>> i don't. a lot of employees at the park feel the same way. >> let me read something to you that i find particularly troubling. to quote from the national park service expedited investigation, and it's from two trained investigators. who interviewed some of the victims. and it says it's difficult to articulate in words the emotions that exuded from those interviews. says it's apparent that these employees have suffered in their positions and are traumatized by the harassment they are subjected to. during the interviews, the emotions ranged from inconsolable tears, anger, frustration, helplessness, and regret. in that regard, mr. reynolds, do you think appropriate actions have been taken? your microphone, please. >> sorry. i believe what you're reading from, sir, is the yosemite expedited inquiry?

>> i mean, it seems that there's a pattern across here that women were intimidated. other people were intimidated, they were traumatized. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> you gave one guy a temporary promotion. has anyone been fired? has that question been asked? has anyone been fired? anyone terminated? >> no one has been fired yet, no. disciplinary actions are under way. and the one thing -- >> let me go on and ask a couple more questions. november 2015, the oig found that the deputy superintendents and other managers of the grand canyon shared personal information of the women who wrote reporting the egregious sexual harassment in the gran desert the grand canyon river district. -- the grand canyon river district. one former grand canyon employee who submitted a statement for the record stated that given the culture of retaliation and hostility towards the victims in the grand canyon river district,

i along with the other victim ss -- along with the other victims am rightfully terrified that the alleged perpetrators will contact us directly to retaliate against us. i would like to enter that statement into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> what action has the park service taken in response to this personal information? >> the actions that we have taken to date is to recognize that there was inappropriate actions or -- >> that's great. that you recognize it, but i want to know, has anyone been fired? has anyone been demoted? i mean -- >> no, what i can do under the interest of the privacy act for these kinds of things is to personally debrief with you on what we're doing with disciplinary actions. i can assure you they're under way. >> all right. i just wonder, given all this, how any park service employees can trust the managers will keep their information confidential, that any park service employees can be confident if they're harassed in any way, that they'll be listened to, and that action will be taken to protect them.

i find it -- it's disconcerning to me, mr. -- mr. chairman, that we have had hearings with other agencies and it just seems that this goes on and on and on, and no real punitive action is taken, and as long as we have that stance, as long as no real punitive action is taken, these type of things are going to continue to happen. my time has expired. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i'll now recognize myself here. let me go back to the expedited investigation at yosemite. it's our understand of the 21 people the investigators interviewed, every single one of them with one exception described yosemite as a hostile work environment as a result of the behavior and conduct of the park's superintendent. why isn't there immediate relief? >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman.

that was to me? >> yes. >> we are actively engaged, the regional director who is in san francisco -- >> wait, wait. let's explore the relationship between yosemite and the region. is there a problem with that chain of command there? >> the regional office that oversees yosemite in san francisco. we have a regional director. >> what about the deputy? who is that person? >> we have three deputy regional directors. >> yeah. >> and one is in seattle. and two are in san francisco. along with the regional director. >> come on, you know what i'm getting at. >> one of the deputies is the wife of the superintendent at yosemite. >> so -- >> and if i may, mr. chairman, we have consciously stovepiped that by having a third party in the midwest region, our eeo manager, help run the investigative process. >> ok, so but here's the

problem. you have these -- these things didn't just spring up overnight, right? this has been a long-standing pattern. you have somebody who is essentially protected in power by his wife. i mean, people are afraid of actually coming forward and filing a complaint. i mean, one of the complaints is that the complaints get back to the superintendent. so when your chain of command and your ability to tell supervisors is impeded by the fact that they're husband and wife, how do you -- how do you let that happen? >> it's even more important why this investigation is important to me to understand. >> how long has it been going on? >> i am not sure, mr. chairman. >> what do you mean you're not sure? you're the head of the work force and then you got a promotion. >> i don't know in terms of what the time scale has been. but that's what i'm asking the investigative teams to look into. >> who -- you mean the inspector

general? >> inspector general now is involved. >> ms. martin, can you shine some light on this ongoing problem? >> the expedited inquiry took place about the first part of august, so i can appreciate the fact that the investigation is now turned over to the i.g. but with substantial credible evidence of a hostile work environment, there was a number of us that did fear that the superintendent did release or did have a list of names when the regional director came out with the expedited inquiry looking for individuals that would be willing to make statements, either in person or written, about their perception of the hostile work environment at yosemite. so there was a number of us that feared that the superintendent probably got our names.

we don't know how, maybe it was through the regional office. we don't know. but there are people that felt that they were not going to come forward and provide a statement based upon this expedited inquiry because the superintendent had a list of names. >> were there any repercussions for that? are you aware of anybody who had any sort of retaliation against them? because they had stepped forward and made a statement about the reality of what was going on? >> not at this point. because it still is under investigation, we don't have -- we're not hearing about any -- no names have been shared. we only have an informal network of individuals that have come forward, but this is the first time i'm actually hearing what some of the additional allegations are in the statements that have been made. >> can you share with us any of your other personal experience. you mentioned you had been the victim three times.

you were very candid in what happened in the 1980's. but when you came back to the park service, what was your experience? >> i came back to the park service after working for the forest service for 16 years. when i came back in 2006, i was very excited that my career was coming back to the park service. i really enjoy working for the park service. but i experienced the culture that's very, very closed in terms of being able to talk about these difficult issues. and when i came back to the park service, my fear was that the first individual that was the perpetrator for my first sexual harassment was still working for the park service. and indeed, he was.

and it was up until just recently that i -- this is why i made the decision to come forward, is that i really felt that it was important to shine light on the fact that this was the tipping point for me. and so for so many other women that needed to have this heard. >> this is a person who was arrested in 2000 -- in the year 2000. high ranking national park official accused of peeping at naked women at a ymca, and then there's another incident report in 2001. they were having voyeurism issues. police officer was sent. this person was found to be behind a home or a building in a highly suspicious behavior in that situation. and again, nothing happened. seems to be a little bit of a pattern. these are just the ones that they caught.

so what were, if you don't mind me asking, i hope you don't, what were the other two incidents that happened to you? and then also, maybe if you could contrast the difference between forest service and park service. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the other two incidents, one while i was still working at grand canyon, i don't remember the exact year, there was an individual that between the park service and the forest service, we worked very closely together on wild and fire incidents. so this particular gentleman worked for the forest service, took pictures of me and put my pictures up above his visor in his government vehicle, was quite bold about it and showed other people that he had pictures of me in his government vehicle. one day alone at my office, the south rim at grand canyon, he was bold enough to enter my

office and try to kiss me. and i pushed him away, very, very visibly shaken and upset, told a friend of mine about what had happened. went to his office, the forest service office, and proceeded to confront the individual. i never had any problems after that, but i did not feel safe at grand canyon. this particular gentleman had applied for the chief of fire and aviation job at grand canyon, and at that point, i proceeded to notify the deputy superintendent at grand canyon at that time that this individual was sexually harassing me. i do believe that my conversation with the deputy superintendent most likely prevented that individual from getting a job at grand canyon. >> and the other incident? >> the other incident was after i left the national park service, i was working for the u.s. forest service.

and there was a private -- it was a work sponsored meeting at a private house. and i was sitting next to a superior of mine in my fire chain of command. was sitting on a crowded couch, proceeded to run his fingers through my hair. i immediately got up from the couch to remove myself from the situation. i talked to my immediate supervisor about it the following day. again, these are very embarrassing situations. it seems so ubiquitous in our culture, in the wildland culture and i didn't feel i could expose that as part of preserving my career. at one point, i did mention it to upper management in the forest service, and the appalling reply when i told him about it, well, it's his word against yours. i think at that point i really began to believe that there is a

culture of tolerance and acceptance of this kind of behavior in our workforce. and i have been powerless, although maybe i could is come forward with more formal complaints. i did not. i honestly felt that the preservation of my career and my career status with my peers was more important than filing a complaint. >> indulge us here, one more question. mr. reynolds, during your time heading the workforce, how many people were fired for sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, or anything in that genre? how many? >> i would have to look up a number and get it to you today. but i am not aware that there were that many fired, to be honest with you. for those actions that you state. >> were there any? >> i'll confirm with you. i don't have any recollection of any at this point.

