical forum, and failed to get a book done, and lied to the secretary interior and tried to cover up the track. something needs to change and it needs to change fast. we cannot keep continuing to turn a blind eye to the misconduct or discourage employees from reporting misconduct. it erodes the american face for the government and destroys

moral for the vast majority of hard working employees that a bide by the rules and shouldn't have to go to work in a hostile manner. when they don't sense that they will be taken care of it creates a culture that is hostile. it should not be tolerated. there are ethical problems, there are backlogs of projects, and lack of plans to deal with the backlogs. inconsistency in the laws and rules. and these are just some of the things plaguing the park service. i yield back the balance of my time and recognize ranking member mr. cummings. >> thank you very much, chairman. today's hearing involves a variety of allegations that the national park service

unfortunately spanning several years. i want to thank our witnesses for being here today including national park director, jonathan jarvis, deputy inspector general mary kendall whose office has issued many of the reports we will be discussing today. for example, the inspector general's office has identified an instance of contract spearing at the denver service center. unauthorized purchase of automatic weapons at the mohave national reserve and the improper use of government housing at yellowstone national park. as a result of the inspector general's work, we also learned that director jarvis violated

federal ethics rule when he wrote and published a book about clearing it through the department's ethics office. although, he does not appear to have benefited financially, he showed contempt for the government's ethics rules when he told the inspector general's office he would probably do the same thing again. that is amazing. he would do it again. he has and i quote always pushed the envelope. end of quote. the chairman talked about morale and the public confidence in government and that kind of attitude is a very thing that leads to low morale.

it leads to a lack of confidence by the public. so, as a result, the director has now been stripped of his authority over at the national park service and is undergoing mandatory ethics training himself right now. most troubling of all, i have reports from the inspector general's office that detail, and i quote, and this is very upsetting, a long pattern of sexual harassment, and hostile work zone at the grand cannon river district. the grand cannon's former superintendent received a report in 2013 documenting multiple allegations of sexual harassment. but that report did not determine whether further

questions were warranted or whether disciplinary actions should be pursued. a year later, 13 former employees spent their allegations of abusive behavior to the second of the interior. the secretary referreded these allegations. the inspector general identified 22 others who quote reported witnesses or receiving sexual hostile work environments at work. and the inspector general's office also found that previous cases of sexual harassment, and i quote, were not properly investigated or reported end of quote. in addition, in the last few

days the inspector's new report detailing, and i quote, pattern of sexual harassment end of quote against three female employees by law enforcement supervisor at the canaveral national beach port. these reports obviously raise serious issues. woman have the right to work anywhere, including our national parks, without fear they may be harassed by fellow employees, or retaliated against by managers who may report means abuses. equal opportunity employment program and a program that handles complaints of retaliation and harassment does not meet the most basic

standards of a model program. these reports demonstrate how critical it is the senate pass the federal employee anti-discrimination act which chairman co-authored. i want to talk about the funding for the arlington memorial bridge that was built in 1932 across the potomic river. an inspection in february found the bridge had severely deteriorated. the bridge is slated to be shutdown within five years if there is not rehabilitation that

cost estimated $200 million. while the national park service entire transportation budget for 2016 is $268 million. this is an issue congress needs to address and i hope our witnesses will be able to discuss this as well. for that, mr. chairman, i anxiously look forward to the testimony. >> thank you. we will hold the record open for five legislative days. we will now recognize witnesses. starting with mr. jonathan jarvis, the director of the national park service at the united states department of interior. we have mary kendall who is the deputy inspector general at the united states department of the interior. pursuant to rules, all witnesses have to be sworn in. please rise and raise your right hand. do

>> sometimes those mistakes happen at the top. last year, i wrote a book to celebrate the national park. a wrote this book in my personal capacity and directed any book proceeds go to the non-profit publisher. i donated a copy to the npf and received no personal benefit from the sales of the book. that was never my goal. i wrote that book without appropriate appreciation to follow and received formalal reprimand and i am participating in ethics training.

i was wrong. it was wrong to not seek ethics guidan guidance. i have apologized to all employees from my memo distributed them and urge them to learn from my mistake and ask for ethics guiding when needed. i was held accountable for my mistake. holding employees accountable is essential to uphold the public's trust. when mistakes are identified, we must follow due process and determine an appropriate response. the nps identifies misconduct and rer refers to the inspector general sometimes. for instance, the improper fire

arm purchase in the mohave was investigated and people were held accountable. the nps is committed to cooperating with the inspector general and takes their reports seriously. the recent report on the sexual hara harassment at the cannon river district is one example of that and we are disappointed and protecting and changing the conditions that allowed this to happen. we are committed to changing the culture that allowed such harassment to develop and occur. among leadership, we take a comprehensive view at sexual harassment identifying and fixing the conditions that allow the harassment to take place, have work environments where people are treated with dignity and hold the people who engage in sexual assault

accountability. the super intendant resigned and we will be replacing him soon. the department of defense reduced sexual harassment and we learn from them. we will conduct the anonymous survey of employees to understand the prevalence of sexual harassment and use that information to inform every level of the organizations. we are committed to making sure every nps employee can work in a safe and security environment and is treated with respect. thank you. that concludes by oral statement. >> ms. kendall, you are recognized for five minutes now. >> mr. chairman, ranking member cummings, and members of the committee sh thank you for the opportunity to testify about a series of reports the office of inspector general has issued regarding misconduct with the

national park service. the office of inspector general is the independent body that investigates matters that violate the public trust. we have experience unveiling other conduct violations and the high ranking members who are committing this makes it detriment to the morale of employees and the reputation of all federal employees. as a whole, those who engage wrongdoing are in the minority. misconduct by those few, receives noterity and casts a shadow over the entire department. that shadow remains large and following the investigative reports, including those that substantiated it at the grandconian and ethics

violations by director jarvis and misuse of the housing at yellowstone. this is glaring example of nps failing to take proper action when employees reported wrongdoing. after receiving an investigative report on the chief ranger of yellowstone national park violating the rules of the park housing, the chief ranger was transferred to another park and remains superintendent. a recent article raised concerns about the concerns at cape canaveral national sea shore. the oig has issued four reports on misconduct and three of the four reports had allegations against the park's rangers including violation of procurement rules, and conduct against law enforcement officer, and sexual harassment. last week we issued a report by

the same chief ranger who continues to serve in that position despite three allegations against him in less than two years. nps has not had time to respond to the most recent report but with three other reports in four years this is a profound example of the leadership problem that nps has failed to address at multiple levels. finally, the same superintendent has been at canaveral since 2010 and was named as a subject in our 2012 report and found by the merit system protection board to have committed a reprise against. the department doesn't do well in holding countable those employees who engage in this management or misconduct. we see too few examples of senior leaders making the difficult decision to impose meaningful corrective action and hold their employees

accountable. often, they avoid discipline all together and in attempts to direct the misconduct by transferring or counseling an employ a which is v viewed by others by condoning the activity. a pattern of accountability must begin at the top. consistent messaging by senior leadership provides a clear message of what behavior is affected. we have encouraged leadership to demonstrate more support to those who serve in gatekeeper rolls such as contracting officers and human resource personal. many gatekeepers feel undue pressure from managers to make things happen regardless of rules and regulations such as that recently detailed in our report concerning allegations that the now former director of the nps denver center improperly

directed a contract award. working with interior secretary, chief of staff, and office of solicitor we have witnessed an increased effort to be more responsi responsive in corrective action regarding employee wrongdoing. we would like to see the same at the bureau level taking prompt disciplinary actions in response to our report of misconduct. this concludes my spoken testimony. i would be happy to answer any questions the subcommittee has. >> thank you both. i will recognize myself for five minutes. i would agree people make mistakes, director jarvis. but i draw a line between mistake and deception. june 11th, of 2015, you wrote a hand written note to sally jewel, the secretary of the department of interior, it was

four sentences long, barely two paragraphs, is there anything wrong or deceptive about that hand written note you gave the secretary? >> no, i wrote the note to let more know that i had published this book. it was her, i think, first awareness of the book. i said there were no ethics issues because i had written it on my own time. i had asked eastern national and i said they requested it of me and they publish a lot of books for the national park service and all benefits are going to the national park foundation. when i wrote that note, i thought i was following the ethics' rules with the exception i had not asked permission.

>> why didn't you ask for permission? >> i felt that the book would be subject to extensive review and probably not get published. >> you made a decision not to ask ethics because you thought you would not get the result you ultimately wanted. did eastern national request you write the book? or did you request of eastern national that you write the book? >> the facts of the case are i asked eastern national if they were interested in the book and they responded to say let me ask you to make the book. >> they had a multi-million contract with the park service; correct? >> no, they had no contact. they are a cooperating association. >> it results in millions in business. here is my problem with what you wrote. it was not true.

it was deceptive. it was intended to make the appearance to the secretary of the interior that there was no ethical problems and if you were doing this at the request of eastern national. neither of these were true, correct? >> i think it was incorrect. >> why should the secretary trust me? why should we trust you? >> because i have served as a public servant for 40 years and in leadership roles for 20 years. i don't know that i take -- >> i take issue with the fact it is impeccable. you give a hand written note to the secretary of in tear area and deceived her. >> i apologized profusely. >> what you said, ms. kendall, confront you to weigh in -- want.

was it transcription or what was this interview with the director? he asked director jarvis looking back if he would do anything differently and it is quoted and is that because it was tr transcribed. you were asked would you have done the same thing and you said -- i have gotten in trouble for not getting permission and always pushed the envelope. that is your quote, right? >> that is my quote. >> and you are apologizing because we are having a public hearing >> no, i apologized long before this hearing. i apologized to the secretary and the nps.

that was a mistake and i full h dogs -- fully own it. >> this chief ranger on the canaveral shore, this is a small park in the scheme of thing with 50 or so employees. >> it is a small park. i don't know what the staffing size is. >> ranger corea, three documented cases of sexual harassment problems, procurement problems, your office is handing out safety awards.

you have three sexual harassment issues, you go to the superintendent and he had allegations of reprise that were found by the merit protection board and result into a settlement. you had to go into a settlement with the national park service and the person is still on the job. >> his commission has been removed but he is still a federal employee but his responsibilities have been removed. >> this is more than just an isolated incident where somebody made a mistake. ms. kendall, you have been looking at this give us your perspective, first, if you would, on the note written by director jarvis and then i want to ask you about canaveral. sorry, move up the microphone. >> i would say the note was not accurate. i agree with your

characterization it was deceptive. your other question was? >> how severe is the situation at canaveral? how often do you have to go back and write three reports on the same topic? >> i would hope we would never have to write another report on any of those topics at that park again. >> has it been resolved? >> not to my knowledge. >> my time is expired. let me go to the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> ms. kendall, you identify a long pattern of sexual harassment in the grand cannon river district. in addition, you issued a report a few days ago finding a law enforcement supervisor at the

canaveral sea shore has a quote pattern of sexual misconduct against employees. do you believe they are isolated? or indicative of more invasive problems within the park service? >> i cannot take these two examples -- >> can you talk a little louder, please. >> certainly. i would not take these two examples and paint the entire park service with that same brush. but it does cause concern that there may be a more persuasive problem when you have two different parks at this kind of level. >> what else is your office going to try to answer this critical question because based on what you said, you have questions yourself as to how persuasive it might be and so what do you do to look beyond it? i assume the ig would be interested in that.

if you keep seeing these things coming up, the chairman mentioned various things, and i am curious. what do you do? >> by publishing our reports we are hoping that there is some detering effect to that. i do know that the park's service is making some effort to make a determination as to how persuasive. >> are they moving fast enough? there is no reason why a woman, any women, or man, should be coming to work and people watching this right now from the park service, and they want to know these issues are being resolved and i know you do too. so it seems like there is a del delay. you are using words that are interesting. they try to avoid discipline all together. something like that.

what that says is that -- it reminds them of saying, wait, give you a wink, and you can get away with it and we will transfer you and keep you on the same level as a supervisor. the question is are they moving fast enough? it doesn't give anybody any relief to know that this stuff goes on and mr. jarvis tells us she is doing thinks but to be -- he is -- very frank i don't think he is doing it fast enough. >> quit frankly, i don't know the status of what the park service has done or is doing now. i agree people should in any environment be able to come to work free of sexual harassment and i would hope the park service is taking the kind of action, with the survey they are talking about, to understand the breadth of the problem and then

to come up with corrective action. >> mr. jarvis, same question. what steps is the park service taking to determine how pervasive sexual harassment in at its facilities. >> let's start with the grand cannon. there were 18 specific actions the inspector general recommended and they had due dates mostly by the first of may. almost everyone one of those has been implemented. tla range from personal, changing field operations, training, communication and specifically to disciplinary actions on individuals that were either committed or omitted activities related to the cannon. we are aggressively pursuing that at the cannon. >> let's rewind. staff tells me most of them have not been addressed.

