senatorverywhere from mike lee from utah are out here talking about these issues. alongsideking right people like grover norquist, saying something must be done. that gives me hope. host: host: barbara, a republican. good morning to you, you're on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a comment and i'd like a response from your guest. nobody talks about this much it really bothers me. how about improving relations between communities and law enforcement by complying to what they ask you to do when you get pulled over. take a poll see how many people walk away from a cop. i don't care if your hands or up or down that's a red flag. nobody's above the law. don't matter what color of the skin. it seems to be that some people are. that's a red flag right there.

host: for the video in tulsa, some people say that the officer told the black man to start -- to walk back to his vehicle and that he was obeying the officer in that situation. guest: that's right. again this speaks to why that video is so important. but in this -- the video that we have seen thus far, you have someone who is complying with the officer's commands, who is walking back to his car, who has his hands up in a position of surrender. and this goes to the larger issue of training and use of force. if you are put in that situation -- also, come into the psyche of terence crutcher. there are four officers. there are a number of cars. he has his hands up. remember, he actually called for help for a broken down car. his father was a pastor and talked about the training that he gave his son from a very young age. quite frankly it's the talk that everyone in the african-american community has with their child at the moment where you start to drive.

i remember quite frankly the conversation my parents had with me. and these in some ways are life lessons that take away the incense of our children, but it is -- innocence of our children, but it is a recognition that we have to do something different and unique from other communities in order to bring our children back safely. there is a litany of stories that are circulating around of things that you can be killed for while being black. whether it's driving or walking or reading a book or buying skittles or going to the store. or sitting in your home. i think when these stories continue to play out and you see instances like what happened in oklahoma where you see someone who begins to comply and yet never makes it back to his four children, that is something that all americans should be affected by. we should say this is not a good thing in our country. we don't have to shoot to kill. we can do something else. we're better than this. host: officer is being charged. this is the front page of the tulsa world. first degree manslaughter filed

against this officer. what does that mean legally? what does this officer face? guest: it is a huge step that this charge has even happened. i think it is important to both recognize and acknowledge that, but the step and the journey towards justice is a long one. so this is the actually the first step in the process. you will now see will things move forward toward an indictment where a jury of her peers or judge will he determine whether or not those charges are the right one that is should be brought. often what we know is that in these situations, we can look only at the freddie gray case in baltimore, where you have someone who died in police custody and everyone who was involved in that situation, no one was actually ever officially indicted for his death. so we know that there is a long road between charge, indictment, and sentencing. i will say it is a step in the

right direction. hopefully, quite frankly, we don't want these instances to happen. we want better training. we want law enforcement officers to go home to their family. but we also want african-americans to go home to theirs. i think recognizing that we can live in a society where we can both care about law enforcement but we can also respect the humanity of others and say we need better training so that these instances do not become as commonplace as they are. host: wayne, harrisburg, pennsylvania, democrat. good morning. caller: how are you doing today? the main thing i'm looking at is jobs. the black man is under so much pressure. i have four sons. they go to work every day. on their job is pressure, the boss mess with them, their supervisor. then you have the women. the kids. black men want to for their family if you give them a chance. you going he police,

to be upset. the minute somebody -- police approach you, they scared. you upset. i have 35 nieces, a couple of them work for the correctional officer, institution, right. all their boyfriends do not have jobs. how do you think that makes them feel? host: i want to take your point, wayne. guest: wayne spoke to something that i think is important and highlighted in a "new york times" article this week as it examined kind of what happens to the psyche of communities after you continually see these shootings. there is a quote from someone in the article that says it seems to be that we're seeing modern day lynching play over and over and over again on social media. i think that is something we

don't quite acknowledge that there are people walking around with traumatic stress syndrome related to these incidents. there has been research that has recently come out about young people living in areas like chicago and certain areas dealing with the same level of ptsd as we see for our returning veterans. what does that say about us as a nation? it says we have great work to do, but there has to be an acknowledgement there are certain instances that affect communities differently. and i think that's why training is important. having the kind of cultural competency and understanding that there is a problem. there is something here. there is a segment of our american citizens that are affected differently from everybody else and that means that we have to do something above and beyond to make sure that their lives are as valued and sacred and important as everyone else. host: i want to show our viewers the new orleans advocate and get your reaction. a way to stop this violence. it shows a picture of new

orleans police superintendent michael harrison, sec from left, takes part in a peace march in chance to interact with central city community in new orleans on thursday. trying to reach out to residents rattled by the killing of a woman this week and a shooting earlier this month that left five wounded and one dead. guest: that's the type of leadership we see from law enforcement officers all over the country. we see -- remember growing up we had the police athletic league in new york where local law enforcement would set up basketball games, boys and girls, all during the summer. what we saw was kind of lower crime in those communities where these police athletic leagues were happening. whether or not we're talking about community engagement. community policing, in its purest form, means knowing the community members in which you serve. there is a power there. there is a relationship there. and again that's how you build trust and bridge these gaps. host: let's hear from orlando,

florida. independent. caller: good morning, ladies. what i want to say is our constitution is made up of truth and love. and the most important thing in our lives is our life. you just don't take a life, it's a soul of god. if we start at the top and everyone tell the truth and let a lie you own, telling the world you start telling, then you got to tell something else to cover for that lie, and that lie. this is what's wrong with the ation right now. back there in carolina it's because a black person get a position he got to go on with the program. they got to tell a lie, and tell a lie until they are washed over. they are watched so hard now because the blacks are tired of

taking these lies. it's going to get worse and worse and worse. people start telling the truth. host: ok. guest: hiram says talk about love. i think that that speaks to an issue that one of your other callers alluded to earlier. how do we have greater respect and compassion for one another? that's why some of these things we can move forward in law. some of these things we can move forward in public policy. but quite frankly these are conversations we have to have with our children. these are the tough honest conversations we have to have with our co-workers. how do we understand and respect the humanity. quite frankly the indignity of these moments and what that means to our fellow brothers and sisters along the way. host: couple more calls here for you. margaret in franklinton, north carolina. democrat. caller: yes. i have three questions, three

comments for the guest, please. first of all, i hate to say it but i feel like some of these officers actually they already know what they are going to do when they have these encounters. they already know how they feel, what they are going to do. second, why don't they need to be trained not to use deadly force against nonafrican-americans. the training seems to be working pretty well if the person is not black. they i always felt like need to be required to have a full year bachelor's degree in criminal justice. that's the way i feel. host: ok. guest: i think there are a few things there. one, we go back to we do not have nationwide use of force standards for these situations. when the standard is just what is reasonable apprehension of an

officer's life, we know, again, how implicit bias and prejudice play into our interactions, particularly in these split second decisions. it lets us know that the training we currently have is not enough. that's why looking at communities like dallas that have ongoing implicit bias training. you have communities in oakland that work with community members that come in to conduct this training. you have former gang members who come in and work with local law enforcement to conduct these trainings. that's incredibly important. quite frankly we also need those officers who know that there are -- some of their colleagues doing the wrong thing, and we do know that there are, quite frankly, some people who should not have the honor of wearing that badge because either their behavior, things that they have said in the past. and we can't be trained to identify those people and remove them from the privilege of serving as a member of law enforcement. if we're going to fix this

problem, we have to be honest. not everyone should have the badge. not everyone should have the great authority that we give our local -- members of law enforcement. with great authority comes great responsibility. we know not everyone is worthy of that. host: west virginia, don, a republican. caller: good morning, ladies. i think the problem's in the police training academy. we have to quit militarizing our police. they got the attitude that their life is more valuable than the one they are pointing the gun at. guest: i think you are exactly right. that's why i was very heartened after ferguson you saw a number of bills move forward to de mille tarized local law enforcement. -- demill tarized local law enforcement. communities walking into peaceful actually sanctioned protests, seeing members of law enforcement looking like they

were preparing to go to war against their neighbors, against members of communities. those are not the type of images that should be coming forth. you saw bipartisan voices. senator claire ma cass kill and rand paul come out and say we ed to do something about demilitarizing it would give excess military equipment to local law enforcement. that's one of the steps of the getting rid of the equipment is one step. training is another. and again understanding use of force. making sure that community policing is not just something that we say but it is part of our approach to policing and living and working in these communities. host: robert in henderson, kentucky, independent. caller: good morning, ladies. the police are never held accountable for anything they do. please bear with me with this. when you have a history like

america that had hugo black, a former class member, supreme court, when you have that as a backdrop, the nation's fabric is sewn in racism, built on violence, and deaths. when you have people like mike pence and donald trump flaming the flames of racism, and then trying to feed black people by saying things he knows are not true, this is no help to the problem. and until people recognize it and acknowledge that police are wrong stimet and good police officers stand up and speak out, that will bring about a change, but this constant shouting on people who are fighting the fight against racism is not right. host: ok, robert. guest: robert speaks a number of things. you do have a history of someone like hugo black who sat on the supreme court with a checkered past. you also have now progress in the form of sonia soto mayo and a case that came before the

court this year that quoted w.e. -- e.b. dubois and quoted michele alexander, the new jim crow and saying listen, we live in a country, quite frankly, where african-americans and latinos, have a very different interaction with law enforcement than others. we have to recognize that. there is a power in having that be a -- having someone with her background sit on the supreme court and state that in a supreme court opinion. i also say that, listen, the progress of this country has been long. again, we'll open the museum this weekend with a african-american president cutting the ribbon. so we have made progress. but it is important to recognize the legacy and also to see how that legacy continues to affect policing today. having those honest conversations aren't the wrong thing to do. in fact, it's what we must do in order to overcome that. those disparities are real. we see them every day play out in communities from charlotte to oklahoma to ferguson to baltimore.

and until we have those tough conversations and we look at these issues, we won't make the progress that we as a country deserve to see. host: our cameras will be there for that ribbon cutting ceremony with the president for the smithsonian national museum of african-american history and culture. that is at 10:00 a.m. on c-span, c-span.org and listen on the c spafment radio app. michele jawando, thank you so much. the viewers can go to americanprogress.org. coming up, we'll turn our attention to what is being called the biggest data breach of a company and that is the 500 million accounts hacked yahoo! accounts hacked. this is how we're dividing the lines. f you're a yahoo! user 202-748-8,000. all others dial in at 202-748-8001. we'll give you more details coming up.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> this week end we're live saturday morning at 8:00 eastern from the smithsonian's national museum of african-american history and culture with the opening ceremony beginning at 10:00. speakers include president barack obama and museum director loni bunch. >> what's most important is every exhibition in this museum has a goal to humanize these stories. in essence most history museums we tell the grand story of slavery or migration. we want those grand stories told. we want you to think about it on a human scale so you can relate, understand, so that you're moved by the experience of these people. >> just after 7:00 p.m., artist peter widell shares his paintings depicting washington, d.c., during the 19th century. >> visitors during president byian's presidency, harriette

there in the blue dress, the japanese ambassadors. the giant wonderful lights outside the white house that were taken out during the roosevelt rehab in 1902. >> sunday evening at 6:00, the moses myers house was owned by the first jewish family in norfolk, virginia, in the 19th century. hear how the family maintained a large shipping operation and how the home has been passed down through several generations of the myers family. >> when they did that paint analysis and dug underneath the layers of paint, they struck gold. 22 1/2 karat gold which was largely intact. it only had to be repaired in a few places. that today is considered one of the most elaborately gilded fireplaces in america at this time. >> for our complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: we're back. we're going to wrap up today's "washington journal" in a conversation with all of you about the story that yahoo! users, about 500 million, were hacked. this happened two years ago. the newspaper saying it is maybe the biggest data breach ever. if you are a yahoo! user, dial in at 202-74 -8,000. all others, 202-748-8001 want to know if you're concerned. the morning call out of pennsylvania this morning with this graphic that the big blue circle here represents the unprecedented size of the yahoo! data breach. to understand the scale of this event, the other recent breaches represented here proportionately around that. tjmaxx 94 million. j.p. morgan chase,le 3 million there -- 83 million there. target, 70 million. 500 million accounts hacked for

yahoo!. yahoo! confirmed the information that at least 500 yahoo! user accounts were stolen from the company's network in 2014. yahoo! is blaming the hack on a state sponsored actor. the ongoing investigation has found no evidence that the actor is currently in yahoo!'s network. and the stolen account information may have included names, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, passwords, and in some cases encrypted or unencrypted security questions and answers. are you concerned about this? yahoo! to colorado, a account user. when you heard of this what did you do? caller: ma'am, i'm just appalled. i'm appalled and disgusted. the 500 million people who were hacked are having the same problem these these 43 million are having. e cannot get away from our

racist. now they found more people to do this to. 500 million people? i'm not shocked. these 500 million people should be expected to be treated worse. host: larry in new jersey, good morning to you. you also have a yoo who -- yahoo! email. what did you say? caller: i want to know what i need to do now. how do i know if my account was hacked? host: this is what the morning call says. what you should do if you haven't changed your pass word since 2014, yahoo! recommends you do so now. in addition, change your password or security questions and answers for any other accounts that use similar credentials. also, review your accounts for suspicious activity. and be cautious of any unsolicited communications that ask for your personal information. how is yahoo! fixing the problem? the company said it's notifying potential affected users and

taken steps to secure their accounts. those steps include invalidating unencrypted security questions and answers so they cannot be used to access an account. yahoo! is doing all of this while in the process of being acquired by verizon for $4.8 billion. greg in waiverly, minnesota. when you heard this story, what did you think? caller: i thought that it doesn't matter where your emails or any of your information is, it's going to get hacked. thank you. host: greg, what do you think should be done about it? caller: who knows? you can't do anything about it. host: you think our government can respond? caller: no. they seem to be trying. but a lot of smart people out there. know how to get into anything. host: why people say this is bigger than yahoo!, armed with knowledge that people often use the same passwords and

information across multiple platforms, hackers can gain access to uses' other onlynn email and accounts no known as credential stuffing. they use special software to gain access to those accounts by using the same log-in credentials stolen earlier. the commume laive results results can reveal a personal profile. are you concerned about this? hear from stacey in mclean, virginia. you have a yahoo! email, what did you do? caller: i was -- at first i didn't care. had stolen my account -- host: moving on. the record out of new jersey, yahoo! data breach may be the biggest ever. again just take a look at big data breaches over the years. 500 million accounts is the largest yet recorded. myspace was breached in 2016 it. it impacted 360 million.