>> i guess i would like to know how many complaints came, were filed during that time. >> yep. >> let's take the end of 2013. >> ok. >> to present day. >> got it. >> how many were complaints happened at any level? and how many people were fired? >> thank you. thank you. >> now recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. collins where glrb thank you, mr.chairman, and thank you for having this hearing. mr. reynolds, you're the deputy director of operations? >> yes, sir. >> so you in that responsibility oversee all of the national parks in some fashion. >> through their regional directors, yes. >> yeah. how long have you been on the job? >> since august 1. >> and why did you get placed in

that job on august 1? >> we had a retirement of my previous boss, peggy o'dell. and the director asked if i would be willing to be reassigned into that job. >> so it wasn't because of some policy shift or shoring up enforcement or making a statement that now we're taking it seriously? >> in this case, my understanding is they needed a replacement for a retirement. >> ok, so you were filling -- nothing wrong with that. just want to make sure we weren't making a statement, trying to deal with what's in front of us here. >> no. >> how long have you been with the park service? >> 30 years. >> ok, so it's fair to ask you this question, i think. i'm looking at the fact that we got problems in the last few years at the grand canyon, cape canaveral, yosemite, yellowstone. i mean, you know, why shouldn't the public be led to believe that behind the redstones, i mean, behind the redwoods, shenanigans are going on? people are being harassed or worse.

and nothing is being done about it because the culture is so what kind of culture, frankly. it doesn't take this seriously, which has lots of ramifications for would-be employees in terms of desirability of service, in terms of the integrity of the national park service itself. the public wouldn't think this was a good idea or tolerate it and it would be distressed and is distressed to hear these stories repeatedly. so help me understand, is this a systemic culture that has to be weeded out in the national park service? and secondly, would you -- aware of self-criticism, agree with ms. martin that up until now it has frankly not gotten the serious attention it deserves? >> i would first like to say that i think the majority of our employees are some of the best serving employees i have ever seen in the federal workplace, including folks like

these. and they deserve a much, much better culture than we have. i hope it's not a systemic -- >> wait. wait. they deserve a better culture than they have. that seems to be saying there is something -- >> we have a problem. >> systemically wrong with our culture. >> i believe we have a problem and i believe we should make very urgent change to that culture. >> is there training or orientation before i put on that uniform as an employee of the national park service? >> there is. >> on this subject? >> there is a little on this subject. it needs to be more. >> all right. tell us what -- what is the sop, standard operating procedure when you get our report, whether it's anonymous, i assume you have a hotline so if i want to protect my identity, i'm ms. -- i'm ms. martin but i don't want to be fingered because i'm on the job surrounded by the people perpetrating the harassment. do i have an anonymous hotline i can call and have it followed up on?

>> to clarify, there's a hotline if you will, a reporting mechanism in each region for the eeo operation. we're establishing a new hotline as well. a third-party. >> does that mean each region has its own sop? >> in general, each region has its own offices. they should operate from one park service wide sop. that's something we're shoring up as we speak. >> so there is a manual if i'm a regional director and i'm doing the job, where do i go to get guidance on how to handle the things? >> right to your eeo officer in the region. some parks have eeo collateral duty, which is a fancy way of saying other duties assigned and they're often in hr. depending on the size of the park -- >> sticking with sop for a minute because i'm trying to understand what's going on at the national park service. so i'm so-and-so, and i have been harassed.

and i go to my supervisor. i don't do it anonymously, and i report that, you know, fire ranger x has put the hit on me, and i'm very uncomfortable. i shouldn't have to put up with that. it's degrading, humiliating. i didn't sign up for this and i want action. what happens? >> they're referred immediately, if the supervisor does their job right, to an eeo specialist. or to somebody at the hotline, at the place that we were referring to. >> but your heard ms. martin's testimony. her testimony is when that happened, i think to her, the answer was that it's your word against his. right? is that right, ms. martin? >> that's correct. >> so mr. reynolds, going to the eeo person didn't work. >> yeah. we've got problems that i have to fix urgently. >> mr. healy, a lot of the complaints focused on the grand canyon, which shocked me. i mean, the grand canyon is so spectacularly beautiful i can't believe that you are focused on anything other than duty, but apparently our park

service rangers are. what's going on in the grand canyon by way of trying to address this issue? so that it does not recur and that we've actually shifted the culture at one of the great icons of the world, the grand canyon? >> we do have the park service response to oig, 18 action items, but i think very positive step was the assignment of our new superintendent, chris leonards. i think people at the park feel comfortable with her and she's -- she called me on her second day on the job. she is definitely someone that will listen to us and i think has been approaching our issues directly instead of pretending they aren't there. she's there to make change and i think that's the big positive step for us. >> just final question because i know my time is up, i thank my classmate and friend from wyoming in indulging me.

mr. healy, would you agree with mr. reynolds that we have a lot of reform that has to happen in the culture? >> absolutely. >> thank you. thank you, madam chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. rothman is recognized. >> thank you. first of all, there was an incident referred to by chairman getsn's -- chairman chick gets before and i'm going to ask mr. reynolds about it, a situation where at first blush the wife was over the husband, is that true? >> in that -- in that situation she does not directly supervise her husband. she's in the regional office which is the next level up, sir. >> ok. how long did that situation exist? >> i would have to confirm, but i think it's been many, many years that they've been in service. >> i mean, was she -- >> long serving deputy. maybe more than 10 years. >> ok. i will give you another general question and this to me is just more evidence why no matter how

tempting it may seem to my colleagues you never ever, ever want the government to do anything more than they have to. mr. healy -- one more question for mr. reynolds. you said that you never knew since you were the head of hr anybody being fired for sexual harassment, right? you couldn't remember that? >> yeah, i'm going to follow up with the chairman on the date of it. it didn't hit -- i was managing systems and processes. >> how long were you the head of hr? >> two years. >> two years. how many people do you have under you? >> there is about 18,000 permanents, upwards of 20,000 by the time the seasons come in. >> you were the hr head of over 18,000 people, right? >> in general. the way our system works is our regions actually run their own hr programs, we have sort of the

overarching system and process oversight. >> do you know in those two years how many people were let go, period, for anything? >> we fire quite a few -- upwards of at least 100 people a year for various infractions. >> ok. what do they usually do? >> there are often conduct issues. they might be caught stealing or they might be -- the normal range of things that you might have happen. >> ok. mr. healy, thanks for coming by. we have to ask you some questions. how pervasive is retaliation at the park service? >> i'm sorry, can you repeat that? >> how pervasive do you think retaliation is at the park service? >> you know, my experience is limited to grand canyon and it's -- with a couple of the individuals that are still at the park i think there's a pretty extensive pattern of that and that was all described by the oig during their investigation.

>> are you afraid of retaliation for showing up and talking to us today. >> yeah, i am. i am somewhat. yeah. yes. >> ok. i guess this question is kind of obvious but do you feel the park service adequately has held managers responsible for their part in allowing harassment in the grand canyon? >> i don't at this time. i'm optimistic for the future, but it's been quite a while since the oig investigation came out and the park service response to that and we're in september and we still haven't seen some of the individuals that were implicated by the oig leave. >> slow moving. maybe i'll switch back to mr. -- back to mr. reynolds. are any of these managers under any jeopardy of losing their job for their slow moving here? >> again, as i offered earlier, i'd be happy to talk to you in person or the chairman -- >> are they in jeopardy for poking around here?

