the question. it's disturbing to us, the behavior but it's also disturbing that they're noton being fired. ms. kendall, are you aware of any employees who were afraid to report misconduct? >> i'm not specifically aware of employees that are afraid of reporting misconduct but i do believe that across the park service and throughout 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]

mr. mcconnell: madam president in. the presiding officer: the -- the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the terrorist attack in orlando continues to horrify our country much the f.b.i. and our intelligence community will determine whether that terrorist was in direct contact with isil or inspired by isil. either way, this much we know already: isil is a disgusting group that crucifies children, enslaves women, and throws gay men to their death from rooftops. it is determined to continue exporting its signature brand of inhumanity to our country. the principal way we can prevent isil-inspired or directed attacks is to defeat isil. the president has led a campaign intended to contain isil, which has been insufficient to prevent the attacks in paris or brussels or inspired attacks such as in

san bernardino. we need to do what we can to fight back now to prevent more hardbreak like we saw this -- heartbreak like we saw this weekend. that means, for instance, better preparing this administration and the next one, regardless of party, to deal with threats like isil, and we can do so by passing the national defense authorization act before us. it will provide our men and women in uniform with more of the tools they need to take on these threats. it will strengthen our military posture. in short, it will enhance our ability to take on the challenges currently facing us and better prepare us for those we'll face in the future. all while supporting our soldiers with better benefits, improved health care, and the pay raises they've earned. i want to thank the senators from both sides who've worked dill jntsly to move -- diligently to move this bill forward. that gratitude extends most

deeply to the chairman of the armed services committee. senator mccain has been unwavering in his support for our in uniform. he also understands man's capacity for inhumanity better than most of us and that's why he's so dedicated to taking on these threats. he knows that passage of this bill will present a serious and necessary step towards a safer country that we all want. because, look, we're a nation at war, but we're a nation under attack. we need to continue taking action to protect our country. this bill will send a strong signal to the men and women in uniform. it will send a strong signal to our allies. it will send a strong signal to our adversaries. we need to pass it, and we need to pass it today. and we'll have other opportunities this week to keep our country safe and to take on terrorism. we need to defeat, not contain, isil, and we need the tools

necessary to take down terrorists inspired by its brutal ideology. the appropriations bill we're about to consider offers important opportunities to continue this debate. we need to be able to better address the threat of lone wolf terrorists. we need to be able to connect the dots of terrorist communications in order to disrupt their plans. republicans have offered ideas to take action in areas like these. the underlying bill which passed unanimously out of committee will advance a lot of important priorities like funding for agencies like the f.b.i. to fight terrorism and funding designed to help defend against cybersecurity threats. chairman shelby and ranking member mikulski worked diligently to advance this bill out of committee and bring it to the floor. members should work with these bill managers if they have ideas they think would make the bill stronger. i mentioned some of them already. we've made important progress on

appropriations bills so far this year. we can continue that progress this week and take further steps to keep our country safe from terrorism. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: throughout history in times of crisis and tragedy, the american people look to leaders for one thing -- leadership. americans don't want to hear excuses. we don't want to hear self-congratulations. we don't want to hear scapegoating. it's a very simple concept: we

want our leaders to lead. in the aftermath of sunday's shooting at the pulse nightclub in orlando, florida, a place of celebration for the lgbt community, donald trump proved that he is a terrible leader, as he is a terrible businessman. trump proved he is not the person to lead our nation through difficult times, or in fact any time. trump failed the most important of tests for a presidential candidate: how to respond in a crisis when our citizens are you under attack. how do you respond? donald trump failed that test. he proved he is not commander in chief material -- undersigned, underscored. but yet -- i'm sorry. but -- so it doesn't matter what the problem has been. trump has failed.