i want -- you know, the chairman already made it clear that he has concerns about being able to tell the truth. so i want to remind you you are under oath. and would you answer that question again. >> yes, sir, so i have a summary of actions in response to the inspector general report as of may 2016 prepared by the intermountain regional director. i cannot go into the details of the disciplinary actions but i can tell you they are all underway. we have closed down the river district. all river trips are being done by third party private river rafters. >> let me -- i only have a few minutes. but i want to help you answer my question because i am not trying to trip you up. director, how many of these actions have been fully

completed as of today? you said there were 22; right? >> 18. >> and how many have been completed, director, as of today? >> i would have to count up. can i count? >> yeah. you probably will reach seven but go ahead. >> there are 7-18 completed. >> you just said the majority of them were. isn't that what you said? did i miss something? >> seven are completed and there are seven that are actively underway but not finalized. like the disciplinary actions take time to pursue but they are actively underway. >> do you agree with that, ms. kendall? based on what he just said, do you agree with regard to the

things that should have been done, that they should take all of this time? i guess that is what i am getting at. >> i don't know the details and i cannot apine on that. i do know disciplinary action does take time. i am happy that the national park service is actually taking disciplinary action and my recollection is we only had three or four specific recommendations so i am not completely familiar with the 17-18 items he is talking about. >> i want you to go ahead and tell me what you have done, i think for the benefit of the entire committee, because i am going to tell you, i am not sure you need to be in this position but go ahead. >> service wise, i think the grand cannon is an indicator, as well as cape canaveral, that we may have a problem of sexual harassment in the service in certain areas. i want to say upfront the vast

majority of employees have a safe work environment. however in discussions with the department of defense, office of sexual assault prevention and response, we engaged their leadership with our leadership to talk about this for over three hours at our last national leadership council meeting and general nickels who leads the office indicated a level of one place might mean there are others. we have launched a team effort in my office specifically to focus on how we will address this service-wide and the second is one of the general's recommendation is we need to do a prevalent survey and that means look across the system anonymously to allow employees

to report whether or thought they have been or are currently being subjected to sexual harassment. >> i yield. >> just to follow-up, the superintendent at canaveral was named in the subject of a report to director jarvis in 2012, and it was allegations of repisal. i think this isn't a response to the report. this happened years ago. again, a small group and what you are telling mr. cummings here is that the majority of this has been dealt with. when it was brought to your attention and there were repr e reprisals for the whistle blowers you did not deal with it. >> just one last thing.

you said you have this meeting in may but keep in mind the inspector general report goes back to november 16, 2015. why did it take so long? sglp this was the first meeting of the national leadership council where all leaders of the nps specifically addressed this. >> now recognize the gentlemen from tennessee, mr. duncan, for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. there are few people i have as much respect for than ranking member cummings. he has a difficult task and usually defends witnesses and that should send the message to director jarvis and the park service that mr. cummings did not defend mr. jarvis today.

instead he pointed out sever problems that occur in the park service. i think that is very significant. i spent 22 years, up until six years ago on the interior committee. now i serve on this committee and another committee. but i used -- i heard years ago the was a four billion maintenance backlog, then i heard six billion, then nine billion and i get the material saying the maintenance backlog is 12 million. i have great respect also for education and people who get advanced degrees. but i can the park service needs to stop hiring so many historians and environmental activists and so forth and start hiring more labors to chip away at this maintenance backlog if

is not being exaggurated. i think we have far too many chiefs and not nearly enough indians. i have been disturbed seeing how many, if not all, of the great contracts are awarded to companies that hire former high ranking federal employees. we see that in the defense department. they hire all of the retired admirals and generals and this seems to be throughout the federal government. i was disturbed, for instance, when i read from the stats that the intear department solicitor's office had concerns when the denver office of the park service attempted to it says quote originally attempted to steer the award of this big contact to a construction firm

bone yard tech even though their price was much higher than other qualified bidders. the solicitation for the decision and later hired the same station created with the requirements that only that particular contractor can meet. director jarvis, do you have a system in place to question contracts who they are not awarded or when they are being awarded to the highest bidders instead of the lowest bidders? or do you have a system in place to question contracts that are to prohibit contracts being awarded to companies that hire former employees of the park service? >> thank you for that question, congressman. we do have an audit program over our contracting officers because

they could lose their warrant for awarding contracts in some ways that you suggest. we appreciate the audit and the investigation by the inspector general that has revealed this case. this is new to us and something we will pursue actively in terms of discipline and corrective action in terms of insuring this doesn't happen again. >> on this book contract you have been asked about, i understand you said the proceeds were to be donated to charity. can you tell us how much has been donated to charity at this point? >> i do not know that -- how much has been donated. >> the staff tells us none has been donated to charity. >> the book sales, let me clarify, the book is sold my

eastern national which is a cooperating of the national park. it is required under its agreement to return to the national spaefshgs 12-17 percent of its annual profits. so that funding, whatever profit they get from the book, that can come back to the park service directly for projects through the system. any addition for that can go to the national park foundation but none of it comes to me. >> my time is up. let me mention another thing. i represent half of the great smoky national park and that park is being overrun by many thousands of feral hogs. i don't know many are anti hunting or don't like it but we have serious problems that will lead to serious disease problems if many of the thousands hogs

are not gotten out of the great smoky mountains. >> i now recognize the gentlemen from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright, for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. ms. kendall, i will ask you to pull the microphone close to your mouth. you are a low talker and we need to hear you. when asked about your investigation of the allegations arising from it, february 2014 river trip that led to the discipline of two female grand cannon employees. woman were accused of inappropriate dancing and a nov novelty use of spa. both of their contracts were not reneweded and both allege retaliation. but your report said we found

evidence of -- >> did i read that correctly? >> yes. >> is it true one of the employees that complained about the two women was himself the subject of prior sexual harassment? >> that is correct. >> does your investigation find the former grand cannon superintendent had any type of commonly known opinion about that person? >> i don't know about opinion. i think he had some knowledge. >> okay. you want to share that with us? >> would you share that with us? >> he launched an investigation himself internally about the conduct that was complained about. sexual harassment kind of conduct. that report never made its way to anyone who could actually do something. >> your reports notes that the

supervisor that conducted the inte internal investigation admitted he didn't feel responsible for determining whether the complaints against the employees were exagurated or part of the claims. he felt it wasn't part of his job. this supervisor didn't interview all of the people on the february 14th trip. but the supervisor's investigation was used as a bases of disciplinary action against the two women. as kendall, your investigation found several grand cannon employees and managers, including the superintendent, agreed the internal investigation of the allegations against the two women employees were insufficient and incomplete. >> that is correct.

>> did you find evidence men accused of sexual harassment receiveded less severe disciplinary action than recommended against these two women? >> i believe we did. >> could you say that louder? >> i believe we did. >> ms. kendall, it is our understanding from discussion with the officef of personnel managers, they have the merit system as full time employees. would it be unreasonable for someone looking at the fact pattern involving the discipline against these women to conclude these women did indeed suffer retaliation for their claims of harassment? >> our office was unable to conclude they did. but i think we were unable to go either way. >> director jarvis, i understand

the two women filled complaints against the park service. are you aware of that? >> i am aware they filled. >> what is the current status of the complaints the women filled? >> i am not aware of those two specific. there were several filings from women associated with the grand cannon and this incident, i believe, several of them have been settled but i am not aware of the details. >> my understanding is the national park service entered into settlement agreements with both of these women last week. were you not aware of that, direct director jarvis? >> i am not directly involved with this investigation. >> ms. kendall, are you aware of the settlement last week? >> i was not. >> well, i am happy to help.

i yield to mr. cummings. >> just one question. wouldn't you want to know that? you got a settlement? i am just curious. what kind of management is that in >> i do want to know. >> you don't know it today? >> i don't know the specifics. >> did you know there was a settlement? >> i knew they were in negotiations. >> you knew they took place? >> i did not hear the settlements had been settled. >> i recognize the gentlemen from michigan, mr. walberg for five minutes. >> you issued a memo establishing a ban on plastic water bottle sales in the national parks. is it true that most, if not all of the parks that have implemented the plastic bottled water ban still sell other

plastic packaged beverages, soda, enhanced water, juice, etc. is that still the case? >> yes, sir, they still do. >> do you feel it is safe and healthy to ban the sale of bottled water? >> when the public is provided ample opportunities to get the water from a variety of sources we built in -- that is a requirement of the policy, they have to have water stations to refill bottles. >> can you say with absolute certainty this ban on plastic water bottles reduced garbage in the national parks? >> yes, with certainty. >> what analysis do you have? >> we collect data on the solid waste management.

>> i would like to see that on the reduced weight, i would like to see it on decreased disposal cost, and recycling i implementitation. we get rid of the sales of water bottles but not the sales of pop in the same bottle, energy drinks in the same bottles, juices in the bottles at well. my concern is that we know see weed water. there are water filling stations

and that leaves me with concerns there are contractual issues that we ought to be concerned with as opposed to simply letting people take place of needing water. i am not certain at this time the necessary studies have been done to show we have had an impact other than stopping the sale of water in water bottles in national parks for whatever reason that may be. i think there ought to be questions that are raised about that sub-saharan -- subsequent of the news. another issue, an inspector general report found yellowstones chief ranger briefed an occupancy agreement by failing to live full-time in

an apartment on yellowstone's grounds. why is it important the chief ranger live in the park and not off the grounds? >> so in many of our national parks we have what is known as required occupancy. so a certain portion of park housing were constructed by the federal government and provided, though the employees pay rent, so there can be quick response for fire and medical. >> so there is a potential of a loss of security, safety to park visitors, most staff without the head ranger living on site? >> according to the superintendent, the chief ranger lived in a private quarter that allowed him rapid response.

>> he didn't rent it out, but allowed outside visitors to live in that apartment instead of himse himself. >> yes. >> what kind of discipline did he receive? >> he received individual discipline. i cannot talk about it in a public forum but i would be glad to come to our office and talk specifically about it. >> is he still in the same case? >> he is not. he is a superintendent in devils tower which is a demotion. >> director jarvis, you are not inhibited to give answers on specific discipline on cases asked in this form. you are holding back and not providing an answer and there is no incumbents here. if we ask you a question, we need you to answer.

if you know the answer to the question, i need you to answer. >> chairman, i have been told by my solicitors that specific disciplinary action are privacy act issues. we will follow up to make sure you get the answer to that question. we will recognize ms. kelly from illinois. >> thank you. first and foremost, director jarvis, thank you for your help. we talked about 18 actions items dealing with grand cannon. why has the implementation of some of these actions been delayed? >> i don't believe that any of these actions have been delayed. in the disciplinary aspect of taking specific discipline on

employees and that is a slow process. there are laws established by the congress that are specifically to federal employees. title five, merit system promotion board, the douglas factors have to be applied in the disciplinary pieces. they are absolutely in the process but they have to be reviewed at a variety of levels before we can take disciplinary action. there are no delays in the other actions. >> what about some of the self-imposed deadlines, have you met those? >> i believe we have. >> while all of these actions are important, but several are critical to make sure the perpetrators of sexual harassment are not able to harass anyone else. i quote the oig complaint at the

river districts and one of the four employees remains an employee. it is appropriate to take disciplinary or appropriate action to remove this individual from specific work environment of the river district. what is the status of the fourth individual? ... that's why he is still there because you're just following a process. >> but he has been removed from any role he might play on the campaign. >> beside being removed is there

any disciplinary action taken? >> i know he was removed and put into another position but has any disciplinary action been taken yet? >> another action and item has this item been completed? >> yes they took very specific action which was elimination of the river district. commercial river rafters are now providing the river access for the kind of activities that the rangers were doing before. >> how will contracting out the staff ensure that this won't happen again? >> we are meeting and providing training to those commercial operators who have been providing services on the river, they are all under contract with

the national park service to provide the services and we can hold them accountable through those contracts. >> and how can we be insured that the employees that did perpetrate this not be hired again? >> i can assure you they will not be hard again. this will be retained as a part of the record and the disciplinary inaction become part of the official file. >> even if they come through contractors, you can ensure that? >> there actually has been discussion about that specifically so we are talking specifically to the contractors that they can not hire these individuals. >> the inspector general also found that the grand canyon involved the volunteer that worked at the park after being suspended for sexual missed conduct. what are you doing to make sure that those who engage in sexual

harassment cannot be rehired by or volunteer in any national park? >> again, to float the river requires a permit from the national park service whether there volunteer, contractor or other federal agency. i think now that we are very, very aware of that river trip creating this type of harassment, we are actively engaged in training oversight of communications and post trip evaluations so that people coming off these trips are interviewed within seven days to determine whether or not there were any issues. >> thank you and at the time i yield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman from florida.

>> thank you mr. chairman and director jarvis, you have 22000 employees. is that correct. >> yes or. >> i'm told you have over 400 sites that you manage and entrust for the american people. >> i don't have an national park in my district anymore and i did in saint augustine. i have to tell the members of mr. jarvis that, at least my experience is that we have some incredibly dedicated and hard-working individuals working for the park service who are inundated day and a day out and they do a wonderful job. we appreciate their service and they're doing it sometimes with limited resources and a great crew of volunteers too. we have a list that's a pretty

tough indictment of people who abused their responsibility and i think you started to tell some of the problem and i sat through, today we have the national park service, we've had eta and irs and secret service, we've had, the list goes on and on. we hear the same thing, you just said that you have a process that you must go through for discipline. it's almost him possible to fire a federal employee. i don't know if you'd agree with that but it's very, very difficult, isn't it director jarvis. >> yes sir, i would agree with that very much so. i've i've done it a few times. >> it's very difficult. >> i chaired civil service for four years and i found it almost impossible and that's part of the problem.