>> for many of these actions as they are found true, yes, they are in jeopardy. >> ok. mr. healy, according to your testimony a former supervisor at the grand canyon district breached confidentiality of victims and was given a temporary promotion to chief ranger. is that true? what affect does that have on the morale of the employees when they see this sort of thing going on? >> i think it has a severe impact. i think it really does. i think that was probably a setback for employee morale and moving forward after this thing. you know, this is a really -- really big deal for employees. >> what was his position before and what was he promoted to? >> he was supervisory park ranger, i believe, and his temporary promotion was chief ranger at a park. so the highest ranger position at another park from what i understand.

>> ok. but you feel comfortable saying what park? i won't have you do that. >> it's curaconti. it's in colorado. >> ok. interesting. >> i will go back to miss martin. i will ask you the same question. how common do you think retaliation is at nps? >> thank you, congressman, for that. i -- i'm fearful more of the repercussions, the retaliation i have not been a victim of and i think everybody knows that by coming forward we're trying to really truly have a stronger conversation about what sexual harassment is and a hostile work environment is. so i actually feel somewhat confident that retaliation will not happen, but there are people that do fear that and will not come forward with honest statements. >> retaliation feels they are less likely to be promoted themselves in the future?

>> i think people just don't really want to rock the boat. they won't want to come forward for what they really see as going on. so there is a handful of us that believe that this is an extremely important topic to bring forward and so i -- i'm cautiously optimistic, i guess, that we will not be retaliated against. >> ok. mr. reynolds, in your past statements you said you were doing what you can to increase the number of women in management positions at the park service. could you elaborate? >> we -- we are beginning to venture into a much more aggressive recruitment. we've opened a recruitment office that will -- we really have not had -- recruitment has been done at the superviseory -- at the supervisory management level so we are beginning to focus on diversity in all of its forms. >> ok. well over my time. thanks for being patient with

me. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. micah is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman and ranking member. i haven't been able to participate. i got way late on a host of other things, but i did stay up last night and read some of the testimony and the staff report. it was absolutely appalling to see what took place in some of these instances. it also to me is disgraceful that the federal government could be a partner into the abuse of women and employees and others and let them be subject to this type of activity. i just was stunned at what's going on. when we came into the majority

in 1995, i was the first republican chairman of civil service in 40 years and i got to look at the civil service system and you want a civil service system and it was created to protect employees from political interference, but it wasn't created to protect them when they abused their fellow employees, violate laws, protocols, rules and that's what i read page after page. it's just stunning. and then i saw the movement of people from -- within the agency from department to department. one case -- and i'm sure it's been relayed here -- where you get promoted after you commit sexual acts. no one would tolerate in any other form of employment.

ok. sat here, i've sat through irs, i've sat -- i've sat through -- i never remember -- or never forget the head of secret service, she came to me after she was brought in. julia, she went to the university of central florida, was a police officer, eminently qualified. first female secret service director and after she was there for a while she came in and she says, this is almost impossible to control. i need assistance to determine -- well, to be able to hire and fire. hire and fire poor performers. and that's -- whether it's secret service, whether it's irs, whether it's gsa, fbi, other agencies -- and some -- actually, some of them are

exempt, there's exempt and non-exempt. mr. reynolds, are your hands tied? >> congressman, thank you for bringing this up. it is a complex system. >> it's very complex. and it's very difficult for you to navigate. >> yes. >> and it can take a long time to get rid of these people. >> i don't want to cop out by saying it's the process. we have to be accountable. >> i'm not copping out, either, but i'm telling you it's a process. we've set up a system where nobody gets fired and when you do egregious things you don't get fired. it's easier to transfer them around and we've seen examples and examples. i read it last night and it didn't let me sleep well last night. >> there is a gao report that says it takes us six months to a year to terminate people at times. >> and that would be a speedy termination. and the alternative is actually that they're moving people into other positions. and then what kind of message

does it send when they actually get elevated? one of the most troublesome cases was getting elevated to one of the highest positions and everybody knew what was going on. it's disgraceful. well, i think that the way to cure this is, again, you want to protect -- we want to protect people -- we have thousands and thousands of wonderful employees in the federal government. you've got them in the park service. i've seen them. they stay there late, they work extra time, they neglect sometimes their family but they serve the public. they're public servants. a few rotten apples in the barrel and they're staying in the barrel and to me it's disgraceful that -- that we haven't fixed the system that allows you to do your duty to clear the deck of people who

need to be fired, removed and held accountable. would you agree with that? >> i agree. we need to move as fast as we can. >> well, again, madam chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. this is an important hearing. this is to the core of the problem we have across the spectrum of the federal government. i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman from florida. i have seven statements that i would like to include in the record without objection so ordered. mr. healy, have you ever seen someone, let's say a problem person, a sexual predator, within the national park service either transferred laterally or promoted? >> i don't -- i don't believe so.

>> ms. martin, have you ever seen someone who was known to be a problem employee for the reasons we're meeting today, either transferred laterally to a different nps property or promoted? >> if you refer to my testimony regarding my first sexual harassment incident at grand canyon that is an example of how an individual was laterally moved and promoted. >> well, what we've heard today are terms like "toxic work culture," a "closed culture." we've heard go along to get along culture. and we know that within the national park service there are plum assignments, people will stay regardless of how long it takes or what they have to put up with to get to some of those crown jewel properties because

they love their jobs so much. in some respects that's rewarding loyalty. in other respects it can create a toxic work culture. and it appears at the national park service, especially since we have had reports of this for 16 years and that these matters are not being adequately addressed, that perhaps promotion from within has actually hurt the national park service from addressing cultural systemic problems in this area. so i will be asking the chairman and ranking member of this committee to prepare memos to the transition teams for both the democratic and republican presidential candidates to inform them of what is in the

record here about what is going on at the national park service in terms of a toxic work culture. and how maybe it's time to get, as mr. mica said, some of the rotten apples that are still in the barrel out of the barrel. and maybe that's going to require people who have made this their career and have been looking forward to being considered for some of the very highest positions within the national park service to not attain those goals, because this has been tolerated. it has not been swept under the rug and now some of the people in leadership positions are just finding out about it. it has been tolerated and it appears that people have tolerated this in order to advance their careers into the highest positions in the national park service. it is time to ferret out that

kind of toxic culture and either new president is going to be in a position to do that. so i will ask the chairman of this committee and the ranking member to prepare memos to the transition teams of the democratic and republican nominees for president and present them to them so when they are going through transition and preparing people to go before senate committees for confirmation, that they know exactly what's going on in the national park service and they are prepared to address these problems. i thank you for your testimony today. it builds on testimony that we have in writing. it builds on reports that we have had for 16 years that have gone inadequately addressed. it informs the next president that they better start lawyering

up these agencies with people who are experts in personnel rules and disciplinary rules because they're going to take a whole bunch of people through processes that have not been used enough within the national park service. i now recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> i want to thank the chairman -- chair lady and for your words and i agree that it would be a good idea to get those letters out to the two transition teams, and i think hopefully it will have some impact. to you, mr. martin, to you, mr. healy, i thank you for coming forward forward. this was not easy. it can't be.

what i think about you, ms. martin, having left and come back, and i was just reading the file of the person who was the peeping tom. you should not have had to go through that. and, you know, i often think about how people come to work every day. sometimes they have things that they have to struggle with at home, all of us do, and -- but no matter what they get up, they come to work and when you've got a job like the ones that you all have, dealing with the public, you have to put on a good face and you've got to be the best that you can be. but the idea that you come to

work and you've got people who place you in a position of discomfort, knowing that they could have not only an impact on your career, but on your way of life and then to be able to function at your maximum with all of that over your head, that's quite a bit. and then to seemingly have an administration at the park service that through neglect or just the shear sense of lack of urgency does not back you up, that's a problem. the other thing that i guess

that goes through my head is what i said a little bit earlier. you've been bold enough to come here to give your testimony and the idea that you might not have the impact that you wanted to have have, and go back and get hurt because you've stepped forward is the worst thing that could happen. so i want to vow to you and i'm sure our committee, everybody on this committee feels the same way and let me send a message to all of those who are thinking about, thinking about, thinking about retaliating or bringing harm. that we will come after you with everything we've got. there's no way that we will correct this culture if you have to be in fear and if they have

the position that they can do whatever they want and get away with it. and to those who feel that way, feel that they want to retaliate, i would invite them to leave the park service. go do something else. because we want our employees to be able to be content -- we want them -- we want them to have a normal employee/employer existence. normal. this is not normal. it's not. it's got to be stressful. every day. watching your back. who is going to hurt you? who is going to block your path? what's going to happen when you come up for a promotion? who is going to be whispering things, oh, she is not this or he is not that and you never even know who did it.