trump isn't the person we want to have his finger on the nuclear button, because he's clearly incapable of that responsibility. that's just not me saying it. even the injure senator from florida -- seen the junior senator from florida has questioned whether he can trusted with such a decision. it hasn't stopped senator rubio or many other republicans from endorsing trump for the highest office in the land. there's absolutely no question -- none -- donald trump is not capable enough or experienced enough for this high level of responsibility. we expect more from a commander in chief. here's how trump responded to sunday's massacre -- classic trump. within hours of the shooting, trump first congratulated himself -- congratulated himself -- and then began to immediately

denigrate muslim-americans. trump then suggested our president and one of secretary's aides may be in lead with the terrorists. donald trump suggested that president obama and one of secretary cline it un's aides may be in lead with islamic terrorists. is this outrageous? of course it is. it is outrageous for donald trump to suggest that the president of the united states, our commander in chief, would support terrorists and the murder of innocent americans. but yesterday, one day after the mass shooting in modern -- it is the worst in modern american history -- trump, the standard-bearer for the republican party, went even further. trump was hateful, he was vicious, he was donald trump. everything that republicans knew

him to be when they made him the party's nominee. donald trump used his remarks to foment hatred against millions of innocent americans, based solely on what? on their religion. he denigrated muslim-americans, all 8 million of them. the republican nominee suggests that all muslim-americans are complicit in this, that they, muslim-americans -- listen to this one, this is a direct quote -- "know what's going on" -- close quote. trump also renewed his call for a ban on all muslims coming in the united states. trump's speech washings as one news outlet called it "a dangerous mix of ignorance and arrogance." close quote. if you are the parent of a muslim-american, how do you explain his speech to your child? if you're not a muslim parent,

how do you explain trump's speech to your child? you can't. how do you look your son or daughter in the eye and explain that a man running for president is telling your classmates to be suspicious of you, to doubt your loyalty to this country based upon your religion? solely on your religion, purely on your religion. you can't explain it. i can't explain it. it's not possible to explain. because this level of hate is not comprehensible. it's incomprehensible that any presidential nominee would foster and promote systematic bigotry, as trump often does. it's reprehensible and un-american for the nominee of any major party or any party to declare millions of americans guilty until proven innocent based on their religion.

these are frightening times and trump's pair noiio is make -- nature noiia is making us -- paranoia is make us feel less saivment already there have been threats against muslims all across the country. donald trump's rhetoric is encourage this scary behavior. what we have seen from trump in the two days since the shooting is rank and its reckless. no one should be surprised. this is vintage donald trump. contrast his actions with the response from our nation's muslim communities. muslim leaders all over america were some of the first to condemn this attack and rally in support of the lgbt community. and the muslim community has taken part of the blood drive to help the victims of the attack as they always step forward. while americans within the muslim and lgbt communities are

trying to unite america as an afp math of sunday -- aftermath of sunday's shooting, donald trump is doing just the opposite. he's doing what he's so good at doing: dividing. and then in the wake of this awful massacre, trump tried to cast himself as a friend to the lgbt community. how about that? but it didn't take minutes for a spokesman for the human rights campaign, the nation's largest gay rights groups, stating that trump is -- quote -- "no friend of the community." what does it say about the republican party, that they're endorsing this vile man? it doesn't say much. what does it say about republican senators that they're backing trump for president? not much. what does it say about senate republican leadership, about the senate republican leader that he's supporting trump? not much. every time the senior senator from kentucky reaffirms his

commitment to support trump, he's validating trump's behavior. he's giving credence to donald trump's rabid anti-everything speech, his anti-american stances against women, women, latinos, blacks, people with disabilities, immigrants, veterans and others. if they -- the senators i've mentioned -- accept this kind of rhetoric as part of our political dialogue, they're all guilty of normalizing hatred. senate republicans are doing just that. when the leader of a major party is promoting unhinged conspiracy theories and calling for hatred against his fellow americans based solely on their religion, we're in dangerous and uncharted waters. we must make clear that donald trump does not speak for us. i'm trying to do that. we must stand arm in arpbl with our muslim -- arm in arm with our muslim allies who have been

victims of terrorism by single radicals, not in my name. not in my name. and remember, muslims around the world are helping us defeat the terrorist attacks. who has suffered so much because of this crazy brand of hatred, who has suffered more than anyone else? muslims. we don't know how many are dead in iraq following the invasion. half a million. we know at least 300,000 in syria. muslims. we must stand arm in arm with our muslim allies around the world who have been victims of this terrorism. any republican cherishes american values of religious freedom and tolerance should

immediately do the same. say not in my name. republican senators should say not in my name. republicans must do what they have -- they must do what they haven't had the courage to do. stand up to trump and say no more. stop it. he's not a leader. he's unfit to be our president, unfit to stand for the values upon which this great country was founded. as for the republican leader in the senate, senator mcconnell, should be the first to condemn trump's hateful rhetoric and reject his presidential candidacy. let's hope the senior senator from kentucky can bring himself to do just that and