linkedin in may of 2014. e-bay, target, etc. sony playstation in april of 2011. the paper saying this morning that the f.b.i. is looking into this. then ja who saying this was possibly -- yahoo! saying this was possibly a state sponsored act as well. computer users have grown ine youred to notices that tech company reterrell or other company with which they have done business had been hacked but the yahoo! disclosure is significant because the company said it was the work of another nation and because it raises questions about the fate of the $4.8 billion verizon deal which was announced on july 25. all that from the "wall street journal" this morning. greg, good morning, in palm springs, california. what do you think about this? caller: i feel people shouldn't be alarmed. i don't even know why you're bringing it up alarming people.

basically all people need to do when they open up these free email accounts is place fictitious information. everyone knows that you can get several email accounts. why would you want to put the correct information whereas advertisers can target you? people shouldn't be alarmed, but putting confidential information , a person's confidential information on an online venue for the world to see is crazy. people need to wake up. host: the paper saying this morning as i just read this is bigger than yahoo!, "the new york times" says changing yahoo! pass words will be the start form use years. they have to come through other services to make sure passwords used on those sites aren't similar to yahoo!. if they weren't doing so already, they'll have to treat everything they received online with an abundance of suspicion

in case hackers are trying to trick them out of even more information. jane in mill valley, california, good morning. caller: hi. my reaction is some of these what can we do about it? what i decided to do about it after being a computer programmer assistance analyst in banking systems for years is i don't do anything financial online. if i open a new account someplace, i insist i only get paper copies in the mail. any statements. i use my g mail account for sending personal email and things. i don't use it for business. if people did more of that they would find they weren't getting hacked. host: jane, that's something coming from you given your background and your expertise. what made you decide that you -- especially how convenient they make banking these days. what made you decide that you weren't going to do that online? caller: i think it's because i

was a computer programmer in the early days. i'm retired now. and in the early days let me tell you the bank financial systems, there was no such thing as letting people access accounts online. there was basically no online, you know. you would be working in the bank with you were working with those files. you couldn't take -- we had to create our test files. we wouldn't pick up a bunch of production tapes use that to test out. host: jane, do you think the government can do anything to protect people? caller: i don't see why the government computer programmers or whatever are any more talented than the hackers. anything to be defeated. but that tends to be why as an old-fashioned retired person i just keep anything that could

possibly concern my accounts on paper only. host: ok. jane there in california. more of your calls coming up here about this hack that made the front page of many of the newspapers this morning. yahoo!, the data breach may be the biggest ever. are you concerned? that's our question for you. first we're joined by stephen who is a reporter for bloomberg politics, joining us on the phone to talk about early voting and what that means for the candidates. early voting begins today in minnesota and south dakota, stephen. how does the early voting work? what's the impact here? caller: yeah. early voting starts today in minnesota like you said. this is the first wave we're going to see next week. iowa starts. and then we're off to the races by election day a third of the american electorate will have already cast a ballot. this is increasingly every cycle gets larger and larger.

it's increasingly a big deal to the campaigns who really see it voters to turn on early. get some of their base voters and some of their babe unreliable voters who they know would vote for them if they turn out to the polls. in the bank. if they can bank those early, there is a whole bunch of strategic reasons for that. in a state where maybe you are worried that it's competitive. you could -- if you feel like you banked enough of your supporters early, you could pull resources out of that and direct it to the state you might -- are going to have a harder time winning. there is a lot of strategic reasons. but it looks a little different in every state. some state voters turn out to physical locations. others have mail-in ballot systems. but the commonality is they are l ways for campaigns and

states to make voting easier for americans who can't always show up between the hours of 7:00 and 7:00 on election day. host: you say the trend is on the rise. what type of persons says i'm going to vote now? we're six weeks plus out from election day. what type of persons says i know how i want to vote and i'm voting now. caller: for bloomberg politics, we looked at the voter break out week by week in certain states which voters were turning out when. what we found was that in a lot of cases democrats have been historically better at this than republicans. but in both cases early voters, a lot of them are what we call base partisans. these are people who arguably would turn out no matter what. so they would probably turn out on identify lection day.

-- on election day. but have made up their minds so they are going to vote early. there is debate in the campaign world whether or not it matters whether or not they vote early or no. if they are going to vote anyway, who cares when they do it. but there's disagreement about whether or not -- there's strategic advantages to running up the numbers early. the other group that votes early are voters who i described yerl, unreliable voters. they are people who would vote for your candidate but might not turn out. so what campaigns work hard to do both on election day but particularly in early voting, is drive them to the polls. have in ohio the areas what they call souls to the polls. black churches after sunday service get in vans and they drive them to the polls to vote

early. it's a really good organizing tool to have multiple weekends and multiple days throughout the last few weeks of the campaign. to mobilize those people. host: what about the voters who have said i'm going to vote early because there is no way i'm voting for donald trump so i want to cast my vote. there is no way i'm roethlisberger voting for hillary clinton so i cast my vote early. what impact does that have? who are those people? caller: those are the partisan base folks i was mentioning. people who made up their mind that historically are probably -- were probably going to vote for hillary clinton or donald trump either way. getting them in the bank early matters because if you can -- here's why it matters in one state in particular. in nevada what we find is that a large percentage of persuadeable

voters vote early. these are voters who are undecided, the opposite of what you asked about. and reaching them early ask so important in these states because they are going to make up their mind before election day. and if you're not on the airwaves and if you're not campaigning there, there's a risk that they are going to make their decision based on whatever's in the news cycle that day. if you're not the last person to persuade them, then you have missed out. what banking partisan base helps with is it gets some people just out of the way. you don't have to worry about them so you can focus on the persuadeable voters that you need. the small group of people that usually flip states, really close states either way. host: steven, thank you very much. reporter of bloomberg politics, appreciate your time. guest: thanks. host: back to our calls and conversation with all of you.

michael in georgia. good morning. sir, you are on the air. what do you think about this yahoo! hacking? caller: well, couple years ago they had the big g.a.o. hack and that was where they got a bunch of government people email and information. affected by hose that and uncle sam had seen fit to get me a free credit monitoring deal. so far what i have seen the big benefit from that is every month i get a notification that there is a new child molester has moved in my neighborhood. other than that it's been completely worthless. i feel for these 500 million people. i know they are not all americans that have been hacked. the only thing that they can do is get on there and change all their pass words.

change all their security questions. and the government, my estimation, needs to take a and approach tude to these hackers. and globally. when they find someone who is being state sponsored as has been reported that the soviet union or former soviet union, russia, is now bigtime in the hacking business, that it needs to be put out for the public to know who has done the hacking. not, oh, well, it's over. it's six months gone so it's no longer in the news. people just let this stuff roll off their back. when the news cycle hits another -- hillary's done this or donald's done that, all this stuff will be ancient history. host: michael, what do you make

of the fact this happened two years ago and yahoo! apparently is just figuring this out recently. it was after there were news reports, reporters were hearing that this hacker named peace was trying to sell personal information from yahoo! accounts. caller: it's despicable on yahoo!'s part. this should have been -- as soon as they found out about it within 24 hours it should have been worldwide news. now you've got two years of people's information out there for the world to get a hold of. the bad guys get a hold of. and to ruin your credit or what have you. clean out your bank accounts. and just wreak havoc on this 500 million individuals. and if any one person out of hose 500 million loses a dime,

it's all on yahoo!. host: here's this piece from bloomberg that says, claiming that hack was launched by foreign government is the ultimate get out of jail free card for embarrassed corporate executives. this person writes, it's as if foreign governments are expected to be able to breach any firm cybersecurity measures and corporations should be forgiven. let me go to don in houston, texas. you had an email with yahoo!, don. what did you do when you heard this news? caller: it's an old email. it's just captain neemo at msn, also have a yahoo! at dawn of the last. and a lot of the information is cross platform. i'm afraid over the edge of the database when we verify new information. host: you're not concerned about it, then. caller: i am very concerned about it. it's new information verified,

then it will only compile more information that they have on the user. host: ok. mack in germantown, maryland. also email account with yahoo. g.m. welcome. caller: good morning. i enjoy c-span every day. it the comment i want to make is here it is that the hackers presumably from russia as they are predicting are hacking our yahoo! accounts. back to the election, all those people who support donald trump, republican, democrat, whoever you are, how do you feel now? concerned that donald trump -- host: i'm going to leave it there. keep us on topic here in this data breach with yahoo!. the biggest ever, maybe is what the papers are saying. certainly bigger than what we have seen so far. then there's also to add to this conversation pbs story, white

house probes potential hack after michele obama's passport can appears online. the white house said yesterday it was looking into a cyberbreach after what appeared to be a scan of the first lady's passport. presh disclosure which includes emails to staffers raises further concerns about the security of sensitive systems following a string of breaches affecting government agencies, private companies, and the democratic national committee. those officials decline to say whether the disclosures were authentic. there were no immediate reasons to suspect they were not. the attorney general said it was something they were looking into. the secret service responsible for the first lady's safety also expressed concern. mrs. obama's information was part of a batch of emails spanneding from february of 2015 to july of 2016 and purportedly hacked from the gmail account of a white house advanced staffer responsible for logistics for official trips. are you concerned, is the question for you this morning? given what i just read about now

the white house staffer being breached. also this yahoo! account and what's been happening recently. with hacks. roy, in stanton, michigan. good morning. go ahead. caller: i believe i was the victim of the yahoo! hacking. host: ok. what happened? caller: i recently went to sign up for an instagram account. i was going to open one up for the first time. and i found out that somebody had already opened one for me. using my name. and my email. but they had a different password. host: ok. that your only evidence so far? caller: and then i went to fix this i had to go to yahoo! to get into my yahoo! account, and change the pass word there because somebody had changed it there. they had to send text message to my phone for me to get back into

it and change it again. host: all right. conway, missouri, good morning to you. tell-g ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. was wondering if you vote early by email, then can you turn around and vote again on election day? host: you know what? we're talking about cyberhacking. hacking of emails. yahoo! breach that is on the front page of the newspapers. dennis in pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning. isn't it possible that someone from here could go there, you are accusing russia in all these hacking, even with the yahoo!, isn't it possible for someone to go there, buy a computer, and hack the system? host: well, what do you mean? caller: i mean we're blaming

russia for it. it's just like say the russians would come here and hack into their own systems, they would just be in this contry. once you buy a computer and you set up the i.p. and the numbers and stuff like that, you don't really know who is doing it. host: ok. gill bill in chicago. good morning, bill. your thoughts? caller: yes. thank you. hacking, let's face it, this is a low ball guess, at least a million individuals are capable and qualified hackers. if the records exist, people can find them. host: what do you do? caller: training people. similar laws are training

people. hundreds of thousands of people being trained at the level to hack on a daily basis. host: what do you do to protect your data? caller: hello? host: what do you do to protect your data? caller: i change -- i didn't know about it, but i changed our password about a year ago. host: ok. aller: do you bank online? -- do you bank online? caller: let's face it. the records exist. the fact they exist they can be hacked into. host: all right. in other cybernews daily mail has this story. do not use google's messaging app if you care about your privacy, warns edward snowden. giving stark warning out to google's allo messaging app. claims the app which integrates google's virtual assistant does

not feature important privacy measures the tech firm says it would have. a security expert said the app should be completely avoided. michael in florida, you have a yahoo! email. good morning to you. caller: thank you for taking my caw. is it fair, i'm so afraid to do that but i don't know it's safe. is it going to the right person? host: michael, we have done segments -- conversations here on the "washington journal" about early voting. you can go to our website c-span.org and put in the words early voting you can see lots of discussions that we have covered over the years about that. our conversation right now here for the next 15 minutes is about these -- the news, show you the headline of "the record" out of new jersey courtesy of the new see yum. yahoo! breach may be the biggest ever.

talk to yahoo! users and all others as well. tell us your concerns if you have any about this and what you're going to do about it and how you protect your data. what sorts of security measures do you have in place? lee in hope mills, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. 'm calling in to say this that we're using people from the philippines and other places to handle our accounts. and i think this is the biggest thing where people are getting our information because i'm a senior citizen. i'm 76 years old. and i put people do not call list and they still call. they got all my information. they call, they try to sell me stuff. try to sell me stuff on medicare and everything else. i put them on do not call list. they call back.