>> civil services set up as a protection against a political manipulation from issues of authority over legitimate working simple servants. it's gone far beyond that in providing cover for people who don't do a good job and it puts barriers in the way, you you could probably go through these cases and site all of the compliance that you had to do, the due diligence rate acquired by title v and other regulations and other laws that constrain you from taking immediate action. is that correct? >> yes sir, that is correct. >> it's hard sometimes, we can't get agency directors to come forward. you have any suggestions for anything that might speed up or improve the process to get rid of these poor performance employees. >> specifically know, but i

would certainly appreciate the willingness to work with us on some reform because i do think it is a significant problem to deal with effectively. if we do not follow the rules throughout the process, there is a high high likelihood that the individual can be reinstated. you are not the only agency with these personnel problems. do you see a lack of management in some of these cases? >> i would say both problems. i perhaps disagree somewhat in terms of the difficulty by which to remove employees. i think the failure comes in the

on willingness to take progressive discipline. >> i like that, progressive discipline. >> that might be a new liberal approach to getting rid of people. i actually gave a certificate in transportation, i called for the firing of metro incompetent personnel and then the new director came and fired 20 people a day before i presented them with a certificate of appreciation because i never hear of anybody firing poor performers. you say it's the lack of progressive discipline and documentation. >> maybe i could do an act for progressive discipline and documentation. you think that could be something we could do to get a better handle on the. >> i think it's something that good managers do if they've got both problem employees. >> maybe an executive order to that matter may help.

thank you, i feel that. >> thank you mr. chairman, good morning everyone. thank you first director jarvis for the work that the park is doing. i had a meeting with you and some other members about the reports and books that you've been putting out regarding the reconstruction in the underground railroad and for the work that you have for opening the parks for young people. that is very important. one of the concerns that i have and i think it's an underlying issue with the park and that's not just the misconduct of the employees, but the misconduct of the employees is really related to a disregard, i think for individuals that are not in senior management or not even necessarily part of the park service itself.

in the virgin islands, as you know, the park plays an integral role in our community. its large masses of land, particularly on the island of st. john, the waterways surrounding the virgin island are incorporated by the national park service and so the relationship that we have with the park is very, very important. one of the things that i hear continually from my constituents is pervasive disregard and notable disconnect between art and its local employees as well as the local government and in fact the people of the virgin island. i wanted to talk with you about that. i've had some conversations with the regional director but i can't miss an opportunity with you being here to address some of these and maybe you can speak

as well to this. first of all, the national park receives funding for youth conservation which is a source of income for the children in those communities. it's an opportunity for young people to learn about the park and potentially train them to be excited about careers that involve the national park. this would then create a relationship between the park and its local people. another reason why this is so important is because of the enabling legislation. here in congress they created the virgin island national park. one of the main components of that that i continually hear from our constituents is language that says that the secretary, meaning the secretary of the interior is authorized and directed to the maximum extent feasible to deploy and train residents of the virgin island to develop, maintain and administer the virgin islands national park. i don't know if you are aware of

this particular piece of language. are you aware of it? >> yes but not how it's been implemented. but i am aware of it. >> reading that particular language, how do you, to the extent feasible employ individuals and direct them to develop and maintain the national park if individuals who are not part of the national park system can't apply for employment within the national park? >> congress have given us some new hiring authority recently that give us a much greater ability to do direct hire at the local level for employment. for a long time it was difficult

to break into federal service. recently, the public land core legislation has allowed us that young people working as seasonals which is a fairly easy part to get in because we hire about 8000 seasonals a year or if you serve in a public land core you connect teen career, noncompetitive status. >> on the island of st. croix it's an active engagement but on st. john, with the relationship at the park park is much more intrinsic and much more involved they have stopped utilizing this for the local kids on the island

of st. john. what's the reason for that. >> i think it's a mistake it's an issue in san juan, puerto rico, rico, it's an issue of you mentioned in the virgin islands and in alaska with native alaskans. it's also an issue in the west in working with. >> excuse me if you would allow my indulgence, i don't care that it's a mistake. it's a mistake that has had very severe consequences to the people of st. john. on the i island of st. croix you have 18 to 20 more students per year. on st. john you have hired no one for a number of years on the island of st. john. these parks are very important. that affects the individuals at the park. the superintendent on st. john as well has had changes made to

the national park in terms of access to land, construction plans closure of fishing boundaries without community input and proper notification of the people of st. john or the local government as well. is this a mistake as well? and why are the people of the virgin islands being subjected to these continued mistakes? >> that is something that we are adjusting very specifically and i apologize to you. it is not our intention to disregard the people of st. john or any of the island. they know the history and they lived it and we need them to be a part of the national park service. that is something we are addressing aggressively. >> mr. chairman, just so you are aware, and i would like would like to hold the record open, when i talk about lack of access

to private property, since 1989, with hurricane hugo, from 1989 individuals living on the island of st. john have not had access to their own private property because that accesses landlocked by the national park. repeated the request by our local legislature have not allow them to visit the land that they live on. the management of the park have not thought this a priority to allow them to have public access to that. >> we have similar issues out west and i think her for her perspective on this. we now recognize the gentleman from arizona for five minutes. >> dir. jarvis, my state state of arizona is no stranger to national park. we have a home of 22 national parks including monuments, historical sites, parks and more.

as a result of the outside impact and what they have on the economy in everyday life, my constituents in arizona, the seemingly careless nature of the national park service management of the deferred maintenance backlog really troubles me. it is reported that the growing tally would see significant maintenance or repair has reached nearly $11.5 billion. is that number correct? >> yes sir, that is correct. so one of the most significant projects is the arlington national bridge just a few steps away from the national park service headquarters in washington d.c. that bridge is in need of a 250 million-dollar overhaul. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> they knew houde dyer the situation wasn't nearly lost out on transportation funding because they couldn't get their application paperwork done on

time. that is embarrassing for they can even manage what they have in their own front yard in washington d.c. at they expect the american people to entrust that they can manage hundreds of millions of acres spread across the for the sum far reaching areas of the american continent. on top of this, $11.5 billion of mismanagement and neglect, the administration continues to pile on more acres of land to the problem. certain special interest groups have been asking to circumvent congress and to move land in arizona out of. their intentions are clear, they want to prevent hunting, mining and grazing on this land. even if it means keeping more acres under the queue of mismanagement projects.

director, you think it is wise to be adding millions of acres to the park services already burdened management structure? >> i think they have grown by active congress and by active coverage. i am a fiscal conservative and i do not like to take on things that impact our financial base. >> that is the power of the white house. let's be more specific, delivery port in regards to the grand canyon national monument by the administration. >> not by the administration but advocates have approached me. >> any other areas in arizona?

>> no, not that i remember. >> about western arizona? >> know. >> about sedona? >> no search. >> my office has request regarding this proposal and the coordination between land agencies and environmental groups. that request, will that collaborate the information shared here today? >> it will for the national park service but i can't speak for the rest of the department. >> director jarvis you in your agencies mismanage funding opportunities right in front of you. you can't maintain infrastructure in your own backyard. the arlington bridge is only 2000 feet long as falling apart. you should not be given more acres the of the antiquity act. you said you are conservative in

that regard. going back to the woman from the virgin islands. doesn't show a lack of leadership that those resources are not funded. >> we get only about half. >> let's go back, the general lady said the money went to those areas but they went to the west. why aren't they going to proper oversight. >> i'm not aware specifically, were talking about why cc money versus backlog funding? sir, we have an 11 billion backlog in maintenance because we only get about half what we need to keep up annually. >> you're telling me you have no adjudication of those monies? >> we are putting every dollar we have into our maintenance

backlog including our roads and bridges but we do not receive adequate funding in the transportation bill of even one bridge, the arlington bridge. >> we now recognize the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. >> thank you, i do appreciate appreciate the hearing and want to say that considering that i'm former chair it distresses me that the park service has what appears to be a systemic problem of sexual harassment. it does seem to me it calls for action at the highest level, not simply process complaints. i hope you will take that as your mission. it's interesting that my colleague asked about the arlington national bridge.

i was certainly going to ask you about that. how can congress really do this? the park service the bridge, the arlington memorial bridge, that is used to go to arlington cemetery. that bridge alone needs to be rebuilt. the cost will be $250 million. everybody in this region is trying to get that money. $250 million yet the park service has appropriated by this congress in the last bill $258 million for 405,000 miles of unpaved roads and i haven't exhausted the list.

it's time that congress stop beaten up on vacancies when the congress itself is at the root of the problem. >> you put $268 million for the entire country and then you beat the park service about the head and shoulders for not keeping the memorial bridge up. my goodness it takes a lot of nerve not to look at ourselves and see where the problem also is. the arlington memorial bridge is not a case of mismanagement. it's a case of no funds to rebuild it. now mr. jarvis, the federal highway administration says it is going to close this bridge that leads to the arlington cemetery within five years if

it's not rebuilt. do you think it will last five years? does it take five years to rebuild the bridge? you verity shut down some traffic on the bridge. how much longer does this bridge, is a one of the older of the busiest bridges in your inventory? >> we have a lot of old bridges throughout her inventory, but this this is the most expensive and most complicated and highest use bridge in the national park system so it is our number one priority. it was our number one priority in the reauthorization of the transportation bill in terms of request for funds for these high profile projects that are in serious condition. based on the federal highways administration assessment which

was being done regularly, the bridge is subject to eminent closure in 2021 but we did do some emergency stabilization so it will last. >> director jarvis, with a lot of work from the senators from this region, were you able to get an application in, will that fully fund the bridge and if not where will the money come from. >> so thank you it was the district of columbia that cosigned our application that was a requirement and that was really what all of the effort was to get them. >> i remind you this is a virginia bridge. >> i will let you debate that. >> ultimately we did get an application in and we are currently discussing with the federal highway administration a

schedule for repair to this bridge. >> how much funds, there's there's an application into the park service. what will that fund and will that take care of it and if not, where will the rest come from? >> i do not know how much the federal highways is willing to put up for this bridge. there are various scenarios based on how much they can put up annually. there is a lot of applications out there for this money. all across the country with a lot of bridges, as you know the infrastructure in our nation has a lot of challenges so there are a lot of competition but i do think we have a strong commitment from the federal highways administration to work with us to come up with a schedule that will repair the bridge and minimize the impact to traffic. i don't have the hard numbers yet. they haven't made this decision. >> the latest numbers on the

funds of where they will come from and whether there will be any shortfall. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you i now recognize the genre from georgia. >> i think it's clear that the national park service, certainly under the direction of action of director jarvis is need of oversight. being a member of the national resource subcommittee on oversight and investigation, we actually have a hearing last month on this very subject. i want to thank ms. kendall for being a part of that. also for being back here today. director jarvis, in your testimony you stated you were held accountable for the book deal where you wrote it without approval from the ethics office and your punishment as i understand it, ethics training for the remainder of your duration, is that correct?

>> guesser, that's one component >> okay personally i don't think that goes far enough, but that's not the point of my question. you stated you have been held accountable for the book debacle. we've also seen in the hearing today of other problems throughout the national park service in yellowstone and in the canaveral seashore and in grand canyon river district, these individuals were allowed to retire or they were transferred. you stated the need for people to be held accountable for their actions. you believe these people have been held accountable for their actions? >> i believe we are following the regulations with regard to federal employees and we are applying appropriate discipline. if they are eligible to retire than they can do that.

>> so you think it's appropriate discipline. >> guesser i do. >> okay, ms. kendall, let me ask you. you believe it's appropriate discipline? >> it's a hard to say if it's appropriate. it's more to say if it's the appearance of the chief ranger that's been demoted in terms of grade, but to the position of superintendent which by appearances seems to look like it was more promotion than demotion. >> yes, we have people who have egregious behavior, sexual harassment for example, would you say this is a pattern in the national park service? >> i don't have the data to say it's a pattern but it's certainly a concern. >> when we hear that employees who engage in misconduct or mismanagement are not held accountable and that is precisely what we hear, when we hear that, it sounds like

leadership actually condones misbehavior at the park services how do you think this helps morale? >> i think employees are being disciplined. >> discipline and punishment is one thing. hand slapping is another. i would hardly call what's taking place as discipline. this kendall, back back to you. in recent cases of misconduct that you've investigated, how many people have been fired? >> i'm not aware of any who have been fired. >> so they are retired but maybe not fired. >> perhaps. >> but you are not aware of any who have been fired.

director jarvis do you find this disturbing? >> i find that it is the system in which we lived. firing a federal employee. >> that was not my question. is it disturbing that people who are engaged in this type of misbehavior, is it disturbing to you that they are not being fired? >> their behavior is very disturbing to me but i am a federal employee and i understand the rules and regulations that apply to them and frankly i do not have the power in most cases to fire these employees. >> you still didn't answer the question. it's disturbing to us the behavior, but it's also disturbing that they're not being fired. are you aware of misconduct? >> i'm aware of employees who are afraid of reporting

misconduct but i do believe across the department there is some fear by employees to report misconduct. >> why would people be there for fearful of director jarvis? i will close with the. >> i don't believe it's fear, i believe they don't think action will be taken. >> i think what you are seeing today with these reports, and i appreciate the reports from the office of inspector general and the actions that were going to take and are taking, we are we are going to see more reporting. actually i think we will get more people being willing to step up because they are seeing management taking action. >> what happened to him? did you discipline him?