so all of that, that's got to be stressful. and then i go back to what you , if you regardn to the whole housing thing, that's that whole balancing -- that whole balancing thing. do i tell or do i believe quiet? do i say something because if i say something my career may be ruined. and then what am i going to do? how am i going to feed my family? those are real decisions. so, you know, i know there is a reynolds,ing out, mr. but the thing that struck me is that 16 years ago a similar survey came out. is that right? and when folks were asked about they wereassment, asked this question, have you personally experienced sexual harassment? 52%. hello? 52% of the respondent females in law enforcement positions in the

park service said yes. and an astounding 76% of the respondent females in the united states park service answered yes. what's that about? and did you see that? did you see those things when you were there? you know, we talked about these incidents. when you held the position that you held, head of hr, whatever you called it, did you see some of this? >> i did see instances come through in terms of cases. not -- we haven't had the data to understand it the way that survey describes, which is why we want to do a second -- you know, this new survey and to do it right this time. >> but this was 16 years ago. >> yes. >> all right. we've got problems. >> yes, sir. >> and we've got to correct them. >> and i would like to say that i will personally ensure and you may hold me absolutely accountable that these people will be protected with their careers and their lives.

>> and, see, they know the names. they know the names. they know the names. but do you know what, you can know the information and know the names, but when you've got this culture, even giving up -- just the mere giving up the names will cause them stress. mi right, ms. martin? martin? ight, ms. >> without a doubt. i know that i have -- i will be probably more -- i will be facing serious repercussions, but i just have to go on record to tell you that i have a tremendous amount of support of women behind me. they could not do this, but the other important thing is that there's men that want to see our culture change, too. >> well, that leads me to my last statement and i'm so glad you said that. i'm so glad you said that. i want to say this to all the people that you just talked

about, the ones that back you up, the ones that care, the ones that support you. >> absolutely. >> they are -- they've got to understand that they are the solution. they really are. they have to be that critical mass. they've got to stand up. they've got to back you up and then hopefully more and more will come forward. if changes need to be made at the top they need to be made, but they have to change it -- help us change it because they are there. you are on the ground. they are the witnesses. ok? i've often said through our pain must come our passion to do our purpose. your pain has allowed you to come here with a passion and that passion has allowed you to do your purpose, and hopefully we will be able -- that purpose will be about bringing a new day to the park service by shining a bright light on its problems.

with that, madam chair, i yeed -- i yield back. >> i thank the ranking member. the tone is set at the top. so the tone has to change going forward. i want to thank our witnesses. mr. healy, thank you for coming here and for your bold statements. ms. martin, thank you for your testimony today. and for representing other people within the national park service who are similarly situated, but your ability to speak on their behalf is deeply appreciated by this committee. mr. reynolds, thank you for your testimony today. you've got your hands full. i hope you are up to the task. god bless you in your work there. with that, the committee on oversight and government reform is adjourned.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]

>> coming up tonight, the congressional black caucus holding a news conference following the unrest in charlotte, north carolina. two hearings from the house oversight committee. on the sexual harassment in the national park service. washington journal live at 7:00 am eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. state medicaid directors from across the country will talk about health care costs. and discussion hosted in washington dc. we will have that live at 10:45 a.m. eastern time.

>> at c-span.org, you can watch our public affairs anytime at your convenience on your desktop, or mobile device. here is how. go to our home page, c-span.org and click on the video library search box. you can type in the name of the speaker, the sponsor of a bill or even to topic. click on the program you would like to watch or refine your search. if you are watching for our most current program and you don't want to search, our video homepage has many current rims ready. -- current rims ready such as today's washington journal. c-span.org is a public service of your cable provider. if you are a c-span watcher, check it out. >> this afternoon, loretta lynch talked about the violence and protests in charlotte, north carolina. here are some of her remarks. lynch: let me speak

to the people of north carolina, a pitiful state and my home state. i know these are difficult times and i know the events of recent days are painfully unclear and they call out for answers. i also know that the answer will not be found in the violence. let us all seek a peaceful way forward. most of the demonstrators gathered last night were exercising their constitutional and protect it right to peaceful protest in order to raise issues and create change. we need your voice. we need your passion. we need your commitment. i urge those responsible for bringing violence to stop. you are drowning out the voices of commitment and change. you are ushering in more tragedy. the tragic events in charlotte and tulsa earlier this week,

once again have underscored the divisions that persist between law enforcement and the community. particularly communities of color. one of my top priorities has been to do everything in my power to help heal those divides. the department of justice will continue working tirelessly to protect the rights of all americans, to give law enforcement the resources they need to do their job safely and fairly. to open dialogue, to promote reconciliation and to reduce violence in this country. as we have seen in recent months, despite these efforts and the efforts of many others across the country, we have come together with thoughts and prayers for too many times for a victim of violence. civilians and law enforcement officers alike, and too many times we have allowed ourselves to be pulled down the easy path of blame and accusation, rather than the harder path of empathy and understanding.

let us choose that path. let us work together to ensure that all americans have a voice and value in this great country of ours. let me reaffirm my commitment to advancing that effort. to those who are exercising that most fundamental of our freedoms, we hear your voices and we feel your pain. to all of the law enforcement officers who continue to risk their lives day in and day out to keep us safe and to protect those freedoms, i extend my thanks and support. finally, i urge all americans to ask themselves what they can do to contribute to the peaceful and perfect just union that is our shared heritage and mutual responsibility and is our common goal. >> after delivering a letter to loretta lynch demanding action

after police shootings of african-americans, congressional black caucus leaders held a news conference. they spoke for about 40 minutes. >> let me say good afternoon to all of you and thank you so very much for responding very quickly because this is an urgent matter that we want to discuss with the nation today. the congressional black caucus is outraged with the dozens of unlawful police shootings taking place all across america involving unarmed, innocent african-american citizens. if we were to identify each of these, it would consume this entire press conference. there are dozens of unlawful shootings of unarmed african-americans. enough is enough. one is too many. tensions are very high in communities of color. state and federal authorities must intervene to guarantee a solution. the federal government including

the executive branch and the legislative branch must place the full weight of the federal government behind the elimination of unlawful police shootings. there must be a national standard regarding the use of lethal force, body cameras, and other technology must be required to depict the events surrounding a police encounter. we must have better training for police officers and identify and remove those officers with a propensity to overreact in situations. and the department of justice must aggressively pursue investigations, indictments, and, yes, prosecutions against any and all law enforcement officers who harm or kill innocent, unarmed african-american citizens. in a few moments, ms. waters and myself will deliver a letter from the congressional black caucus to attorney general loretta lynch demanding federal

action now. thank you. at this time i will yield to congresswoman waters for her comments. ms. waters: thank you very much. members of the press, you may be wondering why the black caucus made the decision to come here today given that these killings and these shootings have been going on for so long. i want to give you a little bit of the background. of course today again our hearts are burdened as we mourn the loss of several unarmed black folks who have died at the hands of the police. the list ranges from in recent times michael brown, eric garner, tamir rice. joe crawford. walter scott, freddie gray,

sandra bland, la kwan mcdonald, alton sterling, philando castille, and now to tyree king. 13-year-old boy shot dead last week in ohio for carrying a bb gun. terence crutcher who was killed in tulsa, oklahoma, with his arms raised standing outside of his vehicle. lastly, just the day before yesterday, kenneth scott, who was killed in charlotte, mecklenburg police killed a disabled man. and so mr. king is the third high profile shooting of a black man who was killed by having a weapon while residing in an open carry state. mr. crutcher's car had broken down on the side of the road. he should have been able to call police for assistance. instead a police officer took his life. lastly, the family of mr. scott has said that he was reading a book while waiting for his son when he was shot by the police. now, each of these names have

been added to a long list that continues to grow while our policing remains the same. the killing of unarmed black men and women by police is a crisis. it is an emergency. and it is not just affecting those victims and families of those who were killed, it is affecting every black man and woman who wonders when they or someone they know will be killed next. it is affecting every resident of the city that erupts in protests after each killing. it is affecting the police officers who must continue to protect and serve without the trust of the community. it is affecting each of us who have born witness to these killings for years and fight against the feelings of despair and hopelessness as history continues to repeat itself. lastly, it is affecting our entire nation as the divide between the lines for people of color widens in this country.