they got a system where they call in one of the contacts would show up on your phone and then when you answer the phone it's them again. i get the same one, all of them, got foreign accents that's getting into the system. they are robbing our government blind. host: all right. david in phoenix, arizona. good morning to you. you have a yahoo! email, what did you think when you saw this news story? caller: well, i'm thankful that i only started my yahoo! account about six months ago. but listening to some of the other people, i'm quite oncerned on the idea that they just don't care whether we're protected or not anymore. it just seems like no one cares. it's all up for whoever gets your goodies. and i live next to a convenience

store and for six months didn't realize that every day someone would go in there with someone of those readers and literally take my money, 299 here. 399 there. until i got one of those protective cards, or sleeves for my cards. these things are important. the government has to start doing more to find out who is doing these hacks like the man said earlier, whether they are from this country and just jumping to russia and then coming back here with the information. it doesn't matter. we've got to get it stopped. this is why i don't do any banking online. host: what about the responsibility of these corgses like yahoo!? -- corporations like yahoo!? caller: i still see the internet as being regulated by the government. and yahoo! has to protect what

they can. but it really is up to our government because they are the one that is created the internet. find so many way of securing it or limit the bad users. you have to be able to limit bad actors in our society or else we don't have a real society. host: ok. take a look at some tweets from our viewers. a viewer says, i do shop online but use a prepaid card for online shopping only. another viewer says i change my email password every three months. it takes about a week for the fishing emails to resume. then another email from brian, in light of this breach we should think twice before using online voting. david in phoenix, arizona. what do you think? caller: well, i agree with the -- not using online voting. i am very much a proponent of

oregon's mail out ballots because if you have an address, they will send you a ballot, then you send it back in. and it's secured through the united states postal service. one of the most trusted services in our country. i really think those are the kind of answers we have to get away from using the internet for these direly important things on a personal level or else we just keep losing everything. host: all right, david. sydney in raway, new jersey. good morning. caller: my thoughts are it seems that i notice that you keep showing an article that a.o.l. was hacked in 2007 it was also breached in 2014. it seems they are not just hacked once. many times they reach a couple of times. so even though you're going in and you are changing emails and all of this, what good is it

doing? and my feeling is being someone who is retired, we need to just kind of wean ourselves off putting everything, especially valuable information, online. because if you put it on there, somebody can get it. host: what about the conveniences, though? caller: there is a lot of convenience but you risk a lot. whatever you're going to put online, just -- whenever i put anything online, any information, i always put it on with the thought in the back of my mind, ok, i'm not going to put anything on here that i don't want to share with everybody. because you never know when there's going to be a breach or they are going to be hacked. host: sydney, does your concern also translate to voting this time around? caller: as far as voting, i always go to my polling place to vote because i'm not going to risk -- i don't trust the security of the internet to cast my vote.

i would never do online voting because i think it's too easy for people to manipulate it. host: ok. new legislation cease to prevents u.s. voting systems from being hacked. u.s. lawmaker has introduced two bills to protect voting systems from hacking amid fears that russian cyberspies may be interfering with this year's presidential election. representative johnson serving georgia is proposing a moratorium on state purchases of electronic voting machines that don't produce a paper trail. the election integrity act introduced wednesday would prevent voting systems from being connected to the internet as a way to prevent online tampering. the high profile hack of the d.n.c. publicized in june has citizens wordry that election system may be vulnerable. row zahn in missouri, you have a yahoo! account. good morning. caller: yes, i got hacked by target.

office of personnel management. local orr thodics company and now yahoo! and probably some others in between. so when i contacted the credit bureau to attempt to stop anyone from creating a new credit account using my information, i was from the way i understood t. i was required to provide a police report. but this had been reported to the. of course i didn't have that. it seems to me that somebody needs to make these companies provide a written letter or some kind of an email or some kind of information that we could use in order to give it to the credit bureaus. this thing needs to be organized better and interactions made so that we can stop people from trying to create new credit accounts. that was my main concern on these hacks. host: thanks. alan in blue springs, missouri. good morning. go ahead caller: good morning.

first of all i'd like to say that whenever i change my passwords i write down the reason. in 2014 there was a bleep on the news about yahoo! potentially being hacked. and so i changed my password. and the other thing i wanted to point out was that there's so much cross sharing of passwords between websites. like, for instance, if you go to a website says you can log on with your facebook password, or vice versa. yahoo! or many others. and that needs to stop because that is just spreading everything across the internet as far as our passwords and information is concerned. host: ok. all right, alan. donald, iowa. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. my point is that if you're going to be any email server, internet

or anything, even if you're with the d.o.d., department of justice, or any of them, you are still going to have breaches like this. it's commonplace nowadays, everybody needs to learn to suck it up and move on. you have credit cards and bank accounts that are secured or unsecured and all this other stuff. and you have persons on there not made by you, you can dispute them and they'll take them off. it's as easy as that. we're at 2016. imagine what it's supposed to be like in 2025. we should have robots waiting on us. these cybercapabilities of most people will be way beyond what we ever thought about. we dug ourself into a hole. host: what about those folks who have a hard time navigating internet. maybe people older and not used -- caller: they need to do a jitterbug style internet. four digit cell phones. host: douglas in texas.

good morning to you. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: welcome. thanks for calling in. what do you think about this? caller: well, i think -- don't mean to be facetious but some of us older people who are forgetful i think we really have an advantage because we forget our own passwords or don't write them down so maybe every week or three days we're creating a new password. that prevents us from being hacked. the lady that called up that was working with computer programming, i think there's a fallacy there. if you have all this paperwork on the other end that's initiating the paperwork, they are going to have a computer record of all your paperwork that has to be generated through the computer anyway. what's the advantage of paperwork if the source can still be hacked as well? host: ok. donna on twitter says many internet providers have email. why don't people use them with a

desktop client. another email from blanch saying i started seeing lots of yahoo! mail contact phishing three years ago. i closed mine years ago. use two factor validation. mark, dixon, california. yahoo! user. what are you doing to protect yourself? caller: hi. i think it's really awful. i have never taken anything off my yahoo! since 2002 that's when i started. it's not really my information as much as all my kids. everybody's. host: do you have any evidence that you were hacked? caller: no. it's just -- no, i have not. host: are you going to monitor all your accounts? caller: absolutely. like the gentleman said, change your passwords unless you got a 30 character password, they are pretty easy to hack. the software and everything else

out there. host: what kind of password do you have in do you try to make it more difficult? caller: nope. i can't remember thefment -- them. host: neither can i. theresa in union, new jersey. theresa, good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i had my system hacked but yahoo! didn't send out an email to notify people. my account was hit. my bank accounts were hit. 22 times i had to go to the police department, police reports, fix my credit report which turned into a nightmare within itself. i don't know i'm kind of mad because they really don't -- they don't even offer to help people. they should be helping the people that had their lives messed up over it. host: theresa, were they able to

steal money, then? caller: yes. they stole over $5,000 on christmas. host: did you get that money back from your bank when you notified them you had been hacked? caller: yes. i got the money back from the bank. but you know, yahoo!'s no sorry, no nothing. host: ok. nate in baltimore, good morning, nate. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think my account has been hacked maybe a few months ago. host: what did you do about it? the r: i went in and did password change. got this awe then at this error message that you get when you log in through your phone or some other mobile device. my biggest concern is, though, especially for older

communities, is that a lot of folks they assign one password for everything. at least some variation of one password. on one account is hacked it's potentially like all accounts are potentially hacked. host: right. that's the concern with this ja who -- yahoo! hack, this data breach, that people are writing about in the papers today. we have to leave the conversation there. thank you-all for calling in and watching this morning. that does it for today's "washington journal." we'll be back tomorrow morning. 7:00 a.m. eastern time. enjoy the rest of your day and your weekend. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> the smithsonian national museum of african-american history and culture opens its doors to the public tomorrow morning. president obama, first lady michelle obama, former president george w. bush, and laura bush, and supreme court chief justice john roberts will take part. hank johnson talks about the museum's significance. >> congressman johnson, can you give us your views of the new important african-american museum to the country? mr. johnson: well, it means so much to the selective psyche of african-american people who throughout the history of this -- have a e been lack of knowledge about our history. when you really don't know how great your forefathers or

forbearers have been, then it's hard for you to capture in the present moment how great you are and what your future potential is. and so what this museum will do to restore the ability of african-american people to reach back into history to see how great we have been, how our forbearers have been so strong and able and so accomplished. and so as each successive generation views those accomplishments, which we're adding to daily, by the way, it does nothing but strengthens our people. it strengthens our cultural and it strengthens the fabric of america which, of course, is omprised of a multitude of threads. african-americans being a major thread in the history of this

great nation. >> the founding director of the museum, has said he views the museum as being the american story through the american lens. what do you think about that? mr. johnson: well, i think that's a great observation. i would also add to it that it enables african-americans to peer into our own unique background and to be proud of our accomplishments and to have hopefulness about the future based on what we have already accomplished in the past. and, of course, the present moment is the most important phase of living, be it past, present and future, but to be able to look back onto the past provides us with a clear hope and even guideline for our future. so if we've accomplished so much in the past there's no reason we can't continue to cut

through all the challenges that we face uniquely as african-americans and continue to build a tremendous positive history as demonstrated by the election by the american people of the first african-american president eight years ago. he's been elected twice now, has served two terms and is leaving office with a very positive popularity rating or famblt rating. -- favorability rating. it shows so much as he as a representative of us, what we've been able to accomplish despite the obstacles that were thrown in our way simply because of the color of our skin. >> can you tell us what the museum means to you personally? mr. johnson: well, it means i have a home. it means i can go and savor the

accomplishments of my past. i can go and learn about them because we've been cut off. part of our challenge in this country is our history, we've been deprived of our history. it's been a systematic, calculated approach to handling the african-americans is to cut them off from their history, actually forbid them from learning about their history and then what history there has been has been skewed so as to not be accurate. and so this museum has the opportunity to recast our history from a long period into , restore a knowledge base about our culture that then develops a collective psyche that's much more healthy than the one that we have right

now. let's face it, our collective psyche as a people is damaged right now. this museum will go a long way towards our ability to heal ourselves and also it shows others who decide to come to find out about our history who are not african-americans gives them a greater appreciation of our role in making this country the great nation that it is today. >> congressman johnson, thank you very much. mr. johnson: thank you so much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> smithsonian secretary will also speak at the opening and jazz museum wittman marcellus will perform a comp sogs for the dedication and opening. live coverage tomorrow morning starts at 10:00 eastern here on c-span. first lady michelle obama and her predecessor laura bush on her war-time experience, raising daughters and the need

of more awareness of veterans' mental health issues. bob woodruff, who was seriously injured in twouks, while covering the -- 2006, while covering the war in iraq, is the host of this archives forum. [applause] bob: what an honor it is to be here today. i have a chance -- first of all, i want to tell both you and my wife who is also my commander -- >> as it should be. bob: she wants to say thank you for what you're doing for the veterans out there. i want to mention, had the chance to and i had a chance to see president bush out at the evict us games where it was such a clear indication how absolute committed he is to this. certainly will reynolds who is an amazing person, who is out there i think winning everything. and he had a chance to talk -- i had a chance to talk to president bush about what he's doing. president obama, too, of

course. he's deeply committed to this. it's interesting. i just talked to mrs. obama backstage here that i had a chance to see him in laos and one of the topics there, of course, was what he thought about vietnam and the war there and laos, of course. we have a lot of undetonated bombs that are still in the ground there. i asked him all of those veterans -- we looked at the time. he and i were born august, 1961. he's two weeks older than me. lafayette escadrille bob: we asked about that was going on. we looked at wars so differently in the 1960's and 1970's because there were drafts and we were not attacked on our turf leading to that war. i said those veterans that did serve there in laos and vietnam, do you call them heroes? and he said, absolutely call them heroes. this is not something reserved just for the more recent wars, voluntary wars.

you know, in my experience here, which as will said, one we never really expected, having been ound wounded in the wars, we experienced a lot of not diminishing attention but now the wars came to an endish as i say, there's not as much attention that's being given to those that served in the country. i'd love to hear from you what it's like to be in the white house, to have that kind of power and influence on an issue that is extremely important? mrs. bush: well, i would say for one thing you worry. you worry in the white house when you know there are trips in harm's way and you think about them every single night when you get in bed. and there, where you're in the lap of luxury, really, beautiful house where your sheets are changed every single day. it really couldn't be more

luxurious and you think about our troops laying out on the ground somewhere. so i would say the main thing about having troops in harm's way when you live there is that you worry about them all the time, every single day. mrs. obama: we've had the honor nd the experience to visit our wounded at walter reed and many military hospitals and that is a sobering experience. i mean, one of the things that barack and i talked about is when we first came into office the first term our visits would last for hours because there would be 25, 50, 75 folks that we'd be seeing going room to room. many with devastating injuries. and now today he just last week went to visit and he was there for 30 minutes because there are fewer of our men and women ho are being injured in war.

and that feels good. that's something a commander in chief thinks about before they pop off about going to war because when you've spent time on a base and you know these men and women and you know their families, you don't just talk about war like there are no implications. it's serious business, and lives are changed forever. so i would hope that any commander in chief that would have the privilege of serving would understand that these are real lives and real families that are impacted. bob: when there is a story that does come out of somebody or maybe a large group, there's significant injuries in the war, is it long conversations that you have with the president, with your husband that night?