>> he was going to be subject to discipline. we were preparing a disciplinary action for him for his omission of action based on the report in 2013. in consultation with the regional director who is his line supervisor and the deputy director in washington, the three of us unanimously agreed the grand canyon needed new leadership immediately. that he was incapable even though he has performed well on other issues, he was incapable of leading the change we needed at the grand canyon. so as a senior executive, he is subject to being transferred and i told him i was transferring him out of the grand canyon immediately and he chose to retire.

>> so you did offer him another position. >> i did. >> and how reckon recognize the gentlewoman from new jersey. >> i really don't need know where to begin here. the picture that is painted from the questions and discussion and answers is that this is a dysfunctional organization with little accountability and not very good leadership. i want to ask you a couple questions regarding the park service as an employer. what percentage of women and minorities you have employed in the park services? >> you have 22000 employees? what percentage are minorities and what percentage are women? >> i don't have that data in front of me. i would say in terms of women, i'm just roughing it here, i

don't know off the top of my head. probably 55% male, 45% women and i think in terms of represented minorities we are significantly low. we do not represent the demographic of the nation. i would be happy to get you the statistics. >> so you are the director. what is your title. >> director. >> are there a series of direct deputy directors underneath you. >> there are two deputy directors and they are women. >> and under them? >> there are seven regional directors that serve in the field. then we have others that are here in washington for other programs. >> are you familiar with the

development of a plan and the responsibility and accountability for the implementation of that plan? >> yes ma'am, i am very familiar with the recommendations of eeoc in terms of a model program and how to implement it. >> who in your organization is responsible for that? >> our associate director of human resources. >> and to whom does that person report. >> to the deputy director of operations. >> is that in violation. is that not supposed to be a function that reports directly to the director. >> that model program, definitely recommend that the eo office report directly to the director. >> why is that not the case for you. >> when i came on in 2009 it was buried three levels below that. we moved it up to directly report but i agree with you that i think it should be moved to

report directly to the director of the park services. >> what kind of training and management development does your staff generally and routinely get? out of they get informed about the laws and about creating culture that would discourage sexual harassment or any other kind of discrimination. what is done proactively and routinely and sustainably that would help to create a better climate? >> when i came on in 2009 i actually created the first program for diversity and inclusion in the history of the park service. i specifically gathered individuals to the organization that represent diversity of our nation, creating the allies for inclusion in they have been working directly with the leadership of the national park service to help us create an

inclusive workforce, one that reflects the diversity of the nation and has a work environment that is supportive of diversity. that being ethnic diversity, sexual orientation, women, young people, the whole range so we use that information both to communicate. i've done a number of web chats specific videos out to the field on eo, inclusion and diversity. >> thank you director your harvest. the information that i have is that the eeoc function or functionary still reports three levels below you so when did you actually, did you actually change that reporting level? >> i moved it up. it has been moved up but i agree with you that this is an issue that i've discussed with our hr that i believe that in order to really meet the standards

expected of us in eeoc, and particularly in light of these new issues that have come out that clearly there is the potential for sexual harassment to occur in other pockets of the national park service. i think the eo office needs to report directly to me to meet the standards which are regular reporting to me in the leadership, having advocates that represent the diversity of the nation and understanding of the senior leadership about this issue. >> the report that was connect submitted for 2014 indicates that each region has a manager that reports to regional director and not the directors under the third level reporting structure. i think maybe there's a lack of communication within your

organization as to who reports where which is sort of a red flag that we have some serious problems with accountability and responsibility. >> we now recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> the national parks are awesome. i have the pleasure of representing seven. i get to represent big bend national park which is headed by an amazing superintendent. she really is a treasure for the federal government. y'all have a hard task to make sure these jewels of our nation are around for future generations and that future generations continue to interact with them in the way that past generation have. it's been a real pleasure over the last 17 months that i've been in congress, when i crisscrossed the district and throughout the country about encouraging americans to find

his or her part. this is an important resource for our country. it's unfortunate that were here today talking about sexual harassment and the culture of management. my question, my first question to you is, and it's to piggyback on what my friend and colleague from new jersey have been talking about. what steps are being taken to ensure there is zero tolerance for sexual harassment within the parks? >> clearly zero tolerance was not the standard at the grand canyon or at cape canaveral. that's just unacceptable. at the senior leadership, a discussion that i led in may and this is the regional director, the associate associate director and the senior superintendent

for the organization had a very open and emotional discussion about zero-tolerance and why this agency has tolerated that. >> what are you doing right now? what steps have been taken to ensure this culture change. >> the first thing we feel is a prevalent survey. that is to get baseline understanding of how much harassment is occurring in the workplace in the service. getting that survey done, were committed to doing that by a third party as soon as possible. i can't give you a specific date because we have to go through the contracting process to get there. that's the first step. we have reinforced message to the field on zero-tolerance and i think we are making public the action we are taking at the grand canyon, in particular about disciplinary actions and behavior to meet the

zero-tolerance policy. >> so i know you're getting ready to do a survey in your opinion, what allowed this kind of culture to see been in these two parks that we've been talking about today? >> i think one was the conditions of the particular activity create an environment that vulnerable individuals can be preyed upon. this is an area that the department of defense has made, within defense they have special unions and we have special units for river districts, fire crews, trail crews, these are places where individuals are thrown together in a tough environment and the potential is there. this is an area we are focusing on particularly right now and we've made management aware across the system. these are areas you need special

attention. we have to create individuals that are subject to this harassment and that they can call safely. if it's your supervisor that's harassing you, that's a bad reporting chain if you have to report this to the person who's harassing you. we created an opportunity outside that to report this issue. if we find it find it and we report it and we say we need to go in and investigate. >> you mention the fire crew. i also represent guadalupe bay national park which i know is one place where you served. what those fire crews are doing's heroic work work. my last 30 seconds to you mrs. kendall, what steps should be taken by the national park service to address the poor cultured management and lack of leadership? >> i think holding individuals accountable for misconduct,

mr. jarvis is correct and that you cannot always make public how discipline is imposed, but doing that, doing it regularly, i mentioned progressive discipline and documentation. it's something that can be done and if it's done properly it's very effective. >> i yield back. >> we now go to the gentlewoman from michigan, ms. lawrence. >> thank you miss chairman this question is to you. director jarvis, the department and chair review issued a memo concluding that the department investigation has come to the conclusion that director jarvis

did violate federal employee affects standards. do you agree with that statement? >> yes ma'am, i do. >> when asked by the inspector general if looking back you would have done, would you have done anything differently, you replied, what i have done the same thing, probably. i think i knew going in there was a certain amount of risk. why would you say that? that makes a look like you didn't care about the ethnic group. >> let me apologize for that. i was absolute wrong in that statement. >> on may 27 you you sent an e-mail to all park services employees that said, i failed to initially understand and accept my mistake that was wrong.

what part of the mistake did you initially failed to understand and what happened between your interview with the ig when you said you would probably do the same thing again and then on may 27 you stated that you had made a mistake. what changed? >> one of the requirements under my disciplinary action was that i receive ethics training. i have been spending that time with the departmental ethics office and i have to say that i've developed a much deeper understanding and respect for hand appreciation of the department of ethics. i think that has resulted in me reconsidering my position on this in saying that i was completely wrong.

in doing so it violated the ethical standards for the department of the interior. i apologize for that. >> how long have you been the director? >> since 2009. >> are you saying on the record today that from 2009 until your until your ethics training you were unaware of the requirements, the ethical requirements of your job. >> no ma'am. i served as the national park service ethics officer and i was well away aware but not at the level of detail i have now. >> that's a very hard pill to swallow. if you are training others in your not aware of what your ethical responsibilities were, how could you train others and be responsible for it and not be personally aware? >> so in the execution of the

book, i thought i was following all of the ethical standards that are required of me. i was using a source that the park service normally uses. i was not benefiting print i was doing it on my own time. all of those for the ethics requirements. what i did not do was seek the advice of the ethics office which would have clarified my mistakes right up front. that was the ethics issue and i think the discipline that i had received his report to the action and i think i've been open about my mistakes to everyone that has been involved. >> we all are human and make mistakes but were also hired to do a job, especially in leadership positions, to set an example.

they did not allow you the death of understanding and your failure to meet the ethical requirements. i yield back. >> before the gentlewoman yelled backs can shield to me? >> yes sir. >> the problem i have with the answer that you think you are dealing with the highest of at ethics in this book deal is the documentation. you sent a letter or e-mail to the person who would be the publisher. there's a follow-up email asking for the conversation because you knew you had to have them ask you to do it as opposed to what really happened which as you told them you would publish the book and you compounded the problem ethically by writing a handwritten note to the secretary.

it was deceptive and i think you knew you were creating an ethical problem. as you said, i think candidly, i'm willing to take that risk. many times i've had these types of problem. i believe you when you write that. the pattern and the documentation is clear. you asked them to do this. they sent you information and said this is what they need from you. that's a pattern. i yield back. >> well forgive me i have a descending voice here. i'm not sure what the tempest is

a regard to the book. >> he wanted to publish a book and benefit from it. is that correct? that's my understanding. >> please speak up, we can't hear you. >> i'm sorry, what was your question. >> my question was director jarvis deliberately and surreptitiously engineered the publication of the book that he surreptitiously wrote in order to surreptitiously benefit. >> i don't believe we concluded that he would benefit. >> no you didn't. he benefited not at all. his motive was to help the park service on the centennial. is that not correct? >> i believe so. >> what a crime, what a terrible crime that the head of the park service wants to promote the park service on its hundredth

anniversary. and ethically were going to what , destroy his reputation because all right, some rules were put aside. they were put aside if i understand it correctly because there was a deadline we were approaching and he had some legitimate concerns about that deadline that if we didn't expedite it wasn't going to happen because no one else was doing it. fair enough? >> it was a self-imposed deadline if it was a deadline. >> while the centennial was not a self-imposed deadline, it was a centennial. >> you're right. >> right right. that was what was in his mind. he wasn't going to benefit from this. the proceeds he dedicated to the park foundation. you know i must say to my colleagues, we might walk a little humbly.

we have had people evolve and get book deals. of course everyone should follow the strict letter of the law. i would say my experience dealing with and affix community is that rules can be very arbitrary. there are two approaches to life. one is common sense, working through approach and one is a very driven coal law driven rule driven approach to life and religion and politics. the latter may be a comfort for some but it's not really practical approach to life. sexual harassment is a different

matter. i have to say, with respect, shame on everybody for making this such a big issue. i don't think it is. director jarvis, i'm sorry you have to put up with that, frankly. maybe you made some mistakes. maybe you cut some corners but the motivation, to me, was to try to help the park service. i don't share my colleagues outrage about it. sexual harassment is a different matter and i have to ask you director jarvis, when did you become aware of the fact that there was a problem with sexual harassment at canaveral and grand canyon? >> so in the canyon case, i became aware upon the letter that was sent to the secretary of interior that initiated. >> you were unaware of any problem prior to that. >> absolutely. >> when was that?

>> i forget the date. >> quickly. >> it was around 2014. >> okay was that before or after the superintendent was appointed superintendent of the grand canyon? >> it was after. >> okay so that was the sequence, you confirm that? >> yes sir, ms. kendall, when it was brought to director jarvis' attention that there was a problem, did did he take action, did he ignore it, did he punish. >> we received a letter and we undertook the investigation at secretary's request. >> but i'm asking a different question. was there any evidence that director jarvis covered up or turned a blind eye or ignored these allegations? >> no sir. >> thank you.

my time is up i'm not going to recognize myself or five minutes you write your testimony and you said, you have zero tolerance for sexual harassment. what does that mean, zero-tolerance? >> it means that when sexual-harassment is identified within the organization at any level that there is an immediate response, not only to the perpetrators but also to the victims of it. that zero mean zero. >> is that recommend you meet people be fired? >> again, chairman, these are federal employees and jumping to firing is not an option that i have under the current law. you can make the recommendation. you can push for it, can you

not? i am subject to those same laws just like any other manager. i can't say fire that employee because that violates the whole title v right. there is a process we have to go through. >> i understand they need to go through a process, but your your recommendation does have some weight, does it not? >> it definitely has weight in terms of that we have zero tolerance. >> what does that mean. it doesn't sound like it means anything. >> were not going to tolerate that, just don't keep doing it. when you have these actions happen, i want to know what you're doing about it. :

>> >> and in and of the cases regarding sexual harassment in these two scenarios did you ever recommend anybody be fired? >> the process for their discipline is incomplete at this point so i have not made a recommendation.