so we must do something to end this assault on our community, on black men and women and children, the conversations, the studies, and the investigations are now just not enough. so, black citizens must be in the leadership and must be afforded the right to equal protection by law enforcement. and we must commit as a nation once and for all to end these killings. so, yesterday at our regularly scheduled luncheon for the black caucus, as we sat there trying to do business, we decided we just couldn't keep going on business as usual. we couldn't just have our lunch and talk about an agenda that really does have to do with a lot of our work while our minds and our hearts are so heavy about the killings of all of these men, women, and children.

so we decided at that moment that we were going to take an extraordinary step. that we were going to leave the house of representatives and we were going to come here to the department of justice and we're going to deliver a letter. we're delivering that letter to the attorney general. and basically that letter is one that asks her for something very specific. and i will share that with you. dear attorney general lynch, on behalf of the members of the congressional black caucus we come to you today to urge you to aggressively pursue investigations, indictments, and prosecutions through the office of civil rights against any and all law enforcement officers who

harm or kill innocent unarmed black men, women, and children. in 2016, 173 black people have died at the hands of the very law enforcement officers who have been sworn to protect and serve. our citizens have prayed, they have rallied, they have held press conferences, insisted on better training by police departments, and demanding the use of body cameras to record the actions of law enforcement officers. meanwhile, many of the victims have held their hands high and cooperated. yet law enforcement officers have not been deterred from targeting, profiling, and killing black people. even when body cameras are worn, the technology utility is thwarted when officers lose, drop, or fail to turn on their cameras and the incidents are still not recorded. without these video recordings, we hear the same excuses from police officers justifying the killing of black men and women such as he, and i quote, oh, he appeared to be reaching for a

weapon. he appeared to fit the description of someone that just committed a crime in the area. oh, i feared for my life. law enforcement officers only seem to offer these excuses after killing black people. it is time for the department of justice to take aggressive action and put an end to what appears to be the targeting and profiling of black people that result in their deaths. offensers enjoy the presumption of credibility whereas victims endure the presumption of guilt. for too long this dynamic has helped to protect law enforcement officers from being brought to justice. we demand through investigation within a reasonable time that something is done. we will not continue to ask our constituents to be patient without any hope for change. madam attorney general, you have the unique opportunity and

constitutional responsibility to change this narrative. we believe that every person whose civil rights may have been violated is entitled to a full and complete investigation by the department of justice. we demand an expansion of pattern and practice investigations into rogue police departments and greater transparency in the process by which the determinations on these investigations are made. we also demand that victims have the right to request independent investigations, autopsies, and prosecutions. the recording of police confrontations and killings by citizens who document these incidents with their cameras and cell phones and share them through social media have provided you with more evidence than ever before to prosecute these cases and ensure these --

those who were responsible are brought to justice. the members of the congressional black caucus will not rest until we have determined that you are using the full power of your office and performing the fullness of your duty to bring about fairness and justice to victims, families, and communities who have suffered for far too long at the hands of law enforcement. americans of all backgrounds have mobilized to express their outrage and fear that our country has lost its way. the world is watching. and these killings cannot continue to go unaddressed or ignored by our government. madam attorney general, you have the authority and the resources to address these matters. we urge you to aggressively utilize all that is available to you and your office to ensure these killings do not continue.

this letter has been signed first by myself and g.k. butterfield, chairman of the caucus, but all members of the caucus are signing this letter that mr. butterfield and i will deliver to the attorney general as soon as this press conference is finished. we're serious about what we do. we will not be deterred from our actions, and we look forward to a good response from the attorney general. i will turn it back over to g.k. butterfield. mr. butterfield: recognize mr. meeks of new york. mr. meeks: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm actually both saddened and frustrated that we have to stand out here today. we feel the frustration of all of the people in charlotte and in tulsa, oklahoma, and all over

america. no american should have to fear the people who are sworn to protect them. anyone who has ever lived under that fear understands, as i do, how deeply disruptive that is. and how truly frightening that is. and what it does to the soul of a community in the conscious of our nation. let me just say this, a couple times i have been talking to some reporters. and i have heard some of my colleagues who are not here, they have asked the question, where's dr. king? my response to them, dr. king's soul and essence is in every peaceful demonstrator that's on the streets. because that's the king will be -- because dr. king would be demonstrating today when we see

the kind of attack that apparently happens to unarmed black men and women with no transparency. dr. king marched on washington, d.c., to get those answers from -- to get the protection from the government. we're here today because when you look at the lack of transparency that is taking place in many cities in our nation, we believe the answer to end that is in the hands of the attorney general of the united states. and so we're here today to try and to tell the attorney general that within her power we can send a message to all of the municipalities and police departments where overwhelmingly we agree 98% of them are doing great jobs. but we want to make sure the

transparency where someone has committed an act of violence against someone who had their hands up as we clearly saw in tulsa, because in this case everything that one teaches one to do, put their hands up. i tell everybody in my neighborhood, you stop, put your hands up so everybody can see where they are. and yet and still we have somebody that's dead. we need the attorney general to act. we need her to act now and the members of the congressional black caucus are not going to sit back and do nothing. we're going to make sure we push for legislation. we'll be calling on paul ryan to come up with legislation that we can work on and put forward to change this. in the meanwhile we want the attorney general to utilize her powers as the attorney general. mr. butterfield: the ranking member of the committee on judiciary in the house and the dean of the house of

representatives, mr. conyers of michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. brothers and sisters, there have been so many incidents that the root causes that are tied together with social racism that brand too many black citizens as predators and police practices that treat them as potential perpetrators breeding disrupt between law enforcement and community they are bound to protect. so responding to this destructive cycle requires a broad approach. as we stand at the doors of the department of justice, i must commend attorney general loretta lynch and her team from the

civil rights division for so far being on the job, but we need more action now. using the pattern and practice enforcement authority under the law, 42 united states code 14141, the department has got to investigate and soon more departments to address the dangerous and discriminatory practices that result in excessive force or racial profiling. now, this statute has been used successfully across the nation.

from ferguson in baltimore to reduce the number of police involved shootings in targeted cities. and it's illustrative of the positive effect of legislative reforms. last year in the midst of a record wave of officer-involved killings, the judiciary committee held a hearing on 21st century policing strategies to begin addressing the issue of law enforcement accountability at the federal level. since that time, we have also formed a bipartisan working group with the chairman, republican chairman bob goodlatte of the judiciary committee, and we'll be meeting this afternoon to develop a plan to get police reform legislation through the congress. i commend all of my colleagues for being here. the struggle continues. i came to the judiciary a number of years ago because of the fact

of police brutality and excessive use of force. so i'm pleased that we're standing so strongly together at this point. thank you. mr. butterfield: thank you, mr. conyers. congressman cedric richmond from the state of louisiana. mr. richmond: it was just around three months when we all gathered to talk about the death of philando castillo and alton sterling in baton rouge, louisiana, and minnesota. and now we're gathered here again to talk about the death of

two african-american males that people so easily dismiss. from two football fields in the air, a guy in a police helicopter so easy to describe a person as a bad dude. from two football fields in the air there is probably describing this black caucus as a group of bad people. but we stand here today sad, frustrated, and angry but we stand here today as a caucus of people who have the right to introduce legislation and the right to vote on the floor of the united states house of representatives. and we will use our resources to do everything we can. often we're called the conscious of the congress. today i wear that badge. this is wrong. and the nation needs to stand up.