mrs. bush: after visiting at walter reed, yeah, sure, whatever. we'd talk about them and think about those families and many cases the families were there with them around them. there's one injured warrior that i know of who now we still see who had such a severe head injury. we didn't think we'd ever see him again, that that would be it. he's one of the warriors that george has painted and he painted him with this scar on his head but with his little child on his lap because what a lot of warriors will say is that their families are what saw them through. one couple that george painted, the -- painted him, a portrait of him but he painted his wife with him because this man said his wife was always there, always with him and he had also suffered a head injury where he

needed the help that she could get him. he's doing great now, but george didn't just do his portrait by himself but painted her in it because he credited her with his recovery. mrs. obama: meeting our service members, spending time on military bases fundamentally changes who you are as a civilian. and i know that was true for me because when we -- my first -- i was like most americans. i had limited connection to the military community and it wasn't until barack's campaign in 2008 that i started meeting military spouses and hearing their voices, voices that you don't hear in regular conversation. we talked about all the challenges that working mothers had, you know, financial worries, worrying about raising ur kids but with these women

mostly, there were the worries of multiple deployments, understanding that these families are moving their kids every two years in service of their country, worrying about whether there are adequate special ed programs in the schools they're moving to. and doing all of this with a grace and a pride that would -- that blew me away and that's one of the reasons why i am such an advocate for this community. i wish every american had an opportunity to sit down, to go to a base, to meet with families, to meet with service members, to sit down with our veterans because we would think differently about our challenges as individuals. let me tell you, it makes me inspired to work harder because i think as laura said, here we are sitting in the white house. we have no reason to complain when we have 1% of our country serving and sacrificing for the rights and freedoms for the rest of us. so that has been a profound opportunity for me and one of

the reasons why i will always champion these men and women and their families as long as i can breathe. bob: you know, it's interesting -- i'd like to children -- talk about children, too, because you both had a chance to have your kids live with you there in the white house and both of you during times of war. you know, i should mention also real quickly, i didn't hear the full introduction but will reynolds also has four kids and he's gone through what he's gone and it gives you a certain amount of different perspective on things if you do have a child who's in the midst of something significant. would say most times moving, emotional, maybe even difficult but during these times for both of you, what was it like when you had kids there when this was happening and knowing very well that the commander in chief was the one ultimately responsible for this and probably you're the first ones they turn to? mrs. bush: well, barbara and

jenna were freshmen in congress when we moved to the white house so they didn't live there. they've been there, of course, so much -- bob: they were invited to come. lafayette escadrille mrs. bush: there were there as 7-year-olds when their grandparents were there. they had knew the white house like we did because they visited so often. when i wrote my book and wrote my schedule, after 9/11, the weekend after 9/11 barbara and jenna came home to the white house and i knew she wanted to be with their dad and wanted to be with us. they felt great insecurity off at the university of texas and university of yale after the attacks and they wanted to be there with him. and then i noticed that a few -- a month and a half after that our childhood friends from midland, texas, came and i knew that those boys, you know, men that we knew as boys, wanted to

be with george. that they just wanted to be there with him. and i think that is really -- no one talked about war. you know, that wasn't a conversation. the conversation was, we just want to be with you. and i think that's really important. i think that's the way the children are too. they don't want to -- you don't want them to be worried about decisions their father makes. you know, you want them to just feel the security and love that every parent want their children -- mrs. obama: you just want home to be home and you want that for the president because they need that refuge with all they handle during the course of the day. you want them to come up on that elevator, come onto the second floor to the residence they can breathe. they don't need kids hammering them with, dad, why didn't you do this? sometimes malia and sasha will do that. but every now and then at dinner it's like, what were you thinking?

lafayette escadrille mrs. obama: but for the most part home is home and that helps keep kids normal. -- [laughter] mrs. obama: but for the most part home is home and that helps keep kids normal. i wanted my kids decent and kind especially if we were living on the south side of chicago and it takes work to keep white house life normal for the kids. mrs. bush: when is it normal? mrs. obama: it's not normal. mrs. bush: and you have a slumber party with 30. mrs. obama: yeah, just ignore the guys with the guns. i remember one parent-teacher conference when barack went and there were swat guys on top of the roof of the school. malia was like, dad, really? really? do they really have to be up there? and it's like, yeah, honey, they do. let's just keep walking. just keep going.

just keep going. bob: they got to put up with that even after they leave. there's going to be security. mrs. obama: well, it's different for -- mrs. bush: it's a different level. mrs. obama: we don't want to talk about it too much but it's not the same as what it will be for the president -- the former president and former first lady. they're all singing, hey, we're out of here. we get to ditch our agents pretty soon but it's a different level of security. bob: i'm really helping my four kids get back to normal when i leave abc news. [laughter] bob: after i was hit, though, i had to tell my little kids, ok. i'm a new rule. i am not going to cover wars anymore. now, i'm in asia reporting. i can at least do stories about conflict. conflict's not war. you know, we spoke about the -- both of you have accomplished

so much. military service initiative, of course. which was yours, mrs. bush. of course, joining forces that you worked on as well. both of you have worked together, i think, better than most. i mean, i think somebody said you should tell your -- the husbands to behave themselves. compared to the others. but what have you accomplished more or less than you expected in terms of what you're doing for those veterans? when i talk about veterans, i'm not just talking about those wounded in the war. about 25% are considered to have been wounded. the rest have gone out with transitions when they come back. some to a new civilian world. but what have you done for them that's the most important and is it more than you expected? or less? mrs. bush: well, i think in general, there's just a feeling that people support the military. and that it starts at the top. and it's very different, as you

said, from vietnam when vietnam -- my generation when they came home from war and were spit upon. and that's not the way it is now. and i think that's really great. i think i hope our returning veterans really feel the gratefulness and the support of the american public. and i know that -- and you know this too, bob, the thousands of veteran support groups, little mom and pop groups that have sprung up all over the united states because people do want to support our returning vets. and the other thing we should look at is what an asset they are. there have been 2 1/2 million post-9/11 vets and i think another million will be transitioning out in the next year or so. think of the asset that is for our country. these people who chose to serve, who volunteered to serve and now they want to come home and it's up to us, the rest of

us to figure out how we can help them keep serving in our community and make a life for themselves that they're happy with and deal with the trauma that a lot of them have, the trauma of war. mrs. obama: the thing i've been most pleased about with joining forces is it's really been a ll to partnership with all sectors -- corporate sector, with our safe communities, with our schools, our educators, our medical community. and what we have seen when you ask, peep step up without -- people step up without hesitation. that's the power of our platforms is a lot of times if laura or i ask for help, people are very receptive. the business community has created millions of jobs for our veterans and our military

spouses because of an ask that we made. millions of jobs. helping them get the training, to be able to retain those jobs and to advance within those jobs and the same is true for military spouses as well. we've been pleased with our local leaders who have answered e call to end veterans homelessness which was part of our call with joining forces. the notion we have even one single veteran living on the streets should be, you know, just considered a travesty to all of us. well, there are many mayors, some governors, some states who have essentially eliminated veterans homelessness because they've answered that call. hollywood community has stepped up. we work closely with writers and producers who've helped

develop plot lines that involve our military families, our military community because part of integrating those stories into everyday life helps to normalize these men and women and their families and familiarize the rest of the civilian community with those issues in sort of a nonpreachy way. so i've just been pleased -- bob: you've done your entertaining as well. i think it was two days ago you were on "ellen degeneres." mrs. obama: we weren't talking about veterans. i don't know what she's been doing. bob: what's the purpose of that? you've been on television shows. mrs. obama: when you make an appearance -- you make things fun. you get people to laugh and you can get people to listen. bob: that's mandatory with her, yes. mrs. obama: and most americans they respond dimple when there's a little humor.

people feel you're making yourself vulnerable and feel less like the first lady and more like a neighbor, a friend. but what we were able to do on her show is highlight a number of initiatives, including the work we've been doing with healthy eating and the work that steph curry has been doing. we had bradley cooper on to highlight "22 kill." bradley cooper has been great around military health for our veterans and service members. bradley's kind of cute and he's a little distracting but if you stop and listen to what he said was len," you know, he promoting the importance of ensuring that the suicide rates among our military members is reduced. in order to do something about it, you have to know that it's a problem. so people are watching "ellen."

they're not always watching the nightly news -- sorry. bob: except abc. mrs. obama: of course. we have to reach people where they are. bob: i know we've seen this before. nobody wants to talk all seriously all the time for those that have been hit. humor is a great one. i have rocks me in my head. mrs. obama: you've had those before. i just -- i'm just speaking for her. bob: you spoke to her, did you? that is correct. of course, i use my -- when she asks me to clean the garage i say, what is a carage. that works extremely well. you know, so much has been done to -- i know in our experience that early when the wars began, well more than a decade ago, is we concentrated on those that

come back recovering, to get out of the hospital and get the best treatment that they can but also the next step was to figure out a way to let them get back into their civilian world when they returned to their community and then, of course, the next one was jobs. i think the number -- this may be right -- i think the rate of unemployment within the -- with the veterans now is lower than the civilian numbers, the rate for unemployment. mrs. bush: that's good news. [applause] bob: the other one, mrs. bush, this is one of your concentrations too. i think most of the attention was largely to those that were visibly wounded. and now we have to realize there's radio that are invisible -- there's a lot that are invisible. why are you pursuing that as one of your major concentrations? mrs. bush: that's one of the

most long-lasting effects of being in trauma like that. and so one of the things that george has done with both the bike rides and the golf is a lot of people recover from those invisible wounds if they're playing a sport. they can do it with a sport. so those are the two things he's done. of course, that's the whole idea behind invict us and that is -- invictus and that is a reason. when i moved back to texas with a group that i grew up with, we founded a conservation group called texan by nature. and we just hosted a conference on monday at houston methodist hospital in houston about the benefits of being outside for mental health and one of the people that spoke was a colonel who suffered from p.t.s. about how being outside just even being able to see green. there's research, not a lot on research that proves it but

they say that if you just go outside some. and one of the researchers that talked, talked about this problem that a lot of people have where they ruminate over the problem. you called it rumination and you spend things going through your mind and it's even bad for your brain because you produce a lot of cortisol and that's where p.t.s. can be, where you go through your mind the trauma and you see your best friend being shot over and over and over. and to be able to get out of that, to be able to go outside and get out of it or use a sport or some other way to get out of it is very helpful with posttraumatic stress. the other thing that george has tried to do is take the disorder, the d out of the p.t.s. it's an injury. it's not a disorder. and if people are -- if they're

diagnosed with the disorder then they think it hurts them, they won't be able to get a job if you have a disorder but you can improve from an injury. mrs. obama: and that's the work we need to do around mental health and how the military can be so helpful because mental health affects all americans. one in five americans is dealing with some kind of mental health diagnosis. and the challenge that we have face is there is still a stigma. so people are not -- they don't feel good about identifying and getting the help that they need. sometimes it's viewed as a weakness. and when you think about that -- it's ludicrous. like laura said, it's an illness. could you ever imagine claiming that a cancer patient seeking kumhotherapy was somehow being weak or you -- chemotherapy was somehow being weak or someone with a heart disease you tell them toughen up? but that's where mental health is and our military can play a big role in changing the

conversation around mental health for the entire country. because we know these men and women are heroes. we know that they're brave. we understand what's happened and if they can be brave enough to step up and get the help they need, perhaps that will help some kid in some community who's depressed and maybe thinking about suicide. maybe the research that is happening for our veterans and wounded warriors can be translated -- exactly. can help everybody. and that's one of the reasons with joining forces we've been working with something called the campaign change direction and the goal there is to help the rest of the nation understand the five signs that they need to look out for when somebody has mental health, sort of like c.p.r. training or defibrillator. yes, that thing. but everyone should be aware. employers, teachers, educators

so that when you see the signs, you know how to identify them and you can find the resources to get that person the help they need. this is true for many military spouses as well. it's not just the service members. i mean, the stresses of being a caregiver, the stresses of being that spouse that is dealing with four kids while their spouse is deployed, i mean, we have to make sure that these individuals feel like they can reach out when they need help and they're not drowning all alone. so this is one of the many ways that the work we do with the military community can be translated into positive impacts for the rest of the society. bob: you know, i was going to ask you right before you said about p.t.s. versus posttraumatic stress disorder. there was a movement. there was a stigma. when you talk about employment and just getting back to your world is that that was one that

people didn't understand and they were not going to the hire somebody with one they could not identify. that has changed over time. the stigma has dropped. mrs. bush: and people suffering in any way needs to reach out for the veteran as well as the family and veterans are slow to say i need help. they are tough. they pride themselves on it. and they don't want to jeopardize their chances of getting a job by saying i need help. so i think there are a lot of ways. i've seen some ads actually on television about talking. one man told george about seeing his best friend shot next to him. and he said he couldn't get it out of his mind. then he wrote him a letter afterwards and he said, you know, i never told anyone that. and george said, you waited until you told your former commander in chief and you haven't told anyone else? because those are things people

need to be able to talk about. they need to have somebody that listens to them and they can talk about and tell it because that's how you slowly get over it. bob: you know, you mentioned identify -- identification. anyway, i want to talk about spouses. you mentioned spouses again and children because that's another one that so many times we have heard this, especially early on in our world of the wounded and just all that transactually, the ones that don't get any attention or credit is the spouses, whether it's a man or a woman, a husband or a wife. those that served are the ones that get all of the attention. that's changing over time. and a lot of it is what you two are doing. mrs. obama: we had so much fun working with military spouses. you talk about highly skilled service members, i mean,

military spouses, they are smart. they're resilient. they are multitaskers. amazing to the t. they are great spokespeople. they are great managers. they're great leaders but many of them have had their careers disrupted because they're supporting a spouse. you know, when you're moving every two years, how do you keep up with your job? one of the issues we worked on with joining forces is military spousal licensing. so you manage that you have a job that requires any kind of license, you know, even anest tigs or social worker, you name it, if you move to another base in another state, there was no reciprocity. many spouse has to go through hours of retraining and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get recertified just to work in their profession. bob r.s.c. nurses? mrs. obama: any job with a license there was no

reciprocity. with the start of joining forces that was a key issue and we put a call out to all of the governors. we had one of the meeting with a governors conference and was like, hey, come on people. you can do this. it was one of the things where a lot of the governors didn't realize their states didn't have reciprocity. they just hadn't thought about it. so slowly we started to see state legislature -- this is one of these -- this is like a no-brainer, nonpartisan issue. this is a win-win, just get it done. well, from the start to now we now finally have all 50 states who have military spousal licensing reciprocity. [applause] mrs. obama: going on. but we would have never known that had we not had the conversations with these men and women. to hear their challenges, to see what they were going through, to find out what kind

of things we could do on the ground. i mean, what would change their lives? and this is just one of them. to talk about the military kids, i mean, the challenges of moving a kid, you know, finding the right programs. if you got a great special ed program that your kid's in and you're moving to another base, you don't know if that school has that same program. so the level of advocacy and research and skill to be a military spouse to keep your kid on track, if any parent out here -- you just think about your kid and what it takes to get them from kindergarten to 12th great sanely in one school, the average military kid attends seven, eight, nine, 10 schools in their entire primary and secondary school education. and these kids are still graduating on time. they are still at the top of their class. they are still amazing but there's a parent at home that's doing a lot of heavy lifting to make that happen. a lot of advocating.