>> that is part of the problem. >> this is from the testimony we are talking about the canaveral seashore. and into fifth -- 2015 and media story with allegations of improper hiring. they have substantiated these allegations but has yet to respond to our office. they're also taking no action to address the unbecoming conduct is that true or false? >> she wrote this i am

reading what she wrote. from the findings sin 2012. >> these local party issues are referred to the regional director speesix you are referring it down to the person who created the problem? >> see you give it to their regional director but there is no response doesn't that get on your radar? >> but they have no response. >> see you don't even respond? with that practice of sexual harassment who continues to serve in the position substantiate allegations and

she says the national park service with three of reports in four years it has failed to address a multiple levels what would you agree with her assessment? >> with the commission at cape canaveral and has been removed from the position of chief ranger. >> when did that happen? i do not know the exact date. >> the last couple weeks? >> no. i don't know. i can get back to you. >> we're having a hearing about this and you don't know the position of the person? >> i know he has been removed. >> does he still works there? >> he is still employed. >> at canaveral. >> haqqani sexual harassment does it take to fire a

federal worker? or feet even recommend it? this is a group of 50 people there are three stages of allegations and he still works there. he should be arrested and be in jail or released fired in the least try to fire him. but you don't do any of that. what does that say to the women? ideal location in the eye? site at $2 about to enter the workforce i'd want them to deal with the scum because that is sexual harassment as a percentage of the workforce that is so detrimental and i put it on your shoulders to hold accountable. that will stand in my agency

but i don't know i've no idea does as the situations to do that some complain the system is failing you. you are feeling the system. your leadership is linking with a tight -- lacking my time is expired. >> i just want to go back to my friend's comments i don't want you to misunderstand he needs to stay around for just a minute he has another hearing but it isn't what you do but what it says about you and it seems to me

that you have a better disregard for the ethics rules i can understand each tried to get the book out but when you talk about you don't mind taking a risk you laid it out very nicely that is how you operate you would do it again i know you come and apologize this morning and to the employees over and over again but what you think that says to the employees?

when they see the top person in the agency the very person who's supposed to make it so they do the right thing and they see you were not doing the right thing that has to affect morale would you agree? >> i think my employees know who i am and have e-mail me hundreds of the males of support because they elected me as a human being that makes mistakes i have owned up to my mistakes. i have openly apologized and admitted i was wrong. i am being disciplined openly no hiding of that to anyone and that is applied appropriately so i think it may affect some people forum

-- from the ross dam point but i think i am doing what i need to do as director of the national park service to own up to my mistakes and apologize for them. >> one of the things when i came to congress working with lawyers with disciplinary problems we had lawyers who had stellar careers stellar. and did one thing and then got disbarred forever. so when you talk about the employees knowing space what a great guy you are but when you say things like i think i knew going into this there was a certain amount of risk i have never been afraid of

risk, i have gotten my ass in trouble many, many many, there are three times in the park service unnecessarily this is what you said by not necessarily getting permission. and i never really, really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but when somebody says this is our operation and that makes me wonder the people doing the sexual harassment is said it isn't that the women are afraid their concerns something will not be done

is that what you said? >> that as part of it are they watching this right now? if she is thinking about coming to the park service and can see that pattern that you take an attitude the rules? what the hell? and doesn't see much happening in a season over and over and over again what does that say to them? if it was your daughter? i am curious. would you feel comfortable? >> i do have a daughter who works on public health for women in africa. she is a very strong individual and probably watching this as we speak. i think she would say she would work for the park

service because we are aggressively addressing this issue. >> has come down and is incredibly disturbing to me that we have tolerated sexual-harassment within our organization but will tell you this the senior leadership the senior women are committed to reaching this out it will not be easy and overnight and frankly as to take this on aggressively you will see more and more will come out that is exactly what the department of defense told us that as we aggressively pursue this in women that have been harassed but not willing to speak up will suddenly speak out and we probably will be back in here to say why you have six or eight cases now that is because we are aggressively pursuing it and individuals are feeling empowered and willing to speak and that is a commitment that i m making

an organization is making to back me up that we will wrote this out of the national park service. >> by last question. you just said we will probably hear more cases because they feel more empowered can you tell us whether you have confidence based on what you know, that that would likely be the case? >> have no basis to say yes or no. >> your recommendations are what? right now. >> we did not make specific recommendations. we usually don't but the investigation except to use things we did provide to the secretary and one was to be

careful about backgrounds of people that they higher because they did allow back one of the perpetrators as a volunteer the other was to handle internal sexual harass investigations which was part of their problem with the grand canyon case the initial of the investigation they conducted internally did not proceed properly also handled improperly because it was allowed to be distributed to more individuals than needed to know about it. >> assuming that you stay in the position, what can we do to hold your feet to the fire? what you suggest? we have a problem. we have women who want to be treated properly i don't

want normal to be come in and get harassed if we're not already there for what you described to me if there are more cases coming up because we have a duty to our constituents to protect us you are a nice guy but if you come into the workplace feeling threatened idle see how they can do their job properly. if somebody will say something improper or put them into a position that went to me. >> so how do we hold your feet to the fire? >> i think required meet me to come back appear with individuals or any group or any other committees that

have jurisdiction and report specific action is that we are taking at tie line and the response through the rest of this year in the coming years. we have been getting excellent advice from the department of defense. >> chevy been taking it? >> yes. absolutely we're absolutely engaged he told me and the agency accountable and to look to the women and men of the organization to create an inclusive work force a respectful and supportive work place for all employees we're absolutely committed to that. >> do you have a plan? >> yes. >> director, the ig dealing with the chief ranger at canaveral sent you a report

in 2012 i fundamentally don't understand how you said that of two regional person? that is the reason why we have the inspectors general to give that two directors our cabinet secretaries and is on their radar screen to take care of it. >> let me read you another thing that she read her testimony. again talking about canaveral, the state superintendent has been at canaveral since 2010 and is the subject in the 2012 report to tell the director. are you familiar with the reports? >> yes i am. >> did you read it when you got it in 2012? >> it'll remember. >> your employee that reported the allegations in the 2012 report made additional allegations that

was found by the merit system protection board resulting in a settlement with the national park service the mayor is system protection board noted the superintendent was aware of the allegations for misconduct and did nothing to address the issue and against as ever part of reprisal for the inspector general and additionally based of the reports they noted the superintendent showed a lack of candor when talking to investigators of the highlighted actions she took to obstruct the investigation may yet we have no indication national park service has taken any disciplinary actions against her debut? >> i don't know. >> how do not know that? mr. cummings and asking if you get it if you're paying attention and ready you have

an outside inspector general says there is a problem there is a reprisal whistle-blowers who stepped up to the difficult thing to say there is a problem we will go to the mat for those people and that happened in this case and she is telling you you have a lack of candor they were candid so much so a cost american taxpayers better know how much we had to pay to get their rights and whole that person still works there. correct? >> yes. >> you didn't do anything about it so why do you think he will do something in the future? these are years old purposely and intentionally mislead the secretary ig reports you don't respond to more than two dozen sexual harassment cases but you say

there is zero tolerance but not one time have you recommended somebody be fired and guess what? space was fired you have done a lot of good things in your career i am sure but if you want a new direction to see the type of park service that you claimed you want it requires leadership and it will not happen with you you have had seven years to get this right and it is getting worse. not better only later do we see these things percolate to the top but i have to tell you if we do right by federal employees we have to have a change you say in her written testimony you have zero tolerance and you just told mr. cummings is unbelievable we have tolerated this for so long. it says no tolerance recommending people be fired

to the prosecutors there is action that is the government i want to see that is what the employees of the park service i have to my district and that is what they want to see. because they are treated differ them that rank-and-file person i don't think it has been a mistake i yield back and recognize the ranking member. >> some ladies were dancing and they got 14 days? tell us about that. >> the situation at the grand canyon once the information about harassment was made aware to the management at the park level in the deputy they

instituted some specific policies about behavior to eliminate alcohol use on the river trips in the neck with refer rangers and staff before they went down the river to say this suggested behavior will not be tolerated in then there was an incident on the river that involved a number of individuals including the two women so that is when the management at the par compose the disciplinary action on the women. frankly i think this was an enormous mistake. it was wrong. >> why do you say that? >> zero tolerance is zero tolerance not to be reinterpreted by the park superintendent in a way to

set new standards for behavior. he did not take action even though he was made aware this was going on in the park he instituted a new set of policies to prevent it and then he took action on the two women they filed complaints that is being adjudicated. >> goes back to what the chairman has been saying i am listening to you and you told untrue statements to those above you but still you talk all of this strong talk but with you it's a whole different thing. why is that? why should that be?

>> i think i have been appropriately discipline myself and i apologize for that. >> said that began. >> i said that if i a understand your question about holding myself accountable i believe that for the ethics violation i have been held accountable by the department of interior by my superiors i got a reprimand. >> transeven ethics training and interesting thing is you were an ethics officer of you had to go back to be trained. >> correct let me tell you something one of the most important things this is part of the problem. one of them into said many

it goes back to the u.s. the chairman you said the leadership tries to avoid taking disciplinary actions altogether and i am paraphrasing what you said so are you capable to do what the chairman asks? >> yes i am taking appropriate disciplinary actions. >> yes i am. >> the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

this directive to is not the new 31 if looks could end it is okay and if people are to own their age and not talk about being over 50 as a period of decline steadfastness growing age segments in this country is over 85 the second is over 100 so these programs are put in place when life expectancy was 6768 so not only are there more people in the system but they are living longer so we have to be able to look at these

programs to make meaningful adjustments that will allow people to live with dignity for much longer period of time. terrorist >> the majority leader. >> the terrorist attack in orlando continues to horrified our country the fbi and intelligence committee will determine if that terrorist was in direct contact with isis or inspired by a the this much we already know it is a disgusting group that

crucifies children into slaves within and throws gave vent to their debts from rooftop they will continue that signaturet brand of inhumanity to our country the principal way to prevent these types of directed attacks is to be to isis the president has led a campaign intended to contain isis to prevent the attacks in paris or brussels orbr inspired attacks such as in san bernardino. we do we can to fight back to prevent heartbreak like we saw this weekend thatisil, an means better preparing this administration and the next one regardless of party to deal with threats like isis and we can do so by a passing the national defense authorization act to provide our men and women the tools they need to take on these

threats to strengthen the military posture and inshore will enhance our ability to take on the challenges facing us to prepare us for what we face in the future was supporting the soldiers mov- with better health care and the pay raises they have burned banks to the senators from both sides to have worked diligently moving this bill forward mostly to the chairman of the armed services committee senator mccain has been unwavering with his support for our men and women in uniform he also understands man's capacity for inhumanity to man better than most of us and why he is so dedicated he knows passage of the bill is a necessary step to a safer country that we all wantry.

because we are a nation at war under attack. we need to continue taking action to protect our country this bill will sendsa a strong signal to men and women in uniform and to our allies and adversaries we need to pass it today we have other opportunities to keep our country safe lead to defeat in not contain isis in the tools to take down those that are inspired by the brutal apiology the appropriations bill offers opportunities to continue this debate to better address the threat of will most terrorists to connect the dots in order to disrupt their plan republicans takeun action in areas like these

the underlying bill that passed unanimously has funding for agencies like the fbi and funding designed again cybersecurity threats the chairman and ranking member work diligently tohe bring it to the floor numbers should work with these managers of they have ideas how to make the billt pro stronger and mention some of them already we made important progress on appropriations bills this year we can continue that this week with further steps to keep our country safe from terrorism. [inaudible conversations] of cri

>> democratic leader. >> track history in times of crisis the american people look to leaders for oneoating. thing, leadership they want to hear excuses or self congratulations are a scapegoat a simple concept we want our leaders to lead the aftermath of sunday's shooting in orlando florida at a celebration for the lgbt community to all drug proved he was a terrible businessman he is not the man to lead our nation through difficult times or anytime he failed the most important of test of a

presidential candidate how to respond in a crisis. to where citizens are under attack how to respond?ma donald trump failed that test he proved he cannot be just your crisis or a commander in chief. yesterday it doesn't matter what the problem has ben he has failed he should not have his finger on the nuclear button because clearly he is incapable of the responsibility. that is not just me even the junior senator from floridaa and questions of trump can be trusted with such an enormous obligation that he cannot be trusted with the nuclear codes tests stopped many others from endorsing trump to the highest office

in the land there is absolutely no question that donald trump is not capable or experienced enough with this high level responded responsibility we expect more from a commander in chief this is happy responded to sunday's massacre classics from within hours he congratulated himself and then began to immediately picked on the muslim americans he said justint obamad oneness secretaries aids was a terrorist donald trump said justin one of clinton is. aides may be an islamic terrorist this is outrageousou of course, . outrageous to suggest the

president of the united states our commander in chief supports terrorist in the murder of innocent americans yesterday one day after the mass shooting the worst in modern american history trump went even further than most un-american speeches ever he was hateful and vicious he was donald trump. they're reading the republicans won him to me iter was based solely on what? a religion to denigrate those muslim americans all 8 million of them. the nominee said justin of muslim americans are composite this is a direct''

they know what is going on'' khios a renewed his call for a big animal muscle is coming in to united states it was a dangerous mix of ignorance and arrogance''.d? if you were the parent of a muslim american how do you explain his speech to your child? if you're not muslim haj you explain? you can have a deal like your son or daughter in the eye to save the man who runs for president is telling you to doubt your classmates the country based on religion sold solely in purely on your religion i can't explain it is not possible

because this level of hate is not comprehensible it isrehea incomprehensible that any nominee would promote systematic bigotry as he does it is reprehensible and an american for any party to prove it isn't purely by virtue of religion and to stay in these are tough us times he fans the flames of violence already there are reports of threats of muslims in florida and chicago and seattle all across the country and mosques around the country have been threatened donald trump's rhetoric is encouraging this behavior will we have seen from him since the two days of the shooting is reckless but no

one should be surprised contrast his actions from the muslim community muslim leaders all over america in those areas support of the lgbt community in the muslim community is taking part in l a blood drive to help the to victims while americans in the communities are trying to unite with the aftermath donald trump was doing the this opposite when he is so good at doing, dividing in the wake of this awful massacre he tried to cast himself as part of the lgbt community health about that? but italy took minutes from this spokesperson from one of the largest gay rights

groups tuesday that trump is no friend of the community.ay a what does that say that aor republican party there are endorsement is vital or republican senators that are backing him for president? not much what about senate republican leadership that supports the trump? not much every time you seeld a senator he is validating his behavior he gives credence to his everything speech against muslims and whitman latino black people with disabilities immigrants and veterans if those senators except this rhetoric as part of the

dialogue then they're doing just that when the leader of the major party is calling for hatred against his m fellow americans based solely on religion rearing dangerous and and chartered waters and must make clear that donald trump does not speak for us and i am trying to do that we must stand arm in arm with their muslim allies with victims of terrorism to say not in my name. helping u not in my name and remember muslims around the world who has suffered so much because of this? hatred and who has suffered more than anyone else? muslims.