the nation needs to feel the anger of those young people on the streets. because when you truly believe you have nothing to lose, you are willing to lose it. so we're calling upon our attorney general to use the force of her office to make sure that we expand the use of pattern and practice investigations to make sure we look at the issue of police brutality everywhere. and i will close with a very simple phrase that everybody questions, do black lives matter. every, every black life matters. and we will do everything we can to make sure that justice is transparent and that justice is served. i want to thank our chairman, g.k. butterfield, our dean, john conyers, and maxine waters from california for putting us here on this corner at this time so that we can tell the country to wake up and join with us to stop this atrocity.

thank you. mr. butterfield: thank you, mr. richmond. next is congressman hakim jefferies, state of new york, city of new york, the borrough of brooklyn. mr. jefferies: let me thank congressman g.k. butterfield, and maxine waters for their tremendous leadership on this extremely important issue. we have come a long way in america, but we still have a long way to go. exhibit a is the police violence epidemic that continues to engulf the land. all throughout the united states of america, in the north, south, east, and the west innocent law-abiding african-american men continue to be killed by police officers using excessive force without justification. what more does america need to

see to understand that we have a problem? this is not a black issue or white issue, a democratic issue or republican issue. a police issue or a civilian issue. it's an american issue. this country has promised liberty and justice for all. but far too many people in our community are left asking the question where is the liberty and where is the justice? because often police officers who take the lives of african-american men and others without justification escape accountability. far too often the police department closed ranks around these officers and protect them rather than expose the wrongdoing. that is why we're here today to ask the department of justice to step in as an independent arbiter to do its job in making

sure that officers are held accountable whenever they take the life of someone without justification. local police departments are unable to do it. local prosecutors are unable to do it. the department of justice must step in and do its job so we can turn the situation around once and for all. mr. butterfield: thank you, mr. jefferies. our next speaker is congresswoman adams, alma adams, from charlotte, north carolina, which was the location of the most recent tragedy a few days ago. congresswoman alma adams. following that the last speaker will be congressman ellison,

from the state of minnesota. ms. waters: g.k. butterfield and i are going to have to depart and go meet with the attorney general. she has a time problem here and we have to honor that. but g.k. is going to ask, i guess, mr. meeks, to come -- first vice chair. to come and engage you in a question and answer period and maybe we'll be able to rejoin you. thank you. ms. adams: good afternoon. i heard it last night if there is no justice there is no peace. martin luther king said a long time ago there comes a time when silence is betrayal. i returned to my district in charlotte, north carolina, on yesterday afternoon and i met

with local clergy there. and i also met with members of our city council and our mayor, and had some brief text conversations with our police chief. and i come today wanting to ask the attorney general along with my colleagues to step in. when i ask the citizens in charlotte last night what did they want me to take back to my colleagues here, they said to tell them that we need the attorney general to step in and to use her power to help make change that we need. we lost chief lamont scott on -- two days ago when he was shot and killed waiting to pick up a child, waiting in an apartment complex that was close to the university.

and we have had a lot of violence in our community and i'm saddened about that. because people should have an opportunity to protest and to protest peacefully. that's what many of the residents were trying to do last night. there is a controversy about what's on the tape and whether or not that video is going to be released. i want to call on our chief and our -- all of our public officials in local government there to really make sure that we have a clear process, to make sure that we're transparent with the people. the national guard has been called in to charlotte and we regret that. we regret that. don't think it should have gotten this far, but i come today pleading for not overwhelm peace for my community but communities all across this country and to say that as a

mother of a son, as the grandmother of two young men, i believe that we need to act and we need to act on this quickly. there's been too much, and now the black caucus has come and i'm just proud to stand here with my colleagues today after only three hours of sleep last night, but i'll be going back to my district on this evening. thank you very much for being here. i want to thank my colleagues and all -- the leadership here, those who have not only led this effort today, but enabled all of us to come together in a way we know we need to because clearly if there is no justice there won't be very much peace. mr. ellison: let me just point out that all of us here, each one of us have sat with families who have lost loved ones to violence, including police violence. in my own district. filando castillo killed.

his mother's grieving. his girlfriend's grieving. this young man was a lunchroom supervisor and all the children at the school he worked at are still grieving. i'm sure terence crutcher's family and everybody who loved him is grieving and keith lamont, scott's family will be grieving as well. when we come to the community and we say, look, we're going to fight for a change in law, we're going to make sure the law is enforced, we're going to pass the law, we're here to put pressure on the attorney general to make sure that the law's enforced, you know what? the community says to us, what if the law is not obeying the law? that's what they tell us. they tell us at community meetings across this country why don't the police have to respect us if you're demanding we

respect them? we tell people, comply, obey the law, do what you're supposed to do, we'll fix this thing the right way. i want to know will the system, will the criminal justice system from top to bottom, will they help us make law enforcement obey the law? as you're asking us to restrain community at the end of the day no justice, no peace is not a threat, no justice, no peace is a simple forecast of what's going to happen if there is no justice. so communities erupt, everybody wants to judge and point a finger, but who is willing to do something now to protect the next person from police violence and protect the next community from when they just erupt they cannot take it any more? so it was the current commission of the 1960's that said every one of these riots are sparked by an ugly interaction between police and community. we have had it. we want community to know that we're responsive. we hear your voices. we're going to do everything we can do. thank you very much.

ms. clarke: i'm congresswoman yvette clark, first vice chair of the congressional black caucus. we want to open up at this time to the press for any questions you may have. our colleagues have already entered the building to meet with attorney general loretta lynch, but we're here united as a caucus to answer any questions that you may have at this time. >> what do you say to people that -- ms. clarke: what we would say history has already shown us in 2016, 173 unarmed black people in the united states of america have lost their lives at the hands of law enforcement.

? >> have congressional republicans made any commitment to examining this issue ms. clarke: i'm going to have congressman bobby scott. mr. scott: the frustrating thing about this issue is unlike others, we have a problem in there are specific things we can do. we talked about introducing legislation that we have introduced legislation and we have actually passed legislation. the death in custody reporting act which requires the department of justice to collect all data on deaths in custody, deaths in jail, and prisons so it can be analyzed. so we know what to do. that passed with the support of the republicans. passed on a voice vote in the house. and unanimous consent in the senate. that passed two years ago. it hadn't been implemented. we need to start that. that's one thing we can do. the other thing is legislation

pending, i have introduced legislation with significant republican support, the safe justice act, which includes training for police officers in bias, deescalation, how to avoid profiling. there's also legislation that's pending and sheila jackson lee can talk about that, how we can upgrade the police forces. there are specific things that we can do, a lot of it has bipartisan support, where we just have to take action. ms. jackson lee: thank you so very much. i am likewise proud, sheila jackson lee, ranking member on the criminal justice committee, but on the police working group that is established by democrats and republicans as john conyers indicated, with his leadership and that of the chairman goodlatte, and other members which includes hakim jefferies and as well robin kelly and as well cedric richmond among others. we'll meet this afternoon again to discuss the reality of police community relations. here is the answer to have

republicans done something. we have the ability to do something by passing the legislation on the floor of the house. right now i would call it an immediate crisis of large proportion, catastrophic proportion, man-made disaster proportion, that a law enforcement integrity and honesty bill must be passed now. we're doing a number of things as mr. scott said, productive things, going into communities and trying to address the cancer of violence. but at the same time we must have a meeting of the minds of the distinguished law enforcement of this nation whose lives' lost we mourn juxtaposed against mothers who mourn, the numbers of black sons continuously and to answer the question, the numbers are not small. they are large. because they continue. and i don't know if i go to sleep tonight whether will i

wake up tomorrow and there will be another shooting. the only way we bring peace and justice is that they listen to the congressional black caucus. the working group pushes to the floor of the house, that is voted on with the help of the u.s. department of justice and there work and to the senate and signed by the president of the united states. that is what will be an answer of republican and democratic working together on solving at least the idea of solutions on the constant innocent deaths of those unarmed by the hands of law enforcement or in essence under the authority or under cover of law. that is what we must cure. that is what i call a response of republicans and democrats. >> [indiscernible]

mr. richmond: a lot of what we need has already been drafted. mostly by members of this caucus. whether it's criminal justice reform or the police accountability and integrity act, which is authored by john conyers. but the additional factor in this in the working group will work on will be the resources we need to institute true community policing and to train officers better and to focus on deescalation tactics. most of the legislation that we need has been authored by members of this congress and the list is very long on the pieces of legislation that we have.