one of jill's initiative -- jill biden -- a blue star mom in her own right -- is working with the education community on a range of these issues as well. so there's so much that we need to know about the challenges that military families face. they are holding up this country just as much as the men and women who are serving on those front lines. and they're just as proud and ust as reticent to complain or ask for help. bob: so that's why your president won a second term, so you didn't have to move the kids? mrs. obama: the reason he won, he wanted to make sure that his teenage girls had agents throughout high school. [laughter] mrs. obama: men with guns. that was a great motivator. bob: my kids -- i have four kids. my wife and i moved to 10 different cities in our -- my son, by the time he was 11 it

was his eighth city and i wasn't even in the military. so at least i had -- mrs. obama: was the rocks in your head thing. bob: how many times are you going to say that? ok. it's true. the other thing that's interesting to talk about first ladies and the history to see cokie talk about and the great historians talk about this is if you compare to what you're doing now as first ladies compared to what the first ladies did before, it's interesting to see some in history went to the war zones and worked and dealt with those that came back. physically with the blood. but the number of hours that you put into it, if you compared them, what do you think? is it just much more unending in terms of the participation by first ladies in all of this? mrs. bush: i think first ladies have been pretty active forever. mrs. obama: eleanor roosevelt, drop the mike on that one. mrs. bush: they used to think,

they thought this about lady bird johnson. isn't that sweet that she likes flowers? the first lady likes flowers. and she was really one of the very first, you know, conservationists that talked about using native plants. bob: so that takes us to the next step. i know you're always doing this well after you left. what are you going to do when you go? what's going to be your priority in terms of all the work? you've done everything -- many, many initiatives even other than the veterans ones and i won't ask which one you'll concentrate the most. how much do you think you'll be involved in this as time goes by? do you think this will be the rest of your life for both of you? mrs. obama: absolutely. what else are we going to do? mrs. bush: the fact is, you really have a podium, really, always. people still listen to barbara

bush, you think. i certainly do. [laughter] [applause] bob: do you obey her? mrs. bush: it's a really wonderful -- it's just great for us to be able to have the opportunity to contribute to things and do things. keep working on what we're interested in. these are all issues that don't ever -- you don't say -- mrs. obama: done. finished. mrs. bush: you have to work on literacy forever. mrs. obama: i was going to say, to do this, you have to have a strong public service bone sort of built in you. and i know that's true for me. it's true for my husband. i mean, long before he ran for office we left corporate law and we were working with kids and mentoring. he was a community organizer. i worked for the city government. that's sort of what you do and you don't stop because there's

always something to do so i can't imagine that i'll leave here and really kick my feet up and say, oh, good luck with that. mrs. bush: you'll do that a little bit. mrs. obama: i'll do that a little bit. you're right. bob: what's going to be your hobby? president bush now taking painting on as one of his main things. i think we're going to get a book wednesday -- in march, sorry, i'd like to have it on wednesday but we'll have it then. did he do a great painting of you? mrs. bush: no. he was not successful in the papetting of me. mrs. obama: oh, no. mrs. bush: but he has painted port rates of wounded warriors that he's gotten -- portraits of wounded warriors that he's gotten to know. he wrote their stories. bob: and he's donating all the profit. mrs. bush: to the military -- bob: to my foundation. joking about that.

mrs. bush: there is life after the white house. no new sheets every day. mrs. obama: that's ok. bob: so then we're going to have a brand new administration coming very soon. you can't win any more terms. it's not roosevelt anymore. mrs. obama: that's fine. bob: your kids are going to have to move and do something. do you have some advice to the next first lady or first gentleman that comes into the white house about how to deal with initiatives, generally, but largely for operating out of the white house? i know there's a lot of remarkable organizations that are doing so much for the veterans. had a chance to go and they visit the white house and it changes their attitude a lot. but is there any specifically you'd tell to the next? mrs. obama: i would hope, as with previous administrations, that this next administration

will prioritize our service members, our veterans and our families. it should be high on the list. this is' something everyone can do to support this community but the commander in chief, the first family, the second family, the vice president, they have an obligation to set that tone. i think laura said that earlier . with this platform, you can raise the bar high enough on this issue. so i would hope that this is -- that this responsibility comes with the house and that every administration will try to top the next one in what they do for these men and women. whatever you call it. whether it's joining forces or you name it something else, but the work of making sure that this country never forgets the service and sacrifice, particularly when it comes to our gold star families, that we hold them in our hearts, that we don't just honor them with

words but we do things that impact their lives. as much as laura and i have done, there's still so much work to be done. everything is not fixed. so there's plenty for the next administration to do. and i think -- i would urge all of our veterans organizations, our blue star moms, our gold star families, everyone, to keep the pressure on the next administration, hold them accountable, ask the same important questions that you've asked of these presidencies to make sure that we never go back to the time of vietnam war where a veteran comes home and they're afraid to even identify as a service member. i'll never forget. when i realized we were having an impact was the time we went to a v.a. center and there was a gentleman, mr. black, who came up after a conversation about what was going on at the v.a. center we had highlighted and he said, you know, i have never been more proud to be a veteran than now. he said, i used to never tell

anybody that i was a veteran because i never knew what their reaction would be. and he said, now every day i don't leave the house without something that identifies me as a veteran because i don't care where i am. people are going to stop me. they thank me. they say, thank you for your service. we're so proud of you. he said, now i don't leave the house without something that identifies me as a veteran. and that just -- that warmed my heart and that's something we have to think about for all these men and women who are going to be transitioning. our women veterans. there will be more and more women veterans out there. you have to hold them up and let them know that we're grateful. so -- mrs. bush: and a lot of the vietnam vets will be going to the v.a. because of age. some may have brain injuries that were never really identified before. so we'll start to see a big -- i think a big number of vietnam

vets now coming into the v.a. the hospitals. bob: and i think people just assume there's really no battles going on but we're going all over the world with more conflicts and more special ops and c.i.a. and underground kind of operations. that's going to continue for a long time. hopefully we're not going to have another major war again. sometimes i say this is a little bit maybe too emotional back at but i look the good thing of being blown up, if there's ever such a thing, it's so fulfilling to have a relationship with a group of americans that have served, have done so much partly because they volunteered. my own 25-year-old son and my 22-year-old daughter don't have to join of military unless they really want to. but how has that been for you? i know it's as well -- to some

degree it's an obvious answer to it but have you ever cried much? mrs. obama: oh, god, yeah. i cry all the time. . t it's more tears of pride i am moved by this community. moved deeply because when we talk about pride of country, when we talk about citizenship, when we talk about all the things we want. we want a strong defense. we want to beat back terrorism. all of this is resting on the shoulders of this one community. i said, 1% of the country that's stepping up to serve to protect the freedoms of us all. and we can't just talk strong defense if we're not taking care of these men and women. not just during their service but after. so, yeah, i do get emotional. i get emotional when i see a young man with all his limbs

blown off at walter reed and i see a young family sitting there and i wonder what are they going to do. and then a few months later i see that young man with his prosthetics and next month i see him walking and then next year you see them -- him competing in the invictus games. it clutches your heart in a way that you can't imagine. we've been able to follow those journeys to watch people go from traumatic injury to victory, and there is a strength and a power to that that you just can't, you know -- mrs. bush: and just a resilience also of people. and of america. our whole country, i think, it's very -- we're so lucky to live where we live. bob: which is another reason why it's so important for you to concentrate on the invisible wounds, too, because our

medicine advancement -- actually working an hour for pbs, medicine, it's another thing about the wars one of the positive aspects of it is medical advancements. now the civilian world of medicine. people say five years i was hit i would not be here right now. it creates other invisible wounds that will last forever. it's going to mean even more. that's one thing you're going to concentrate on when you go which is remarkable. i want to thank both of you for what you're doing. i haven't sadly done the research how much previous first ladies have done for the veterans. i know that we have brand new wars. it was sort of after the cold war before but you have, again, you've done more than anybody expected and your influence has been remarkable. i just want to thank you personally and i think from everyone here for doing what

you're doing. [applause] bob: so i think that meebs we can stand -- means we can stand up. mrs. bush: thank you, michelle. rs. obama: thank you, laura. >> and this program with first ladies laura bush and michelle obama will start at 8:00 eastern. and you can watch it in the c-span video library at c-span.org. and you can learn about the first ladies, now in paper back. our book looks at the personal lives and impact of every first lady in american history. each chapter offers brief biographies of 45 presidential ladies. retail price is $17.99. published by public affairs and

it's available now from your favorite book seller. and fox business with this tweet. a contractor contained a scan about michelle obama's passport. an image that appeared to be of the first lady's passport was posted online. "i can tell you administration officials are taking a look at the information that's disclosed, white house press secretary josh earnest yesterday. we take any breach seriously. we'll learn more about today's white house briefing, set to start at 12:30 eastern here on -span. mr. trump: once more, we will have a government that's of, for and by the people.

mrs. clinton: we are stronger together. no matter what, remember this, love trumps hate. >> c-span's twain 2016 continues with the first presidential debate monday night live from hofstra university in new york. beginning at 7:30 p.m. eastern with a preview of the debate. then at 8:30, the predebate briefing for the audience. at 9:00 p.m., live coverage of the debate followed by viewer reaction. the 2016 presidential debate on c-span. watch anytime on demand at c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> leading up to the debates between hillary clinton and donald trump, we'll look at past presidential debate saturdays on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. this saturday it's the 1976 debate between incumbent president gerald ford and former georgia governor jimmy carter. >> we were faced with heavy

inflation. over 12%. we were faced with substantial unemployment. but in the last 24 mobts we turned the economy around. president carter: we have 500,000 more americans out of jobs today than out of work three months ago and since mr. ford's been in office in two years we've had a 50% increase in unemployment. >> the 1980 debate with former california governor ronald reagan and president jimmy carter. president carter: when i made my decision to stop all trade with iran as a result of the taking of our hostages, i've maintained consistently since then if the hostages are released safely we would make delivery on those items which iran owns. president reagan: we had adequate warning that there was a threat to our embassy and we could do what other embassies did, strengthen our remove

before the kidnapping and takeover took place. >> and former texas governor george bush and incumbent vice president al gore. al gore: i will pay down the national debt. i will put medicare and social security in a lock box and protect it. president bush: i want to take one half of the surplus and dedicate it to social security. one quarter of the surplus for important projects. i want to send one quarter of the surplus back to the people who paid the bills. >> watch past presidential debates saturday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. watch anytime at c-span.org and listen at 8:00 p.m. eastern on he c-span radio app. national park service employees alleged sexual harassment and other misconduct. talked during a house committee yesterday. also, workplace culture, fear of reprisals and failure among

managers to respond to omplaints. mr. chaffetz: the committee on oversight and reform will come to order. the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. we have an important hearing today. it's entitled "examining misconduct and mismanagement at the national park service." in june national park service director jarvis testified before this committee about the problems in sexual harassment throughout the park service. he suggested that things could potentially get worse before they got better and boy was he right. things have gotten a lot worse. we have certainly been able to illuminate and find more problems that unfortunately have been festering and in part of the system for far, far too ong. since director jarvis's testimony, numerous park employees from multiple parks have contacted the committee to describe patterns of misconduct at the park service. and today, we're here to determine what the park service is doing to stop the harassment

and find out why it keeps happening. there seems to be some patterns here that are just not anything that we should come close to tolerating. these incidents are happening at our country's most beloved parks. from yellowstone to yosemite and the grand canyon, these are some of the most visited and famous parks literally in the world. unfortunately, they also face serious management challenges and allegations of disturbing misbehavior. it's difficult to have these discussions in an open setting and i warn the parents of young people who may be watching this, some of this is going to be probably a little touchy and a little inappropriate. but it is what we do on this committee. we illuminate things. we shine the light on them. we are different in the united states of america as i've said time and time again in that we are self-critical.