we don't know how many from iraq or the invasion, happen million?sm. remus stand arm in arm with our allies around the world and victims of the terrorism any republican that cherishes american values of say tolerance should do the same to say not in my name the senator should say not in my name they must do what they haven't had the courage to do to stand up to trumpet to say no more. the stop he is not a leader he is unfit to be our president

and as for the republican leader in the senate we would be the first to condemn his rhetoric with see if he can bring himself to do just that. [inaudible conversations] and given the events of us today is the last the intelligence committee 82 -- committee to join us today talking about the atrocities

in orlando but first let me say we're working with the democrats to go to conference on the opioid issue we hope to do that this weekend as you know, we're concentrating on national-security we just passed the ncaa we're not talking about funding the fbi we will continue down the road to deal with these national security and terrorism issues now with that will have over to the chairman. >> i hope all americans will allow the fbi to continue this investigation the matter how long it takes because the important thing is for us to identify the facts that america is an open society we value our freedom and diversity isis has leverage those freedoms to their advantage to retract misguided individuals to carry out

acts of hate and isis has created a global battle field is it inspired or unable or directed? there is no differential a global battle field is what isis has been able to create through the use of social media and now individuals around the world not just here are targets of the solicitation here is one reality you cannot negotiate with people that want to kill you the challenge for us with this administration is we must adopt a strategy now that eliminates the safe haven that isis has their ability to plan extern of plots against the united states and europe and the rest of the world and my hope is we will all have enough information out of

the orlando attack to guide policy makers to make the right decisions. >> we will take a couple of questions. >> donald trump said he is sympathetic to the killer in orlando was that important to say? >> i will not comment on presidential candidates today. >> would you consider doing energy? >> they're all kinds of things that could be considered i am not here today to announce the circumstances or the conditions we rid deal with that. >> do you think the founders anticipated assault weapons? >> senator? day you want to talk about the gun issue?

>> we have to decide if we want to solve the problem or not or just want the political talking points and right now our democratic friends seem to be more interested in opportunistic using the tragedy to audience their agenda rather than solving problems there are ways to work with people who are mentally ill to keep them from being a danger to themselves or others that we need a strategy to defeat isis which is the inspiration for these home grown attacks to give the fbi the tools they need to do the investigations to identify those who are radicalize to take it upon themselves to kill innocent people that is rarely need to focus our efforts in need to work with our colleagues to do that.

>> we have the director of the fbi tomorrow afternoon if we want to engage in a serious legislative effort will talk to the experts about being helpful but our suspicion it is politically motivated effort we are open to serious suggestions as to what we might be able to do to be helpful. >> with porter rigo we will take up the house bill before the end of the month. thank you.

>> we have to be quick today. >> we had a terrific caucus senator sanders took time to talk about his experiences our nation and was shaken by the worst mass shooting in history scorer's injured in some critical it is an attack on the lgbt community the latino community and everyone in america was attacked that demands action

those of the unimaginable tragedy they came together in a time of crisis to get things done and that had to get done here in congress we want to react the same way but closing the terrorist done a loophole according to the gao more than 2,000 suspected terrorists bought guns between 2004 and 2014 they urged along wolf the spokesperson for al qaeda said paul mack america is awash with firearms so what you waiting for? and we have a republican but

their response is more guns is a shameful they care more about the nra and the fight with america and driving further into radicalism than to protect american citizens that is shameful why do they run for office in the first place if they follow the nra more than their own constituents? will do this on the appropriations bill there is no excuse to allow a suspected terrorist to buy guns how about funding the fbi they complain that they're not doing enough their vote against this common-sense proposal in

december was a terrible mistake to have a chance to make a right also to fully fund the fbi their short changing of what obama requested by $100 million so i hope there will find the courage to help us pass meaningful legislation certainly they're doing a good job to protect donald trump. >> a lesson from orlando and san bernadine no to go all across america with these horrible mass shootings we need to do a better job keeping guns out of the hands of felons and mentally

unstable people with a terrorist connection that have no business owning guns in america if that is what this election is about i will stand by the american people. common sense states we as a congress listen to stop the a gun violence what happened in orlando was heartbreaking but i happen in this city of chicago is heartbreaking over 1,000 gun deaths over to render people killed in a great city breaks my heart i love that city to have people all across the city scared to death. do we have the guts to stand up to do something as a congress or are we afraid of the nra? hope to have the courage and the like to make another statement about an issue directly related in times of crisis we expect leadership

grounded in american values president george w. bush after the epic tragedy of 9/11 made it clear those responsible would be held accountable but he warned america not to hold all muslims responsible for the view of a few but after the worst shooting president obama condemned this active hate promising to dedicate every resource to hold those responsible contrast this with donald trump the man who would be the republican president in the wake of europe into a tragedy congratulated himself for his bigotry to muslims and wasted no time to play obama leaders again this week need to ignore the fact their candidate who was unsuited to lead the nation and his

emotional resonance and bizarre conspiracy theories distinguish him from any other candidate in history to hear the republican speaker endorsed trump to characterize his comments is only of message and unscripted to dismiss that toxic rhetoric is only a product of political coaching that is a window of his character into sole how many making plans to attend the convention in cleveland how many will bring families are friends to join in the standing ovation other unhinge a nominee?

history will remember as billing and participants perpetrated on the grand old party. >> last year to a hundred 44 people and the terror watchlist right to purchase guns today 44 suspected terrorist walked into gunshots attempted to purchase firearms to murder 23 were able to get a firearm only 21 went empty-handed that is 21% 91% of suspected terrorist when they sought to purchase say that last year what our republican end report employees contemplate that they say they will continue a situation in 91 percent of suspected terrorists can get a gun? two vacating i have a simple

question when the senators voted last year why is that acceptable what should suspected terrorists be able to purchase a firearm? why? no reasons the answer is obvious in the american people agree independence are democrats agreed is a surge rollout terror suspects but that wags the republican dog the nra is more concerned with the rights of suspected terrorists and the victims of gun violence and our republicans bowed down to that horrible value choice if they continue to impose the terror gap the nra

itself will be in part responsible every terror attack that involves a gun in this country principle. no other way to avoid the fact. so with this upcoming bill we will try it again to close this loophole once and for all when the senate considers the next appropriation bill. can we win? we will propose a relator we're not giving up. then why do it? in that to change their minds to face the consequences that moment the soul-searching and with the

extremist and the nra. who simply don't believe to have access to guns. for those republican senators on the floor of the house. >> tens of thousands of people around the country from los angeles to boston or sat south carolina to texas from seattle to spokane that erupted over the tear in orlando with the haiti over the years and in every single family across

the country what will it take for them to enact common-sense reforms to keep our committee state? even my state of washington has ben who affected by the horrific gun violence and it is past time for this congress for what they can do to stem the tide. they are so adamant that they do nothing to block as of the most obvious amendment for people better on the terror watchlist from being allowed to buy a gun. when you have politicians that they cannot even support the idea that potentially dangerous criminals should not be allowed to walk out of the store with a gun there is a

serious problem with our priorities. . . dui, yes.

>> do american citizens on a watch list without showing probable cause should the government look into phonecalls? >> you have been taking too many cues from the nra. c last question. >> are you pushing to get energy on an faa bill and if it comes back to you? >> you know the fact is we would love to get it extended and we should do it on a short-term basis but we are a long ways from that. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> we are going public. we will be watched by air france and by people across the country and i would hope as i said before that the senate may change.

it's not as an institution but maybe become a more efficient body because of televised proceedings. the proceedings of the united states senate are being broadcast to the nation on television for the first time, not that we have operated in secret until now. millions of americans have sat in the galleries and observed some of the senate debates during their visits to washington but today they can witness the proceedings in their own homes and in effect the senate has been a kind of a stage. the senators have been acting on that stage. the audience is in the galleries and by our actions today we have not really fundamentally alter that situation. we have simply enlarge the valerie's. we have pushed out the laws to include all of the american people who wish to watch.

at the american constitution society's annual convention legal analyst compared how presidents george w. bush and barack obama used executive power. especially on national security issues such as the detention of prisoners at guantánamo bay and the use of drone warfare. the panel included former justice department officials from the bush and obama administration or this is one hour and 20 minutes.

[applause] >> thank you very much. can you times you guys hear me? it is on. good morning and thank you for joining us inside this airless windowless room on this beautiful saturday morning. we are here to talk about the presidency, scope and limits of executive power a hallmark recurring defining issue of the 21st century for two presidency so far. we are going to move along because we have an excellent panel and i'm sure all of you are deeply familiar with this topic already. the 10,000-foot reminder is that president bush came into office with a very powerful vice president whose experience as chief of times of staff in the four demonstrations after watergate and vietnam and during the church committee had marked him as a strong opponent of executive power and critic of congressional regulation and he used that position of influence in the crisis of the september 11 era to advance, establish precedence as

commander-in-chief in wartime cannot be bound by the international law traders and other constraints leading to controversy in areas like torture and surveillance represenative obama the constitutional lawyer came in promising hope and change and it seemed like a corner was being turned but soon found himself also being criticized from both his left and is right for his own strong assertion in various ways of power. he is largely shied away from the commander-in-chief override series that was the hallmark of the bush administration but in both accepting the war on terror was a real war and dancing use of targeting authorities that was thereby authorized which not everyone agrees with and international affairs and based after the 2010 tea party movement election that was not a

helper of his agenda but rather obstructionist to that agenda and in some cases incapable of acting. he began becoming more and more assertive about executive action in domestic affairs ranging from refusing to defend the constitutionality of america to aggressively interpreting what he could do on obamacare to fix provisions and glitches and typos that congress was refusing to fix for him and was famously asserting that he could shield from times from deportation an entire category of millions of undocumented immigrants leading times living to dispute and criticisms from the right. as his presidency starts to wind down we look forward to the third, 21st century post-9/11 presidency. an appropriate time to pause and reflect on experiences over the last 15 years and see where we

might be going in terms of the future of american-style democracy. we have an excellent panel here, a diverse panel to help us think through these questions. i'm going to introduce each of them before their first question rather than presenting you a bio , to suggest owens. we'll go through a couple of rounds here and then we will go to questions from the audience. i'm supposed to. a couple of things. turn off your cell phones. if you want to write, if you want to ask questions raising your hand are going to your microphone the staff, raise your hand and times of a will given an index card and in some point the cards will be brought to me so i can filter out your speeches. if you want to twitter cover this the hashtag is aps 15 and the handle is at aps law. remember you can get dealy credit for this. right after this is probably the

highlight of the morning the current white house counsel will speak so we will get out of your promptly at 6:45 so you can see the main event. okay so let's get going. we are going to start today with tina chomsky the director of the national security project of the aclu which tries to ensure national security practices and policies are consistent with the times the constitution civil liberties and human rights. she frequently mitigates cases regarding freedom of speech and association challenging targeted killing and torture and post-9/11 discrimination against religious and racial minorities. she's a graduate of northwestern university school of law. >> she teaches at columbia law school. tina why do you kick us off. we have seen through the obama air at arise of the anti-obama last that critiques him for continuing and entrenching the war on terrorist bases it.