>> trump said he would implement stop and frisking because it worked well in new york. what are your responses to this? ms. clarke: i am a new yorker. the federal government felt otherwise. the federal courts have ruled it inconstitutional to stop and frisk americans. we would ask donald trump to bone up on his knowledge what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. >> donald trump is a national embarrassment and i'm looking forward to november 8 when this national nightmare will end. he constantly rolls out things that have no basis in reality. for years stop, question, and frisk was implemented in new york and it had nothing to do with the decline in crime. hundreds of thousands of innocent law-abiding individuals, most of whom were african-american, were stopped, questioned, and frisked, embarrassed, detained,

humiliated in some cases brutalized, often without justification. according to the nypd own statistics, 90% of the individuals who were subjected to stop, question, and frisk encountered did nothing wrong. no gun, no drugs, no weapon, no contraband, no crime, nothing at all. so the notion that stop and frisk had anything to do with the improving public safety numbers in new york is ludicrous. and donald trump needs to check his facts. >> on donald trump, this is supposed to be his alleged roll out to get closer and more african-american votes. for donald trump he's doing, he's done it throughout, he's tried to present a stereotype of african-americans that fits the description of some of the individuals who support him or

deplorable so that they can turn out in this vote. so he's not going after them because he knows that coming from new york that one of the most divisive things that took place in new york was the stop and frisk tactic. so he is doing this, needs to take our country back from who and where? make our country great again? it's great now. when was it greater before? what period are you talking about? so you listen to everything that he's done. and you look he brought up his friends, don king, who he knows how don king think he knows, because he said he's been his friend for years, he's a care just like trump is. they're two peas in a pod. and we are going to make sure that donald trump does not implement the kind of unconstitutional law enforcement that the judge rules in new york city.

>> thank you, everybody. c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. morning, north carolina republican congressman mark walker talks about the upcoming government funding deadline, his support of donald trump, and north carolina's role as a key battleground in november. and the legal progress vice president michelle 2-1 dope on do. recent -- michelle juwan c-span's washington journal, live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern this morning. join the discussion. more, we will have a

government of, by, and for the people. >> we are stronger together. and no matter what, remember this -- love trumps hate. c-span's campaign 2016 continues on the road to the white house with the first presidential debate monday night, live from hofstra university in new york. at 7:30 p.m. eastern with a preview of the debate. at 8:30 p.m., the predebate briefing of the audience. at 9:00 p.m., live coverage of the debate followed by viewer reaction. the 2016 presidential debate on c-span. on demand on c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio. app -- c-span radio app. one of the headlines in political, house panel votes to host clinton tecate in contempt after he was called to the house oversight committee yesterday

and opted not to testify. he was responsible for setting up the private server during hillary clinton's tenure as secretary of state. the hearing and the debate runs just over an hour. >> committee on oversight and reform will reconvene. of our a continuation september 13 hearing on examining the preparation of the state department federal records. we are scheduled to have mr. paglia attend-- this hearing. no due to his absence and his violation of the subpoena, we intend to adjourn this hearing and immediately convene a business meeting to consider a

resolution and report on holding him in contempt of congress. mr. cummings, do you have a statement? mr. cummings: let me just say that this is certainly no surprise to anyone. his attorney told us last week that he would not be here. they told us it would be an abuse to force him to appear for a second time. before congress to assert his fifth amendment rights. they sent us another letter last night saying exactly the same thing. let me read from one portion of the letter so there is no question on what is going on here. extensivelyesponded with eu and the committees over the past two weeks on this subject. the facts have not changed. continuing the quote -- you and the committee have been told

from the beginning that mr. pagliano will continue to assert his 5th amendment rights and what the client to answer any questions to him by the committee. the letter explains that he the bigsubmitted to nazi select committee and he should not be forced to do so again a second time. the letter continues, a subpoena issued by the congressional committee is required by law to serve a valid legislative purses purpose. there is none here. under the present circumstances, again, asserts his constitutional rights in front of video cameras six weeks before the presidential election the trays a naked political agenda and furthers no valid aim.

i ask that this full letter sent last night, suggesting be entered into the record. i've nothing else. >> without objection. so ordered. the hearing is adjourned. the committee on oversight and government reform will come to order pursuant to committee role -- committee rule half -- five b. it may postpone further proceedings on any question of approving any measure of that or adopting amendment on which a recording a vote and is authorized to declare a recess at anytime. consider the resolution and report recommending to the house of representatives to find brian paglia in contempt. the first and only item for consideration today is a resolution to report -- recommending the house of representatives find him in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with subpoena duly issued by the committee on oversight and government reform. the clerk will designate the

report. the clerk will designate the report. find him in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with the subpoena duly issued by the committee on oversight and government reform. >> intend to offer an amendment in the nature to the substitute to the reported without objection, we will call it the amendment in the nature of the substitute. i will recognize myself to give one statement. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> and the nature of a substitute offered by mr. jacobs of utah -- sure it's of utah -- theschiff it's -- congressman from utah. today, the committee will consider a resolution recommending he be held in contempt of the house of representatives. subpoenas are not optional.

is a crucial witness in the use of hillary clinton's private e-mail server to conduct is this. the release of the federal records is of deep concern to the committee. we have the jurisdiction over federal records and jurisdiction over national archives. we have three section over several places. over the course of the investigation, we learned some of the information about mr. pagliaro's involvement. the originally worked for secretary clinton and the 2008 presidential campaign as an i.t. specialist. as he was closing out her campaign, he received a call from justin cooper who testified before this committee last week. he requested that mr. pedley on clintonserver for ms. in early 2009 at she started her new job as secretary of state. several months later in march of 2009, the two men met in the

basement of clinton's residence to install a new server. andontinued to monitor maintain the server while secretary clinton was at the state department. server, het up the joined secretary clinton at the state department as a appointee in the beer of information management. of information management. he was required to report to a presidentially reported position but there was no appointee to the bureau of information resource management making his employment arrangement unusual. other employed in the view -- employees question his buddy to come -- full-time government employee. he left the state department in february of 2013, the same month as secretary clinton. even though he worked at the state department for almost four years, the agency has been only able to add a handful of e-mails. we have questions about that.

his e-mails are federal records. just like secretary clinton's. subject to production and response of the freedom of information act request. committee has prediction about the federal records act. we have a long record of oversight and investigative legislative work. subpoenaed him to a hearing on september 13. he did not show up to the hearing. qualified toly provide testimony to help the committee better understand secretary clinton's use of a private e-mail server. this is understandable. i also make clear that the committee would consider all options regarding his failure to considerationng recommended he be held in contempt. the committee heard several hours of testimony from mr. cooper was also involved in setting up secretary clinton's e-mails. mr. cooper explained a lot. we appreciate his participation.