we'd better come to a reality grip of what's happening because far too often the people that are accused of this hideous behavior are simply promoted, maybe they get a bonus and just move on. there doesn't seem to be a consequence. in yosemite, at least 18 employees, 18, have come forward with allegations of harassment, bullying and a hostile work environment. hese employees lay the blame on the superintendent of yosemite. park service law enforcement official who investigated the allegation in yosemite concluded this "the number of employees interviewed that described horrific working conditions lead us to believe that the environment is indeed toxic, hostile, repressive and harassing." i don't know that it could get any worse than that, but that is his conclusion. these are the words of the park service's own internal investigators, not the

committee staff, not the office of the inspector general. currently, the superintendent is still running yosemite. he's still there. if this was the only park suffering from these problems, it would be enough of a serious concern. yet, recent allegations from america's first national park yellowstone are truly beyond pale. they include sexual exploitation, intimidation, retaliation and sexual harassment so depraved that it is disturbing even to discuss. with accusations so alarming you would expect the washington office to step in immediately and ensure that employees in yellowstone are safe. while i appreciate the decision to call on the inspector general for assistance, the park service must be more aggressive in protecting public service. we see this time and time again. it's not good enough to just say, we're going to ask the inspector general to do it. the park service and the other agencies need to do their job

in providing immediate relief, not punt it to somebody else to start doing it. it's not good enough to just say we're going to do a survey. i'm tired of hearing about surveys. there's a problem. in our june hearing, we heard about the serious problems at grand canyon and canaveral national park. since then, it was reported hat the supervisors were not -- who allowed misconduct to just left e not unpunished, some were even promoted. what in the world does it take to get fired from the park service? in most of these cases that i've seen, it's not just one he said, she said. here's a case where we're going to talk about today, we've got 18 people. 18. who are talking about this. leaders who fail in their obligations to protect the public or employees, they need to be fired. if they're not going to take action and protect the employees of the united states of america, then they should

leave. we had hoped our hearing with director jarvis would have prompted some change. instead, it seems to have been treated merely as a speed bump. based on what we've seen, the response to the crisis has been to require additional training for managers and to realign the equal opportunity employment office so that it reports to director jarvis. of course, this is the same director who of the removed from overseeing the park service's ethics program because his own integrity failures included lying to the secretary of the nterior. i'm glad to see that director jarvis has announced his retirement. i think that should have happened quite some time ago, but it is kind of stunning that the director of the park service is prohibited from administering an ethics program because of his own ethical problems. and then we wonder why we have a hard time implementing ethical reforms or just implementing

hings at the park service. how are you employees supposed to trust the eeo process when the person in charge hasn't followed the rules themselves? something needs to change and it needs to change fast. i'd like to acknowledge we are joined today by two park service employees testifying in a whistleblower capacity. these brave employees have come forward despite the fear of possible retaliation. i got to tell you, we will have nothing of that. mr. cummings and i, democrats, republicans, we are united in the idea that we will go to the ends of the earth to protect and support people who step up as whistleblowers. it takes a great deal of guts to come testify before this committee in a volunteer situation and explain what you've seen and heard firsthand. for that, we're exceptionally grateful.

it's a difficult thing to do. i'm not sure it's -- i can't imagine you ever imagined in your life that you would be in this situation testifying before congress. but as i said before, we take this responsibility very seriously. we can't fix it if we don't know precisely what it is. we have a pretty good indication of what it is, but to hear from the frontlines what's really happening is a pivotal concern to us. we want to thank you for your courage, your willingness to step forward. and we expect candid answers. and we will do all we can to protect you from any sort of reprisals. so now i'd like to recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i do indeed thank you for calling this hearing. no employee in the federal civil service should ever feel afraid

to come to work. it's a simple statement. but it's very, very important. and no employee should ever feel retaliation if she steps forward r he steps forward to report misconduct that makes him or her eel afraid or uncomfortable. i thank kelly martin, the chief of fire and aviation management at yosemite national park, and ryan healy, fisheries program manager at the grand canyon, for eing here today. i thank them for their courage and their willingness to come forward and share with this committee their experiences over decades of work for the federal overnment.

i also thank you for your service. it should not have been necessary for them to be here oday to testify. task force convened some 16 years ago commissioned a study to examine women in law enforcement occupations in the park service. here is what that study found. some individuals in positions of uthority appear to condone either by their action or inaction sexual harassment and discrimination. the system used for handling complaints is not trusted by the employees. nor timely in its ability to bring resolution to complaints. that's a major, major problem. it went on to say that employees fear retaliation if complaints re voiced.

that was 16 years ago. the task force concluded, and i quote, it is critical for the national park service to show a sense of urgency in ensuring that all employees are working in an environment free from unlawful harassment. the task force developed a five-year action plan with nearly 30 recommendations to correct deficiencies with handling complaints, recruitment and retention efforts. and sexual harassment revention. however, the park service, by their own admission, few of these recommendations were ever implemented. obviously, there were folk that did not consider it to be that

important. they did not feel the sense of urgency. o that task force report was filed away, put on a shelf, gathering dust, ignored. 16 years later, the inspector general has issued a report finding, and i quote, the evidence of a long-term pattern of sexual harassment and hostile workforce environment in the grand canyon river district. 16 years later, the inspector general has issued a report finding, and i quote, a pattern of harassment involving a law enforcement supervisor at the canaveral national seashore. and 16 years later, members of the committee, allegations have

been made at yosemite and yellowstone national parks about possible harassment, possible hostile work environments, and even sexual exploitation. today's hearing will enable us to hear from the park service in regard to specific measures it has implemented to ensure that all employees work in facilities where sexual harassment is not tolerated and the agency's culture welcomes and supports a work force that reflects the diversity of our nation. i want to hear about the specific reforms that the park service has implemented to ensure that all complaints are handled in a fair, timely and horough and consistent manner. i want to hear about the reforms that have been implemented to ensure that this preliminary process yields consistent and

fair discipline across all park service cilities and cannot be abused to retaliate against employees who file complaints. and i want to hear about the reforms that have been implemented to bring the park service's equal employment opportunity program into compliance with the standards of a model program. in miss martin's prepared testimony she wrote, and i quote, with steadfast resolve to work together and confront the serious and subtle misconduct issues we currently face, we will set a north star for a culture change for the next generation of the national park service employees. the commitment of employees like miss martin and mr. healy, i'm confident that we are on the right course to correct long-standing patterns of harassment and retaliation in the park service.

i thanked them before, but i want to thank them again because they're not only here about themselves and things that they've seen, but they are trying to make sure that the park service is a place welcoming to generations yet unborn. however, to make the changes that clearly need to be made, we have to hold a park services feet to the fire. 16 years ago, there were those that sat in these same chairs and tried to hold feet to the fire. but apparently, the fire was not hot enough. well, we're going to have to do it again. there's been 99 da since our last hearing. our committee should continue to hold hearings on the park service every 99 days. until all employees feel safe coming to work and reporting misconduct whenever and wherever it occurs. as i've often said from this

committee, during committee hearings, when i see things that are not right, i often say we're better than that. and we are better than that. and i want to thank our witnesses for coming forward to help us get to where we have to go. with that, i yield back. mr. chesapeake bay fets: i thank the gentleman. i will hold the record open for five legislative days for members who would like to submit a written statement. we'll now recognize our panel of witnesses, mr. michael reynolds, deputy director for operations at the national park service of the united states department of the interior. ms. kelly martin is the chief of fire and aviation management at yosemite national park of the national park service, the united states department of interior, and mr. brian healey, fisheries program manager at the grand canyon national park, the national park service in the united states department of the interior. we thank you all for being here. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify.

so if you'll please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. you may be seated. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate you limiting your verbal comments to five minutes but we're going to be pretty lenient on that if you go over, you'll be just fine. your entire written record will be submitted as part of the record. mr. reynolds, you are now recognized. and you got to make sure you turn it on but bring that microphone uncomfortably close to your mouth. there you go. thank you. mr. reynolds: thank you, chairman chesapeake bay fets, ranking member cummings, committee members. thank you for the opportunity to update the committee on steps

the national park service has taken address sexual harassment cases at grand canyon national parkpark and canaveral national seashore as well as the broader issue of harassment in the workplace. the cases at the grand canyon and canaveral were more than a wake up call for the national park service. they presented us with clear and undeniable evidence that we as we begin our second century of service, must extend the same commitment to the employees of the park service as we make to the protection of our nation's most extraordinary places. on behalf after the senior leadership of the national park service and the majority of our 20,000 plus employees who are outstanding, honorable public servants, i share your disgust with the behavior that the inspector general outlined in these reports. in response to those situations, the leadership team at the national park service has committed to making substantial and long-term culture changes at the agency to prevent sexual harassment and to ensure that every employee has a safe and respectful work environment. this kind of change is neither easy nor fast.

we will need to develop trust and support among our employees, visitors and congress to make the changes that are undeniably necessary. this hearing today is one step in that journey. prior to becoming deputy director in august, i worked in many parks and regional offices throughout my 30 years with the park service. as a regional director for the midwest and more recently as the associate for workforce and inclusion, my focus has been accountability and performance management and change. as the new deputy director, i am personally committed to providing a culture of transparency, inclusion, respect and accountability and making this a safe place for employees to work. we want to become a model agency. we will become a model agency. i will start by outlining the specific actions we have taken at the grand canyon and canaveral since we last testified here in june. since the june 14th hearing at the grand canyonon we have

appointed a new superintendent, closed the river district within the canyon for now in terms of rangers running the program, taken actions to hold employees accountable for misconduct and acted on an 18 action item recommendation in response to the oig report. at canaveral, we have removed the chief ranger accused of sexual harassment from his duties at the park. moved the superintendent into a detail assignment with the regional office, and initiated the process of moving forward with actions to hold employees accountable for misconduct. employees and supervisors at both parks have received mandatory sexual harassment prevention, reporting, and response training sessions. nationally we're working with the department of the interior to take steps to eradicate sexual harassment and to change the nps culture. some of these include mandated online training for all managers and employees and distributing new nps specific guides servicewide, additional focused training for eeo, human

resources and employee relations staff to support the workforce, the professionals that would support workforce. new reporting options including a hot lean and overwhelm buds office which will be operational in weeks, tobe as an independent and confidential resource for employees. a servicewide workforce harassment survey to be conducted later this year, and an eeo office that now reports directly to the director and will receive additional support for their critical work, updated policy that provides guidance to employees on harassment, equal employment opportunities, discrimination and diversity and a mandatory 14-day deadline for completing anti-harassment inquiries. these efforts will be insufficient without a long-term plan to fundamentally change the culture of the national park service. culture change begins with leadership commitment and accountability. and is sustained through on going training, education and employee engagement. in our centennial year, leadership has refocused what we want the service to look like in

it's second century and are committed to a transparent process focused on accountability to make the improvements our employees want and deserve. this needs to be done very urgently. thank you again for inviting me to testify before you today. i am happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. miss chesapeake bay fets. ms. martin, you're now recognized. ms. martin: chairman chesapeake bay fets, ranking member cummings, and members of the committee. i was requested before you today to discuss my personal experience with employee misconduct with the national park service. my name is kelly martin. i am the chief of fire and aviation management at yosemite national park. i've been in my current position over ten years. prior to yosemite, i worked for the forest service for 16 years. between the two agencies, i have 32 years of distinguished service to the american people. i am here before you today as a citizen and on behalf of many of our public land management women leaders. my testimony provided for this hearing focuses on management diligence to address misconduct

over the course of my career. my motivation for this statement is for greater focus and scrutiny on the culture created when leaders of our organization fail to take disciplinary action and to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. it is not without note the vast majority of individuals who have devoted their life work find working for the national park service is an honorable and noble profession, myself included. i am here before you today to tell you my story, but more importantly to provide testimony regarding the dark clouds of misconduct that remains elusive from public view. when i began working for the park service as a college student in 1984, i was sure i found my dream job living and working in the outdoors with those who share the value and importance of public lands and improving resources for the american public. imagine for one minute being 20 something again. we have an idealistic view of the world that is equitable and just. my idealist view was soon

shattered when i became victim of sexual harassment not once but three times. one of my perpetrators was repeatedly caught engaging in voyeuristic behavior all the while receiving promotions within the park service till his recent retirement as deputy superintendent. this is very difficult to sit before you today. i'm not boastful of the history of my sexual harassment experiences. as a matter of fact, this is the first time have i come out publicly to describe the scars of my past in an effort to eliminate these kinds of experiences from happening to young women entering our workforce today. i did find my own way to push past these experiences and decided to preserve my opportunity for career advancement. my experiences would go unreported until now. this is highly personal decision a woman must make and it is almost always an embarrassing arduous situation to endure. what brings me to testify today is due to a hostile work environment situation in

yosemite national park where dozens of individuals have come forward with personal statements of demoralizing behaviors to include acts of bullying, gender bias and favoritism. while not rising to the notoriety of sexual harassment, equally damaging behavior patterns that create a hostile work environment are more pervasive than one might thing and is not confined to one park. the time has come to recognize hostile work environments affect our employees on a day to day basis. all members of a team that allow the toxic environment to persist are complicit in the negative effects that decrease employee morale and productivity. the subtle nuances of a hostile work environment erodes human dignity and diminishes the potential of our most valued resource -- the people who care so deeply in the mission of the park service and their desire to reach their personal and profesonal aspirations. we owe this to our future generation of women and men

leaders who our agency needs to guide us through our challenges. as i walk through my 32 years of service, i want to leave here today with a strong conviction of hope. hope for the future generation of park service conservation leaders that will not know what it is like to experience sexual harassment, gender and racial discrimination, and sex imin hostile work environments. hope for national direction to encourage engagement of women and men at the smallest work unit to recognize and thwart negative behavior patterns. hope we can identify misconduct and take swift and appropriate action against perpetrators. i also recognize our agency has many great men who come forward to be courageous mentors and champions of women's contributions and encourage and support an equitable work environment. as the chief of fire and

aviation, i aim to bring courage and inspiration to many women i'm here representing today who are hopeful my full written testimony will be the catalyst needed for change in our culture aviation, i aim to bring courage and inspiration to many women that is accepting of everyone. thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences and concerns as the current situation in the national park service is dire and needs immediate attention to ensure future generations of employees have access to a workplace free from harassment and hostile work environments. i will be happy to answer any questions you have of me at this time. mr. chesapeake bay fets: mr. healy, you're now recognized. mr. healy: good afternoon, chairman chesapeake bay fets, ranking member cummings, and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. i hope the information that i share will provide additional insight into the full scope of the sexual harassment and hostile work environment issues at grand canyon and the efforts of the park service to address the misconduct at the park. the vast majority of grand canyon employees believe in the nps mission to be hard working, selfless and willing to cooperate to meet goals.