what do you see as the power that the obama administration has claimed regarding armed conflict zones and with the policy consequences of his decision to do those things. c thank you charlie and good morning everyone. i want to begin by analogy in the last couple of days has sometimes been depressing in terms of conversations about a progressive vision of the constitution but more often really inspiring. i was thinking about that this morning when i was thinking about talking to you and the fact that not only is there not really a progressive vision with respect to a critically important area of four powers but i think the position the founders had with respect to structure in the constitution with respect to war powers times powers was on the verge of being roe can. war powers are critically important because once they are

given the executive branch they leave unchecked authority for the present to president to wield the coercive power of the state to use lethal force and detained without traditional procedural protection. to ensure that those awesome powers are exercised with wisdom and restraint of course the constitution gives to congress perhaps the most fundamental and important obligation it has which is the responsibility to declare war by specifying enemies, by defining clear objectives and setting limits that keep these war powers within balance. i don't think it's any secret to any of us that congress has failed to do that and it continues to fail to do that. in the absence of responsible congressional absence -- action we are fighting multiple wars in multiple countries on the basis

of a 2001 aumf authorization for use of military force that was specific with respect to authority given 9/11 those responsible for it taliban and core al qaeda, wars in which we are engaged are against groups that have the most tenuous of any connection to core al-qaeda and in some cases are to it. that is in the context of traditional armed conflict recognized armed conflict. charlie your question and an important backdrop to that question but i think another significant concern is the claims of work-based authority to use lethal force to obtain outside armed conflict in countries with which and in which we are not at war. that theory continues to underlie targeting authority in

the continues to underlie the claims of authority to keep people detained at one time the mouth without charge or trial. when thinking about how that authority has been yielded by the obama administration it's important to think about some of the ways in which there's a difference in approach between the obama administration and the bush administration. one line of argument about the difference in approach that unlike the bush administration which claimed article ii commander-in-chief authority to override obligations under international treaties and domestic laws, the ban on torture and wireless surveillance the obama administration doesn't do that. it instead has recognized an internal process, careful consideration within the executive branch and presidential authorities through interpretations of international

and domestic law as opposed to series that would flout it. there is a substantive problem with that. the process problem is that claims of work-based authority outside of areas in which we are not in armed conflict is recognized by most of the rest of the world and interpretations of international law on the basis of that authority the executive branch claims and in the face of congressional inaction the executive branch claims that it can take action that has critical impact on civil liberties, the right to life, the right to liberty, without review by the judicial branch or with deference from the judicial branch. i'm going to cut you off there so we can move along but we will come back. now i want to move to marty

lederman a professor at georgetown law school are in the bush years. he became famous as a blogging critic of the bush theory expansive theories of times of the commander-in-chief over its power with his colleague david barrett co-authored the seminole book study of that published in the harvard law review and when harvard law review and wen the obama administration came and he in he served as the number two official for the first two years word was his turn to grapple with an extremely difficult question raised by the rule of law in the threat posed by terrorism. as everyone knows most famously the wartime issue regarding whether he was it was lawful to target american citizens deemed to be a terrorist operation abroad for his capture was infeasible. he also was involved in reviewing all of the bush or a classified legal counsel opinions on issues like torture and pushing to make them public in 2009. he is a graduate of you law

school and a former clerk judge of judge of the first circuit. marty and was wondering if you could pick up on the scene that tina was starting to elucidate and help us think about what do we mean when we say imperial presidency? what are the different categories of things that might lead to a more vigorous framework of law? >> thank you charlie and thanks to acs. good morning it's wonderful to be here with this wonderful paddle -- panel and i hope our discussion will tease out some of these questions and what do we mean and the rhetoric of imperial presidencies. i do want to take issue with the precipice of the panel. i don't think there's any thing resembling an imperial presidency and i don't think it was during the bush and certainly during the obama administration so for starters i would like to sort of frame how i'm thinking about these things in three ways. the first is the point that they

truly imperial president would feel very much unbound to do whatever he or she feels is in the best interest of the nation and i think the book power constrained ackerley describes how even in the bush that's not remotely true. no president can an actor put into place 5% or 10% of what he or she would ideally do if there were no congress and there were no press and particularly if there was no oversight process between the executive branch and congress which does impose a much more powerful picture than the public understands. but also i think there's a big difference between the sense of authority that the bush administration exercised and what the obama administration is unwilling to do. that's point number one in point number two that matters for purposes of what goes on in the

executive branch. whether you feel constrained by treaty or international law and statute in constitutional constraints really plays it different -- the mattock role in how decisions are made. your book charlie demonstrates that in better than any single source i can think of in the third on to make his these issues for the future depend somewhat not only in times in what these menstruations executive branches have done but perhaps more partly how they are perceived and described in the press. if everyone goes around claiming there's an imperial presidency and the bush and obama administration are set to the same and the president ultimately can do whatever he or she wants without constraint i think that is corrosive. i think it leads to executive branch thinking where many officials within the executive branch is thinking there is this kind of liberty and expansive authority where there truly is in. >> give me three examples where

obama would do something he would want to do by the law. >> no to times was a tiny one. the most -- there was a table in the front. ask with how his life would have been different if there were no statutory constraints in place. in terms of negotiating detainees it would have been radically different if there were no congressional oversight in congressional strains and the like times like. everyday executive branch officials. >> the guantánamo transfers. >> no goint, transferred you mention the prosecution. serious and 2013 is among the most important examples i think. there was a lot of pressure on the president inside and outside the to use force unilaterally. without statutory authority and in violation of u.n. charter against assad for very good reasons. he was slaughtering civilians

with chemical weapons so a sympathetic case and ultimately according to his interview with jeff goldberg he found himself, he surprised many in the executive branch by deciding not to do so. he found in separate cooling from the idea of an attack by international law and congress. that's a pretty big decision but let me. >> times. >> last. >> are my five up? just for framing purposes and we get to that things later if you think about this in terms of our well-known youngstown framework whether the controversial things the obama administration is done either without congressional authority or in violation of statute in category 3 in the first category i would say the first few days in attacks in iraq and the initiation of the liberal -- libya operation. those are search and the executive authority without

authorizations that are more modest than the bush that last modest than what tina might propose. in terms of disregarding statutes to two big examples are the passport case where the court affirmed the presence powers to not put israel on the the -- in the bergdahl case which is a hard and difficult case. >> the statute required there be a 30-day notification to congress before making the trade of the taliban to remove the taliban prisoners in exchange for bergdahl and they didn't abide by that. but with those exceptions the vast majority of the cases of claims of imperial presidency are statutory interpretation. >> name e. ray is a professor of george -- the incidence galea

law school not the antonin scalia antonin scalia school of law. >> she teaches constitutional law legislation. she proves he served as an associate white house counsel during the second term of the bush administration and she has written about the nature of a pity in constitutional law push testified as republican witness in the supreme court confirmation hearing for justice sotomayor. choose a graduate of the university of chicago law school and a clerk for justice thomas. we have been talking about foreign policy, national security abroad and we have been talking about commander-in-chief override very but a lot of the controversies have been about domestic law and whether president obama is being too aggressive in interpreting the scope of power delegated to him by statute. can you talk a little bit about immigration fights and the obamacare interpretation five and so forth, how legitimate are the interpretations put forward

by the obama administration and have they gone too far in your view? >> i think following up on what marty said a lot of this is viewed in this administration turned on statutory questions especially in domestic context and i think there's an interesting aspect to this. instead of taking broad claims of constitutional power things have been pushed into the realm of statutory interpretation. once you are talking about interpreting statute, it's much less interesting to the public. there's a lot less public interest in statutory interpretation. talk about getting to the nitty-gritty of a particular law and it seems like something for lawyers and not something for the public. the american public i think still has strong views about what the constitution means and they believe once we talk about the statutes people lose interest. president obama's at has been

smart in making the shift because to the extent that in some context they would like to ask with far-reaching executive power in the domestic context much better to phrase it in statutory interpretation as opposed to constitutional interpretation because you simply get a lot more notice for those issues. one prominent example is the immigration context where the executive has a tremendous mass of delegated authority to act on matters of immigration and i'm not suggesting the president has necessarily exceeded his power but when you see what is so troubling so troubling in the way that so much authority has been delegated to the executive is hard to figure out what authority he might have under the statute pdf to go back and look at the very statutes relating to immigration to know whether he exceeded his authority. that is perhaps very troubling for individual liberty and when

someone who is a lawyer or law professor would take a lot of time to figure out what the president has succeeded in his authority. it's also a problem with congress. congress has given up this authority and perhaps it's not surprising that the president has made such far-reaching claims about the authority. that feeds into the fact that executive discretion is quite substantial. a president can have a lot of discretion to implement the law and so want to have a broad delegation from congress can bind with executive discretion is a round in times in which there is not a lot of flaws to hang onto. that can be very troubling for the expansion of government power i think as a whole. >> even if you yourself are sympathetic to this white house

and not stating which team you are on that can you help people articulate reflate what is the case if you personally are not sure that is the correct way. >> in the immigration context? the times effects of this are very well-known that he has their number of serious supporters said that millions of people need not be deported and they are not subject to immigration laws. so there is really a fence that this is an overreach and i'm sympathetic to that view. >> it's not faithfully executing the law. >> it's hard win down what it is when you have such a large mass of statute of conferring authority. maybe well that he is exceeded a lot but perhaps not. you have to look at the statutes and i think it's interesting the

supreme court has added a question to the case about the care cause, shifting it from the statutory question to a constitutional one which may well be -- it's interesting because there are no cases where the supreme court has analyzed what the president rule is under the k. claussen indicated they might be about to do so. >> let me jump in here to keep things moving along. the four times fourth speaker is walter dillinger. he's a partner to -- best known as a former acting solicitor general during the clinton administration. i was always much more excited about the fact that he was the head of legal counsel where he wrestled in particular with more power issues that arose in the 1990s. he wrote some seminole opinions about the bosnian interventions and that belief among other things he was the most important

voice in articulating the notion that there are interventions the all short of war in a custom channel since in terms of the nation duration of scope and some wars do not need prior national. vultures are graduates and former clerk to justice black and has talked -- taught at duke law school. walter what do you think a president, i'm sorry what should the congress do when confronted, let's stipulate that the present is gone too far. we have seen increasing trend of that one chamber congress filing lawsuits against this president. we have seen states recently jump into the courts. what do you make of this and where are we going? >> first of all i think what

congress and the state should not do is run to the federal district court when they have a disagreement. this is particularly true congress. i think when you talk about statutory interpretation it's important to realize that i think the reason for moving to the statutory claim is not because he gets less noticed but it's a far less aggressive assertion of authority. the constitutional claim cannot he trump if the president had claimed a take care of authority to violate statute you would have to take care issue. the action and immigration for example rests upon 2002 subsection 5 which says that the secretary of homeland security shall establish national immigration enforcement policies and priorities. that's important because congress has a remedy which is

to say can revise the statute. i remember the hearings. i was not able to testify one of the hearings but i would have held up a copy of chapter 6 of the united states code instead everybody on the committee you are party to the secretary of common security the authority to determine national immigration priorities. you provided resources to deport half a million people a year out of 11.5 million people. the president set those priorities and what you could do and what not a single member of the committee criticizing the president for being wallace has done is reducing legislation saying no here are the priorities. and conferring upon the secretary the responsibility and a duty of establishing immigration priorities we are going to set the priorities.

everything this administration suggests repeatedly that they would absolutely comply with the congressional -- congressional determination but the powers are. deport family members and let the fellas day the president is going to do but this must be conferred upon by the administration. can i jump in? is there a limit to that? laissez president of says my epa and the justice department need to set priorities and we have a priorities zero on air pollution. >> i think if you read the olc opinion of justifying the president's immigration order it asked whether the president is carrying out this broad delegation in a manner that is constant with the policies that congress has sought to advance. the one part of a pin in pending a question that is where it limited the authority of the president to grant deferred

action with respect to parents of dreamers on the grounds that it could not see the same rationale and other things congress had done so it's actually a quite limited, a quite limiting opinion. it's limiting the scope of the sweep of the authority the president has given. >> we have one minute left. what's the problem with going to the court? >> the problem is in the technical sense there is no injury. congress's job is done when it passes the statue. winehouse has no more just in the statute than any other sitting in this room does and that's important. let me give you the two sentence version if i can. why in a country of 320 million people do five men get to decide an issue like this involving 11.5 million people times

people? the reason five people would get to decide this issue is that they have a job to do and that job is to provide redress to injured victims. that's the only justification. because we have a job to do of resolving disputes between berlin times berlin against and addressing injuries that and only that gives us authority times the authority to proclaim the meaning of the constitution. so absent injury, absent any justification other notification of what elected representatives for three and 20 million people want to do that's why think this case where the state of texas is claiming injury. how the president is interpreting the financing of certain provisions of the affordable care act on a very radical, very radical step in the way of expanding judicial authority. we are going to wrap up round

one with a professor of virginia law school. he teaches constitutional law musical power to say other of among other things the new book imperial from the beginning the constitution and the original executive which argues the office of the presidency was deemed as monarchical. he is a graduate of lakefield law times law school and another former clerk to justice thomas. you sort of draw together the two strands we have been hearing so far this morning about the bush years and the obama years in foreign policy and look forward to the next president. what we learned so far in the 21st century and where might we be going? >> thank you so much and i thank all of you for having me. this panel times panels incredible and i've learned a lot. i think the first lesson is go

back and read the interview that charlie did with candidates in 2007. think it's available its available on the web site. it's incredible. charlie send out queries to candidates in baxley responded about real important issues in presidential power and constitutional law including president obama. i don't think you have met with as much success because they realize they don't want to answer these questions. they want to say things will come back to hunt them. my first is don't get -- about what they say about presidential power. they don't really believe them or they don't believe them sufficiently to hold to it in the long run. lincoln was awake who invaded against presidential power.