throughout the testimony, mr. cooper routinely refer to him as the individual more appropriate to answer questions who knew more about the server. it was clear from his testimony that his words, not ours, that we need to hear from mr. p. the attorney asserts because his client to the fifth, he should not be required to provide testimony to this committee. that is not a good faith argument. it makes no sense for a number of reasons. first, the select committee jurisdiction is limited. it only relates to september 11, 2012 in benghazi. is brought andon includes both legislative and oversight of the federal records and freedom of information act. questions about these topics alone are well outside the purview of the select committee investigation. secretary clinton's e-mails and were subject to

both of the laws. he could expand what he knew or told.e was he could tell us whether they were considered by him or others in setting up secretary clinton's private e-mail server. the testimony could provide important information informing legislative reforms but the committee may want to concern -- consider ensuring that this disaster never happens again. reforms may on how was able to bring the state department from marketing e-mails. another key difference, the committee had the benefit of reviewing testimony he did provider and the interview with the fbi. the select committee never saw that. nor was the second committee -- select committee aware of annual traveled over sector clinton server when they spoke with him. this committee's questions are broader and more informed than any question posed by the select committee making a comparison unnecessary. further, answering a number of these questions could never subject him to criminal

liability. the department of justice has confirmed he was granted immunity before he spoke to the fbi. ey confirmed he was recommending of charges. -- no charges. he has no peer of criminal liability prevented him from answering questions for the committee. the committee recessed at september 13 hearing to give him another chance to testify. to clear up ambiguity created by his six lawyers about whether they would confirm service of the prior subpoenas which they refuse to do, we have u.s. marshal personally serve him. once again, he failed to show the committee cannot operate, perform nor can any committee of congress is subpoenas are ignored. we're left with no choice but to

consider this resolution report recommended a household him in contempt of congress. recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> thank you very much. committee held a very important hearing on a very critical issue that matters to me and the american people. prices ofng prescription drugs. members on both sides of the island joined together to examine these abuses in a truly bipartisan way. exactly theally -- kind of investigation are committee should be conducting and that is the kind of investigation the american people would want us to conduct.

today's spectacle is just the opposite. this is nothing but a blatantly ontisan republican attack the democratic candidate for president of the united states of america. it undermines the integrity of our committee. it makes our constituents disgusted. today is our fifth day of emergency hearings. hillary e-mails -- clinton females in the past three weeks. past threein the weeks. fifth day of emergency hearings. on hillary clinton females in the past three weeks. -- e-mails in the past three weeks. the chairman has issued an astonishing 12 subpoenas.

if we don't count weekends, that is more than one a day. it is also more than a third of the total number of subpoenas issued in all of 2016. an emergency hearing. he issued every single one unilaterally with no debate. question, artillery clinton's e-mails worth a third of the committee's attention? of course not. what is the emergency? as far as i can tell, the only emergency is the election approaching in a few weeks. i suppose the republicans could argue that since the clinton is running for president, the american people should know everything they can before entering the voting booth. if so, i asked a simple question, where is our

investigation of donald trump? his potentially fraudulent business practices, his campaigns potential connections to russian hackers, what about that emergency? foundation's illegal campaign donations? pay to play schemes? paying to settle corporate debts. the answer is obvious, the he is focused exclusively and on secretary clinton and that is for political reasons. i do believe that this is an abuse of authority and taxpayer dollars to inappropriately affect the presidential election. there is one key fact that everyone needs to understand about today's vote, mr. probably paglionaartly on a --

has are deserted his fifth amendment right on this topic. he did it in person in front of on thechairman gowdy benghazi select committee. this critical fact is not mentioned anywhere in this contempt resolution. you can search all you want, you will not find it. why is that fact so crucial? it demonstrates there is no legitimate legislative purpose and forcing mr. buckley on a -- liono to assert his fifth minute rights a second time. there's no legitimate purpose to enforce them to do it again in public. to do so could open the floodgates for every republican on capitol hill. committee members may not know this, but unless friday, u.s.

marshals, yes, u.s. marshals into his workplace to personally serve a second subpoena for his appearance before the committee. the committee could have sent a staffer in a cousin tie but they sent federal marshals with guns. the served no purpose but to harass and intimidate mr. pag liono. the chairman awarded this action in secret without even notify the democratic committee members of his plan. an emergency going on here. it is secret. no consultation. secret. no debate, secret. secret,-- vote, emergency. these actions are the definition of abuse.

they are harassment. i believe that they are unethical. i've said it before and i will passiongain, i echo the of mr. lynch the spoken on the subject extensively. the committee's actions in trying to force him to come back to congress and and focused that fifthendment rights -- amendment rights raises serious legal, ethical and constitutional concerns. members should not be placed in a position of voting for a resolution that could subject staffs toeir potential disciplinary action. the market bar association, the d.c. bar and maryland bar which i have been a member of its 1976 all have ethics rules that

prohibit attorneys from taking harass or embarrass, burden private citizens. is professional misconduct. the d.c. bar's legal ethics committee warns that no attorney should compel any witness to appear in a congressional it is known in advance that no information will be obtained and the sole effect of the summons will be to pillory the witness. that is exactly what we have here. republicans may try to argue liono received immunity from the justice department. that immunity was limited. we all had the opportunity to confirm that. that is why the court has already ruled that he can

continue to assert his constitutional privileges in separate proceedings which he has done. close, what exposes the abuses for what they are, if the chairman really wanted to obtain this this amendment assertion for the record, he could have just aslosed deposition chairman gowdy did on the benghazi committee. that is not the goal here. op.blicans want a photo they want a ready-made campaign commercial. the matter what anyone says, that is not a legitimate legislative purpose. as i've said before, i believe it to be unethical. although i strong support the committee's authority and

prerogatives of the house of representatives, possibly cannot vote for resolution that is potentially so unethical that they could subject members of this committee or our staff to disciplinary action for all these reasons. either to members to vote no on this resolution. ask him hisike to consent to enter into the records of the correspondence we had with the attorney. without objection. any member which to speak on the amendment? >> i do. mr. mike of florida. difficult when you have to hold summit and contempt for a vote.

again, i have to refer to my years on the panel and the senior member, what we do here in this committee, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, one of the most important things that anyone has to do in our government. hundreds ofsent thousands of incredible people that are working, struggling to make a living, pay the taxes, raise their families and retire someday. they sent us here to make certain that the constitution laws of the land are upheld. we have one of the most important responsibilities in this committee to see that just that is done. ability and authority under the constitution gives us the right to demand the individual,f any

particularly those involved in government activity and legitimately ask questions of them. requested inn was a proper request to appear before us. we had others who came at that same hearing and came and they had the same opportunity to exercise their fifth amendment right. they took the fifth amendment. five and wasn the in contempt of this committee. we can't make this government work. we cannot function if people will not adhere to the constitution and the rules and the basic ability of the congress to talk to these people.

,e could have come here immunity or not, it doesn't make any difference. he would not be denied his fifth amendment rights. he could have expressed that here. option, youave an will destroy this committee. you will destroy the congressional oversight process. when it is a republican or democrat, was into this. it does not matter whether it is chairman tickets or chairman cummings, we cannot have people come here and deny the right under the constitution for us to question. they may not want to answer. they have that right under the constitution, just like we have the right to question them. again, this is very fundamental to the process. content -- contempt. he ported the laws and

procedures. if you continue that, you destroy the whole basis of our government. that is the difference between our government and other governments. it is the principal responsibility of this committee . atell you, this is not partisan issue or political issue, this is an issue that goes to the very core of the integrity of our democratic and constitutional process. i yield back the balance of my time. >> any other member which to speak? the judgment for messages of. -- gentleman from massachusetts. >> it is my opinion from the course of this investigation liono has complied from subpoena with the same information they asked today. he has been given limited use

immunity. only in the previous interviews which would expose him to possible prosecution if he were to -- come i think it's reasonably predictable that he would be subject to criminal prosecution because of the onerral by this committee this matter. in essence, what is going on here is that we are engaging in decision bythe director comey not to prosecute. that is what we are doing here. that is why the prosecutorial notes were requested by this committee and surrendered.