neverthelessas this committee has seen in the office of inspector general's report on a previous pervasive misconduct within the river district, there are exceptions. my testimony today may anger some of my co-workers and managers. based on my experiences, i feel as if my career, my safety, and the safety of other employees at the park may be at some risk even though there are numerous legal protections in place for whistleblowers. thus i am using caution in how i characterize these experiences to protect the privacy of individual victims and witnesses. i know this committee is particularly interested in the response to the findings of misconduct by the oig. i can report on the progress of 12 of the action items propertiesed by park service and how they impacted operations and employees of the park. first, in august, a boat operator that was implicated in many of the incidents has been removed from his position. in addition, training sessions were held to address reporting and confidentiality. and the training also provided

recommendations on responding to reference checks for employees, and the agency is making progress on a hotline for reporting harassment. however, some actions did not have the desired impact. by shutting down grand canyon, in contracting, we learned we have very limited ability to prohibit problem boat operators from returning to work as contractors on trips. in addition, some employees who worked at the river district may negligencively impacted by having their duty changed or in the case of temporary employees, they lost work. we could've imported the situation altogether, if employees and supervisors were held accountable. accountability is elusive for managers. the deputy remains in a position of command, and the river supervisor was assigned to another part. while only a temporary position, this appeared to be a promotion. to grand canyon employees.

o.i.g. found that the superintendent had distribute nformation to the perpetrators in violation of regulation and put safety at risk. in addition, despite reasonable and cost-effective alternatives, the deputy superintendent forced him to work in the hostile work environment in 2015. the culture of bullying and harassment is not limited to the river district, nor have all the river issues been addressed. beginning in 2013, i reported multiple instances of bullying to the superintendent, majority -- deputy superintendent and human resources staff. the examples included retaliation by some members of the crew, directed to the assault victim who reported the assault to law enforcement. the assault victim's onfidentiality was breached, and she was belittled with an

expletive by part of the trail crew. use of a misogynistic slur in reference to a senior manager, which was reported by the witness, the witness was allegedly threatened by violence on two occasions. according to those involved, it appeared they did not follow through with the appropriate investigations, and in some cases, made excuses for this behavior. an investigation into these incidents involving a group which occurred in 2013 and 2014 was finally initiated in april 2016, but the findings have yet to have been reviewed. years of unchecked misconduct by the river district and some members of the trail crew and the termination of two employees who have reported sexual harassment has had severe impact on employee morale, workplace safety. witnesses and victims remain fearful. i have heard, i was afraid to report. because i feared retaliation countless times in my years at grand canyon. reporting is also discouraged. i was told the deputy

superintendent viewed me as a whiner, and my own supervisor were pressured to lower my to formance rating, due "brian's problems" with the river district and trail crew, including the work environment for all employees. she indicated we have much work to do. the office received almost 100 complaints or concerns, related to the workplace in the grand canyon. change is difficult and will take time. and the retention and promotion of managers implicated in wrongdoing may continue, which will discourage future reporting and challenge morale and confidence in leadership. i sincerely hope that this testimony will lead to continue -- continued positive chaping in the agency. thank you. chair. chaffetz: thank you. we will now recognize the gentlewoman from wyoming, one of the most beautiful states, perhaps second only to utah, but one of the more beautiful ones, and the home of one of our most treasured national parks.

i would like to recognize ms. lummis for five minutes. rep. lummis: thank you, mr. chairman. we are primarily focused here on grand canyon and yosemite national park, but it seems like more problems are cropping up in he system. mr. reynolds, are you aware of allegeses by bob hester of misconduct among employees at yellowstone national park? mr. reynolds: yes. rep. lummis: in an article published in the "montana ioneer" before labor day weekend, mr. hester allegations there was exploitation as well as retaliation by supervisors at yellowstone. the article mentions allegations, also financial misconduct. now, who is currently investigating these allegations? mr. reynolds: the inspector general. rep. lummis: have you begun interviewing witnesses?

mr. reynolds: the last information as i understand is that they have not but they have a arrival date of september 27 in the park. rep. lummis: when was the outside investigator scheduled to begin interviewing? mr. reynolds: i had a first phone call around september 3, and i believe the following week, the week of the 5th, the superintendent began to put together the right mechanisms to bring an independent investigative team. rep. lummis: one of the things that concerns me, mr. chairman, is that in instances where the uperintendent of a park is not implicated in the charges or the llegations of sexual misconduct, earn attempts to investigate it or initiate an investigation quickly, that maybe the i.g. stops the investigation that is going on.

i think this is the case in yellowstone, where superintendent link was beginning an investigation and bringing in outside investigators to do an independent inquiry. and then, was prevented from doing so, because the ig was brought in, thereby delaying the pportunity to obtain statements, while people's memories were fresh, and potentially providing for the opportunity for certain of the alleged perpetrators to etire. and so, trying to balance how do we protect employees, how can we protect the people who, like mr. healy and ms. martin, who are bringing this information forward.

and at the same time, make sure that these investigations are conducted in a timely anner. mr. reynolds: i agree, completely, with your concerns. one of our new policy shifts that i alluded to in my testimony that we are doing with our program is to establish these third-party investigation units, that would be able to swiftly go in. i am going to recommend a 24-48 hour turnaround, once we have a eport. superintendent link have begun that process. i like have further conversations with the ig. i think they're doing their job o come in and do this. i am not sure they want to have a clean investigation, and so, they did ask us to stand down a third-party investigator, but i know the superintendent has expressed his dismay to me about how he is worried about the time for that. so, we agree. ep. lummis: in the case of mr.

wenk, there were no allegations against him. there were no allegations to my knowledge that he knew and looked the other way. but what about the case where hat is not true? what about the case where the superintendent of a national park is implicated? how do you deal with that situation? mr. reynolds: it is very important we have someone from the outside managing the process, so that you do not have any problems, if you will, tainting an investigation, right? so, in one example, our policy director from a different office of the park the work of the original office. to direct the investigation and work with the regional office. in our chain, we have seven. to bring in some sort of third party that way is our current plan and our current policy. rep. lummis: well, before my time is gone, i want you to know

we are going to be watching the ational park service and the way that ms. martin and mr. healy is treated, and the way other whistle blowers are treated as a consequence of their bringing these allegations forward. and we are going to be watching the national park service. because this should not be tolerated. it should not be unaddressed. and it has been in adequately addressed. and thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. chair. chaffetz: now recognize the the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton. del. norton: appreciate this hearing, mr. chairman. mr. reynolds, we are very grateful for how the national park service runs most of our neighborhood parks. not just the mall but the neighborhood parks, they are ned by the park service.

owned by the park service. i want to know if these two parts, where these allegations, these issues have come from, are they hours? are people quartered together? or are these nationwide problems? mr. reynolds: congresswoman, could you clarify, are these unique problems? del. norton: to the western arts of the united states, where these parks have cabins. i don't understand whether or not the staff are quartered there, instead of going home, the way my own park service rangers do. mr. reynolds: right. 413 units nationwide. ery diverse. ms. norton: i'm talking about those western ones. mr. reynolds: i would be happy to let ms. martin and mr. healy communicate, things can be exacerbated living together. del. norton: let me ask you

both, do you live in the park where you are located? in cabins, men and women, how do you operate? those are the only parts i know of, the urban parks. mr. healy: many employees are housed on the south rim, but there are times when they are working out of bunk canyons in the backcountry. myself, i work in flagstaff, about an hour and a half drive away. del. norton: ms. martin? ms. martin: thank you, congresswoman. i do live in yosemite valley in a cabin. and a lot of our seasonal staff on our fire crew will be housed in say one house, or one quarters. there are certainly opportunities there that could potentially lead to a hostile type of work environment, especially with our young folks.

so, we do have close quarters that men and women do live and work in on a regular basis. del. norton: we should caution the national park service to take such matters into account. r. healy, i was reading your testimony on page eight, this is not going specifically to sexual harassment, but goes to issues like you name alcohol abuse, drug use. i'm interested in how this policy relates to contract. when i was chairman, i was not aware the contractors were treated any differently, but i do know that you said in your testimony you informed your concerns about misconduct were not consider when the contract was awarded. i suppose i should ask mr. rends why matters of drug abuse by a contractor, alcohol abuse,

sexual harassment, are not taken into account when a contract is awarded? mr. reynolds: i would be happy to investigate. del. norton: i wish you would. mr. healy said he was concerned -- specifically informed that his concerns were not considered, not even considered. that's what caught my eye, when the contract was awarded. mr. reynolds: i would be happy to get to the bottom of that. del. norton: whether they are considered generally, could you let the chairman know? mr. reynolds: for any on-duty period of contract performance, that should be standard language in any contract. to your point, when you are living 24 hours a day if you will on the river, that may be where we have some -- del. norton: mr. healy, there was a similar report 16 years ago about the systemic harassment of women. and there was specific

recommendation made. are you aware of that report? here we are 16 years later, are you aware of -- -- of that task force report of similar problems? mr. reynolds:>> the women in law enforcement report? yes, i am. del. norton: when did you first become aware? and were any recommended and limited? -- recommendations implemented? mr. reynolds: no, they were not. as far as i can ever figure out, as the chairman actually mentioned, 30 different recommendations. i think things were worked on during that timeframe. i was not involved at the time. but -- ms. norton: how can you be sure that with the recommendations either of this committee or task force, working on full implementation apparently did not occur so we're back here 16 years later. mr. reynolds: it is a very regrettable action that did occur.

del. norton: finally, mr. chairman, if i can ask, apparently in that report, 16.3% of the park service women in law law enforcement, park rangers, special forces were women. what is the percentage of women in those positions today? mr. reynolds: i believe we have about 247 women in law enforcement, out of about the force of 1,664. del. norton: so, do the math. mr. reynolds: so about 15% or so. del. norton: going down, not up. one of the first things that agencies and private sector does when this problem occurs is increase the number of women in law enforcement or in the applicable mission. thank you, mr. chairman. chair. chaffetz: now recognize the gentleman from michigan. rep. walberg: thank you. we hope that this is a very

worthwhile for yoursselves, but also for people you serve with having spent many weeks in national parks north, south, east, and west, as a kid with my family camping, hiking, accomplishing, and then with my family doing the same thing even as i look forward to being out at glacier national park this next august. impressive territories we have. impressive treasures we have, and every case, my experience has been treated with great respect and professionalism by the staff. so, it is concerning to hear some of the behind-the-scenes. and though we deal with humans, yet these things have to be addressed. thank you for being here. ms. kelly, can you describe some of the superintendent's behavior which prompted the investigation. ms. martin: thank you,

congressman, for that question. myself personally, i have been chief at yosemite for the last 10 years. and the marker point for me was when we had the rim fire of 2013, and i happen to be off unit on another fire, and returning. my duties have been to act as the agency administrator representative for the superintendent when we have large incidents in the park. i returned and told my supervisor i would be returning and i can assume his duties, and for whatever unknown reason, i was not allowed to perform those duties, that is part of my official duty as my job within the park. it was for myself personally discrediting my professionalism, and it was humiliating for me to not be able to perform that job and that function in front of my

peers for inter-agency wildfire cooperators. even our park internal staff, that i was not able to provide that leadership. rep. walberg: any rational reason given to you for that? ms. martin: no sir. rep. walberg: any reason at all? ms. martin: no sir. rep. walberg: is it an arbitrary decision made by the superintendent to not allow you to function? ms. martin: i requested to be up to split the duty between myself, and i have a very competent deputy fire chief. he took over two roles, both the agency administrator and the role of incident commander trainee. i am confounded as to why i was not able to truly perform in that role. rep. walberg: in your testimony, you mentioned the fear of retaliation for speaking about what is happening at the

park. can you describe for us this concern, and where it stems from, and are you aware of other employees that share the same concern? ms. martin: the fear of retaliation, fear of coming forward is not in our culture to come forward and to describe possible types of situation or toxic environments. ours is certainly dealing more with a hostile work environment, not dealing with sexual harassment, so that is not at issue right here. but people do not fear -- they do fear that they are not safe in bringing issues to management. and in one of the concerns i have heard is that within yosemite national park, we have a superintendent and our deputy superintendent position has been vacant for three years. so, unfortunately, there is a concentration of decision-making

within one person,ot necessarily shared within the deputy superintendent. rep. walberg: has that been done for a purpose? keeping the vacancy there? ms. martin: i am unaware of why hat would remain vacant. rep. walberg: do you believe the superintendent's actions are an isolated incident, or are they reflective of a larger problem in the national park service? ms. martin: it is hard for me to address the larger cultural -- i have reason to believe that it probably is a larger cultural type of issue. i do believe it is important for the image to be in-house, and for us the kind of take things in-house, and not be ableo share these issues publicly, but

i think it's very, very important for the women that have left, the women that are currently there at yosemite, to really understand in daylight what it is, what the behaviors that are exhibited, that really, truly cost people's integrity and reduction in morale. rep. walberg: thank you for your testimony. and i yield back. chair. chaffetz: i have just a follow-up to that. mr. reynolds, there are two things. you have been unable to give us the expedited inquiry into the situation. is that something you will provide? mr. reynolds: mr. chairman, we did give your staff an in cameras --chair. chaffetz: in camera. mr. reynolds: yes, i will continue to work with our folks on it. it is an active investigation. i am not unwilling to share with

you data when i can. i just don't want to infringe -- chair. chaffetz: something in your possession, congress would like to see it, can you name anything classified? mr. reynolds: no, and i do not disagree with your ability to get that, i am just hampered -- chair. chaffetz: wait, don't disagree, you are not giving it to us. mr. reynolds: we are having a conversation. about hue to do that. -- about how to do that. chair. chaffetz: what is the conversation? mr. reynolds: to be candid with you, sir, to keep the investigation -- chair. chaffetz: you don't trust congress? make it dirty? mr. reynolds: not what i said. chair. chaffetz: you want to keep it clean? mr. reynolds: for the purposes of the investigation, i pledge to continue to work -- chair. chaffetz: i want you to pledge to give it to congress. do you need a subpoena? who makes this decision? mr. reynolds: it will be a

decision that i will talk over with our solicitors, predominantly. chair. chaffetz: i would also like to see anybody who has been fired, dismissed, or retired from yellowstone since 2013. is that something you can get to us? mr. reynolds: yes i can. chair. chaffetz: when? mr. reynolds: 48 hours. chair. chaffetz: thank you. now recognize the gentleman from aryland, mr. cummings. mr. cummings: i want to pick up where the gentleman left off a few minutes ago. this whole thing of rea talation. as i listened to you, ms. martin, i could not help but think about the question of how do you tackle a culture? it is not easy.