expand funds and expand the army. president carter ran on a platform of making department of justice independent. he went into office and his lawyers told him he couldn't do so being consistent with the constitution. he didn't do so. president bush talked about no more nation-building and of course we are still trying to do that in various parts of the world. in part because of the wars that he launched with congressional approval and i think the same is true for president obama. he had perhaps executive power but when the rubber hit the road when he became president he realized there were things he wanted to do and sometimes prior theories of law and the constitution died away. libya is the most conspicuous example. there was no authority for congress to attack libya and there was no claim that the 2001

or 2002 authorized it. he did anyway times it anyway. marty talks about syria but syria he didn't want to go into syria so he blamed congress for not giving them the authority. had nothing to do with any constitutional claim. i was just a fig leaf and that relates to my second . presence go to congress for war authority only when it doesn't matter. they go to congress if they think they are going to get authority but they don't go to congress if they won't. bush goes to congress because he's but this is going to get authority. president obama did not go to congress for libyan authority. he went to congress in syria because he knew he wasn't going to get it. he expected them to say no. i have a friend at northwestern he says basically president says a matter of practice go to congress as a matter of

insurance. they can spread the blame to others if the war doesn't go well and we have seen the blowback that candidate clinton has gone through for voting for the iraq war in 2002. that's a successful strategy for president bush where he basically shared some of the blame of congress. when we hear president clinton candidate clinton talk about things especially candidates -- [applause] especially candidates choose what they say about residential power. they have been given deep thought about it and they will be told otherwise by their lawyers once they get to office and they will follow with their lawyers say. i say this first respect to canada clinton who she's a lawyer of great repute. she is smart but that didn't stop a former constitutional law professor from changing his mind about the scope sideof preial power. >> do you think president

trumbull follow what his lawyers say? >> if he likes what they say he will follow it and if he doesn't he won't. >> lets to round two. this is a good transition so you are starting to talk about congressional abdication might guess of their constitutional role in deciding whether the country's times is going to go to war or not. talking about when presence go to congress and they don't. notably president obama has not gone to congress for explicit authorization to fight isis. can you talk a little bit about congress's abdication of its war power and maybe tie it with how courts have dealt with war power issues when they come before the court? >> i started addressing earlier on a bit of congress is abdication. i think there are few outsiders in government who don't think it is a real issue that we are

continuing to fight wars in 2001 amuf and who are concerned about how much authority congress might give the executive branch. there some instances in which president obama hasn't wanted as much authority as congress would want to potentially give. there's a level of irresponsibility there but what i find a little bit more interesting or perhaps challenging to talk about is what are the consequences of the judiciary. the substandard point is that there have been internal executive branch interpretations of different legal frameworks, the laws of war, the loss of sovereignty and self-defense in terms of sovereignty complex, constitution and if you go through the memos and they are better argued what comes through

is cherry-picking from some of the most parts -- permissive aspects of each of those frameworks with arguments against the most restrictive aspects don't apply or may not be invoked in court. that is a matter of international law times law interns of the system that we helped set up. also matters because there is no review, judicial review of us far despite the fact that in the four instances in which the supreme court stepped in and i'm talking about executive power in the and the authority to detain and prosecute it ruled against the bush of administration. the courts have not engaged in and have deferred to questions of interpretation of legal authority to use lethal force including against u.s. citizens including outside areas of recognized armed conflict and

that's a real problem because there has been without congress and without judiciary he continues to be in times a lateral executive branch interpretation that the executive branch claims and internal branch processes to satisfy due process. i think when we think about what matters with respect to the next administration that should give us pause. i'm reminded back in 2012 when the prospect was on a president who is a republican there were concerns within the executive branch about what powers would be handed over times over so there were discussions about policy constraints that might be recognized even though the legal framework claims were so broad in that led to the perspective targeting which what we have been waiting for in terms of its release. but it matters that we have

legal constraints as well as policy constraints and it matters not just because we might have a president trump and that might give us cause, what legal limits would be recognized even if it isn't president trump and it's president clinton what other legal limits recognize geographically temperilli with respect to use of lethal force and an area i'm going to talk about it in guantánamo is the ways in which claims up or a desire for maximum flexibility in the part of the executive branch. it usually goes one way. it can actually serve to constrain policy outcome so with respect to guantánamo i think potentially because of litigation decisions that were made early on in the bush of administration potentially as a

result of policy times policy situations both of which you talk about in your book charlie the obama administration continues to claim the authority to hold people without charge or trial and the potential to close clarkona mouth by bringing people to the united states. and i don't think anyone should make any mistake here. there would be significant separation of powers concerns that the executive branch sought to override congressional restrictions on bringing people to the united states for closing guantánamo even if we closed the physical place dozens and one of the original sins which is claims of four based authority to hold people who were not captured within or even in the context of armed conflict continued to detain them indefinitely without charge or trial regardless of where that happens in nassau including guantánamo.

>> i want to praise you in the panel for her. plug to my book. i think that's a positive trend and let me say if it wasn't for geeks like you -- get on your smartphone right now. marty we will turn back to you. i want to ask you two questions. one is squeezing into your five minutes if you want to respond regarding her concerns about targeting and the approach to targeting law, please do and if he times you could segue to something that pushes into the other currents we have been hurting about congressional paralysis and dysfunction. to what extent is it legitimate or more legitimate for a president to push the boundaries of his or her authority in a situation which congress is not living up to its constitutional role to pass legislation and confirm people?

>> on the last question i will try to get that but if i don't everything i know about it i learn from walter so i'm sure he will be able to address it which is when is it appropriate to take aggressive interpretations were to exercise broad delegations that congress has given the president rather than trying to work out new legislation with the congress. it's a very important question. let me use tina's example among others. by and i agree on a lot of the substance of war powers and the like. suppose the message i'm trying to convey to convey is i want to push back against what i will call the cynicism or i might just call it realism that he is described. of course it's a case that every presidential candidate when in office will do things that might be inconsistent with here she said during the campaign and for that reason candidates are very reluctant to make full claims.

i don't think it was a mistake for president obama and i don't think he thinks it was a mistake if i might to make the sorts of claims about the law and the statutory treaty based in international law that he campaign. that was a big part of his campaign. i think he believes it and i think it imposes dramatic constraints on the way that he acted or any other president would act in terms of what options are on the table. syria is a good example. i think, i don't think at all the president didn't want to take action. think he wanted to persuade congress and its allies in europe and elsewhere that assad needed to be stopped times stopped. there was intense pressure within the administration for most of the advisers to do so and his failure to get international and congressional sense he was unable to persuade them and it would be wrong for him to act unilaterally.

so i think that's a very important example. even where the president asserts authority of think this president was thinking in the campaign of 2008 and also has president about the legacy and the president and the example he was set for his successors many years and the future. not just a possible donald trump at any successors. both in terms of what assertions of authority are made it's important that the congress gets the last word in it's important or not be too many assertions of you lateral authority to disregard statutes and international law but even where he does, gets a times the ticket in the first two months of the administration that the president has the authority to detain an armed conflict members of al-qaeda who were captured.

there's a very valid substantive question in that regard times regard but yes he thinks he has the authority as a matter of domestic and international law. but look at what he has done. he hasn't exercised it at all during this administration apart from guantánamo. he is virtually cut back on the practice of long-term wartime protection instead moved in virtually every instance reflected in charlie's wonderful book for another plug. you really ought to all read it if you haven't already, to use the ordinary forms of law enforcement to deal with captives in this armed conflict. he believes that is the right policy. similarly the policy guidance on targeting is intended at least internally and i hope externally as well by the end of the administration to impose constraints be on what international law require at least in the view of the united

states in part because allies are uneasy about some of those international law claims. because he doesn't want to be pushing the legal envelope to broadly where it's unnecessary to do so. the exact opposite of the bush of administration. they didn't need to make broad claims of authority because congress had given them this with respect to the war against al-qaeda and the war in iraq and they wrote 30 page memos. the first footnote of which is congress gave us this authority but ignore that, we will explain to you why we did need congress's authority. we don't need to do that. that's because they too won to set a precedent for future presidents and administrations to have the idea and to act with a feeling of not being constrained by law. i think that makes each difference in the way the government works but i can't prove that. i can tell you from experience. >> i'm going to flip the order

because it seems like a good -- can you respond to him and talk about in particular your thoughts about libya in 2011 both going in the first instance without congressional authorization and staying in without congressional authorization passed the war powers resolution. >> this panel is so interesting and provocative. these people are so great in charlie's look is awesome. it really is a great look. >> why do we debate about that. >> i think we would all agree. one of my favorite pieces of fiction as times as georgia wrote animal farm. i want to spoil it for you but i'm going to. the animals have a revolution and they cast out the humans but at the end of the times the book for start walking on two legs and start having dinner with the humans while the other animals

are outside. i think that's basically the obama administration microcosm with respect to presidential power. i'm not going to get into the policy but on the question of presidential power i don't think there really has been much of a difference between he obama administration and the bush of administration. in terms of the outcomes there has been a lot of discussion about the statutes and not constitutional authority. i don't necessarily mean that as times as an across-the-board criticism. when i hear tina talk about that talk about the amf the 2001 aumf is not the obama administration. it is a blanket delegation of authority to go after persons organizations person's organizations and nations who conducted 9/11. asked my foreign relations class could be obama's administration attack people in saudi arabia under the 2000 amf on the fact that they'd help the hijackers may think the answer is yes.

the 2001 aumf is incredibly broad. and when i look at the proposed aumf administration this is a deeply cynical document because it doesn't repeal the 2001 aumf and it has all these constraints. no one during offensive military operation under this new aumf but when this expires the 2001 aumf is still operative. there's a three-year limit to this proposed aumf of the obama destination which is relevant because the 2001 aumf is a backdrop. i don't see a major difference in outcomes. i thought we were still taking prisoners. one reason we are not taking prisoners is because the present is biting this war with drones and there are prisoners to take. this is not meant to be criticism. i disagree with tina about the

attack on isis. i think it is covered by the 2001 aumf even if al-qaeda and isis had -- if hitler is gearing and hitler had a dispute and they both fight against united states during world war ii i think we were attacked with them. gearing doesn't get a pass because he called his country firm in the end we are only going to attack hitler's germany. i'll think that matters. i'm not trying to be critical. i may sound that way times way of the obama administration produce marty woods and trying to be realistic. >> let me switch to walter who seems to be itching to respond to. first you want to respond to him and is part of that can you incorporate into your answer, it if you do stipulate that a president bush of not obama or

trump not obama depending on which team you are on islam was what institutional arrangement can we have that will function to constrain that? >> first evolved to respond to side i think there's a fundamental difference between claims of constitutional authority and claims of statutory authority. even if you might say it gets you to the same place. take for example to me the most dramatic example is electronic surveillance, national security after 9/11. there's a statutory framework that is clearly directed at times that the executive branch. sets up a court that you go to that is never had a leak and you get authorization. it has a provision whereby in terms -- times of emergency you can go to the special court. i didn't think you could have argued that might be and

constitutional if you had to do so many wiretaps in such a short time that you couldn't comply with the timeframe set but you would have to comply as rapidly as possible. they simply said that i have to comply with it. and they didn't tell anybody. nobody knew, nobody knew that they were absolutely violating consciously deliberately and secretly a constraint of the most profound guide and abstracts me as something the likes of we have not seen. we have a law about the use of torture as well. that seems to me to be different than open statement transparently arrived at claiming authority under an act of congress in inviting congress to correct you. that is what lincoln did even when he suspended habeas corpus. they indeed made alterations and cutbacks on what lincoln had done. that's his what i would say that

cheney addington doctrine was so profoundly at odds with our constitutional order. i think there are institutional arrangements. think it's better or they present to times to get his liquefies from the department of justice and by friends of the white house counsel know. >> that's what bush said. >> well i think you are correct that is not sufficient particularly if the vice president's legal counsel is driving the actual decision-making process. it's not much of a constraint but i do think there is a real advantage in having legal it buys come from the attorney general. i spent three months in the white house and 93 going to the justice department and i think it's a very difficult place to make legal judgments. you are surrounded by people that are doing policy in a very intense environment.

everyone is looking at the 20 minute newsfeed. some people look ahead to the evening news, that far in advance. these people are called visionaries in the modern white house. but the department of justice has an ongoing institutional responsibility and i think to have, to put the best lawyer i would put neal edelson as head of alosi. no disrespect to the individual but their institutional arrangements that make up way. i had a 1000 paths so i went every other day went to the white house and went from office to office and said what you doing that you are not telling me about? i think that is where you need times need to set up authority that operating agencies have different dynamics and there is a greater constraint is the only role of the department is not an

operational role that is a role to make legal advice and that would be my preference. >> i'm going to turn to miami for the last set of questions. if you have questions you would like me to ask in the final 25 minutes now is the time to make sure. can you provide the grand climax to all of this by tying it back together with the recurring theme of congressional ineffectiveness and maybe add a new dimension which is you know presidential power and in the domestic investigative trust us russ is, vis-à-vis congress. >> i do think following on the other comments i think that there is one quite significant difference between the claims about executive overreach him

between the bush administration times administration and the obama administration and i think during the bush administration most of the discussion was defined to the role of foreign affairs in which questions about executive power are quite different. we can have legitimate debates about what the scope of this power those power should be but i think the executive power most people would recognize as different when it's focused outside of our times our borders and inside of our borders and to me the more inches in question with this administration has times has been the must take overreach particularly in need misread of contacts. ..

. >>