in the baltimore city police department, i had some practice investigating. and the reason why i asked for is because we had people in the department, good policeman, who knew things were going bad, and wrong, but they did not feel comfortable talking about it because they were worried that they would be retaliated against. their comrades would do some things that might be harmful to them. and when we got that patterns of practice report, it was 10 times worse, 10 times, probably 20, than i ever imagined with regard to african-american men and the way they were being treated by olice. so, mr. healy, you said something that really struck me. you said, i feel as if my career

and possibly my safety and the safety of other grand canyon employees, may be at some risk. that is a hell of a statement. and it is one that i feel pain that you even have to think it, let alone say it. nd the mere fact that you have said it in a public forum, puts you even, i would assume, even more jeopardy. one thing to think it, say it, -- another thing to say it it's another thing to say it in a public forum. what can we do to help? because as i see it, the culture that i talked about before, and i think that ms. martin is lluding to, you, too, is one

that -- i mean you almost have to dig deep and pry out probably a lot of folks. and almost start over again. and so, i'm trying to figure out what is your hope? i'm sure you have thought about this, said yourself, there has o be a better way. let me tell you something. the reason why i am raising this, in my opening, i talked about 16 years ago. guess what? most of these people were not even here. none of them, none of these people were here 16 years ago, except me. they were not even here. so, another group of congress eople were addressing this supposedly, and yet, it has not

een corrected. and the culture grows and ma it's at that sizes and gets worse. -- metastasizes and gets worse. metastasized, gets worse. i want you all to be effective and efficient. i mean, not only do you have concerns about retaliation, about your comrades being upset, but it would be a damn shame if you came here, you gave your testimony, and this is my great ear. and then, it was not effective and efficient. that is a lose-lose, all the way round. you go back and they say, why did you do that? then, it gets worse. and so, help me, looking at what you have seen, ms. norton talk

about having more women in key positions, law enforcement, supervisory positions, but what do you see? how would you like to see us try to break this culture? and do you have confidence, you made some complimentary statements about things being done, but then you came back and talked about the negative impact about some of the positive things that were supposedly happening. so, help us. help us, help you. mr. healy: thank you. i think what would help is if we could demonstrate the people that have come forward to me to ask for assistance and reporting are protected to the same extent i am. in preparing for this testimony, i went back to some of these individuals that have had that experience at the park. and i ask them to help you deliver the message here, and i heard a lot of fear for most

people. there are individuals at the park, as i mentioned in my testimony, threatening people with violent. -- violence. they are still there. and holding them accountable is really a good step. i am not really sure how congress can assist park service in doing that, but that would be a good first step. and the other thing you mentioned was, you alluded to shutting the river district and river contracting. those decisions were made, i'm not sure who made the decisions, but there is definitely no consultation with folks on the ground doing the work like myself or my co-workers. that have experience and understand the risks and making some of those decisions, and i think if the park service leadership were to more effectively engage its employees in developing solutions for these problems, we would go a long way.

ms. martin: thank you, mr. cummings. i believe we have to start with the awareness of the culture that has been created over the years, and we have to really, like you said, really understand what is at the root of this type of culture and this type of behavior, that then supports sexual harassment and hostile work environment's. i think it is truly our first step, is awareness of the issue of how those behaviors actually ascend to the type of ituations. representative cummings: i have been on the board of visitors for the naval academy for about 10 years now. and one of the things we had a major sexual had a has -- sexual harassment problem. what we found is that a lot of the midshipmen, i want to make sure i'm clear, a lot of the midshipmen were doing things hat were harassment.

and they claim, some of them i believe, i'm not sure about, they said they don't even know it was harassment. i mean, can you comment on that? you just talk about awareness. go ahead. ms. martin: at some point, we have to create an environment that is open and transparent with our leadership to really be be able to talk about these hard issues. and until we get these, we will have misunderstanding between management and employees, as the he said, she said. until we get to that point that we can then provide this transparency and really expose it for what it is, we need to really talk about the behaviors and be able to communicate that. right now, there is so much fear and being able to communicate what that is. and so, i see that as number one, the awareness of culture that we have created. and being able to duplicate what

it is that creates these types of situations. and then at that point, how do we then best educate our employees so that we don't have these -- we don't have these kinds of hearings 16 years from now or five years from now. we have to think about things differently, in terms of how we can be more communicative with our senior leaders. right now, that is not happening. rep. cummings: as you heard what they do said, mr. reynolds, can you tell us how -- you know, i et frustrated. because i know we're going to hear you say a lot of nice things about what you are going to do. you know, convince us that you get it. nd that your folks get it. because i'm telling you, after these lights go out, and they have to go back. they have to go back.

i mean, how do you assure them, and people coming into the service or want to come into the service or people that are there that they don't have to go through this crap. this is crazy. and unacceptable. mr. reynolds: first off, i will join you in protecting my colleagues. rep. cummings: how are you going to do that? mr. reynolds: we really need to dive into the cultural issues, and the fundamentals -- rep. cummings: what the person watching us right now is laughing, i can't wait until they get back? i have something for them. i want to hurt them, do something to them. how do you deal with those people? apparently, quite a few. mr. reynolds: we cannot let those lights go off. we have to not have any darkness, right? it has to be very transparent, from here forward.

there has to be an accountability that everybody can see and touch. and with our culture, we are trying to pull together parts of our organization. for example, we've never really had affinity groups in the park service, women groups, or other mployee groups that might do that, in order for there to be a cohort, another protective kind of place that people have a safe place, if you will. and for management to then be required to listen to those groups and employees about what the concerns might be. rep. cummings: thank you very uch. mr. chesapeake bay fets: i now recognize the gentleman from georgia. mr. chesapeake bay fets: i now recognize the gentleman from georgia. rep. hice: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, based on the actions of director jarvis, i think further oversight of the national park service is desperately needed. this is actually my third

hearing on this matter, as a part of oversight. we of course were here in june, but also natural resources subcommittee. we were with director jarvis in may. and i want to thank ms. martin and mr. healy for your testimony this afternoon and what you have endured. director reynolds, let me start with you. based on your testimony, i know you are aware of the sexual harassment cases, specifically cape canaveral, the operation there. can you tell me just how many complaints, total complaints came from there? even those that are ongoing or resolved cases? mr. reynolds: yes, congressman, i believe there are about three complaints, but there might be a few more ig report. i will follow-up with you on that. rep. hice: ok, actually there have been four. the "washington post" reported

in early july that four investigations since 2012 is an unusually high number they said, for such a small operation, a national park service. as you just mentioned. these are just the ones weigh know about. -- ones we know about. as it has been testified today, people are scared. who knows how many other cases have been swept under the rug because of the culture of fear? during the time of these investigations, 2012, who was the superintendent in charge? mr. reynolds: in 2012, i believe it was superintendent palfrey. rep. hice: that is correct. i don't represent the people of florida, but just yesterday i came across an article in the florida today, and they reported, like i said just

yesterday, that the superintendent was promoted to a position of special assistant to the southeast regional director. are you aware of that? are you aware of that? mr. reynolds: yes, sir. mr. hice: ok. and as she has been promoted, she does the work from home, $116,000 salary, and you mention in your testimony a few moments ago that the chief ranger at cape canaveral was no longer at the location there, but you failed to mention the uperintendent has received a promotion to the southeast regional director. do you know where the southeast regional director office is located? mr. reynolds: it is in atlanta. and if i can offer, sir -- rep. hice: let me go on. it is in atlanta. that is in my backyard. and that raises a great deal of concern for me personally. you are also aware that

director jarvis testified here in congress over a book deal, where he failed to secure proper permission for that book. you are aware that? mr. reynolds: yes. rep. hice: and mr. chairman, you know, my point in all of his is the pattern that is clearly unfolding before us, obviously under the direction of director jarvis, is on account ability, for management, unsafe work environment, that has permeated throughout the national park service. and what is the consequence from director jarvis, i mean he gets a mere slap on the wrist, has to go through some silly monthly ethics training, watch a video or something for the duration of his time. and so, here is what people are getting at the parks service,

these types of slaps on the rist and/or promotion. it is insane. it is absolute insanity. mr. chairman, on june 16, i wrote a letter to the president, president obama, asking for the resignation of director jarvis. i actually have a copy of the letter, that i would like to go on the record. chair. chaffetz: without objection? so ordered. rep. hice: while i understand irector jarvis is going to retire in january, what we have heard yet again here today, what continues to be prevalent n national park service, i just wanted on record that i stand by my position and directing the immediate esignation of director

jarvis. chair. chaffetz: we now recognize the gentleman from vermont. rep. welch: you know, the national park service is a great treasure. unbelievable. we love all the national parks. i go to one every year. it is pretty sad to hear about this. my fear is as a visitor, as a hiker is one of just enormous appreciation for the staff that i meet, from the bottom on up. it is really quite wonderful. nd my sense is that in general, this just a norm us appreciation for the work people do. i sense, too, the people that work there is a way of ife. they love outdoors, nature, history, tradition. it is very sad that also part

of his is the situation that you all have been describing. i think all three of you, for coming forward, i will start with you, mr. reynolds. you know, the culture on this has to be one of zero-tolerance. and the culture and how employees are inspected to work does come from the top, and that has to be imbued from the top down, and then reinforced in every way. so, what concrete steps can you take to do that, if the leadership does not take this deadly seriously, the no one else willn? mr. reynolds: we have to get this right. it has to be our top riority. one of the first things i would like to do, i am in day 52 in this new job, so i just found the bathroom. now, we need to get going on some very big focus through the chain of command. we are meeting next week with some of the field leadership, and i would like to be able to tell them at that point what we plan to do with the diversity

and inclusion outfit, that would be tied to my office. that can start working on the cultural issues. because you are right, we have some and most outstanding public employees. and we have to get them that kind of management. rep. welch: yeah, but i don't quite know what that means, what you just said. i do not think it takes a big meeting. it is like, look, folks, any unwanted advances just are not allowed. how come with it is that? mr. reynolds: we have put up quite a bit of extensive refreshers, reminder of our zero-tolerance policy. but i agree with you. i think it needs be a step further, which is actions. actions are louder than words, nd accountability. rep. welch: the action is, i think, the people in management have to meet with the staff and have a discussion, basically say it. it is not complicated. have to say it, and mean it. and on the other end, we also want to get more women into leadership positions, as

well. right? chair. chaffetz: will the gentleman yield? mr. reynolds, what was your job before? mr. reynolds: i was the associate director for workforce. chair. chaffetz: you're in charge of h.r. you have been running h.r. since 2014. your words are a little bit hollow. with the newer refresher? can you give me a single instance -- you said you had zero tolerance? are you kidding me? how me an example. mr. reynolds: first off, i have een dealing with the whole

systems and process. have not gotten there yet. we have a zero-tolerance policy. and i guess my point is -- chair. chaffetz: it is mr. welch's time. you have a job. when did you first take that job in human resources? mr. reynolds: two years ago. chair. chaffetz: give me a month. mr. reynolds: april, 2014. rep. welch: appreciate your questions. here is my view on this. we can have personnel policy, we can write down this 500 pages, 10 pages. none of that means anything ther than the culture, the people in the environment are expected to live by? and people respond much more to the reinforce culture because that is the way it is. that comes with the pride, mutual respect. so, you know, give me all

policies in the world, but employees are not thinking of the time they may want to do something mission not be doing. whether this is a violation of subsection 4 of article 5 in chapter 2. we do not do that around here. and that i really do think is the top down response ability, just every single day in every way. the reason i got nervous about your answer is that it uggested to me, or this is the implication i have which may not be true, that if we writ the right policy, that will take care of it. don't write anything, by having management make it clear that any unwanted advance is totally out of line. chair. chaffetz: i'm sorry if i misled -- mr. reynolds: i agree with you. rep. cummings: the gentlemen yields.

one question. hen you are running h.r., what does that mean? i hope it is not writing a memo for a refresher course. the people watching this at the park service, when they hear ou say that, oh, boy, we are in great shape. nothing is going to happen. we will keep doing what we have been doing. i'm just telling you. so, defined for all of us, so that other people may ask questions, that you were zero-tolerance. mr. reynolds: we need to have a much better fundamental set of -- rep. cummings: what did it mean, when you were doing the job? mr. reynolds: it should mean -- rep. cummings: no, no, no. i am asking you. you were head of h.r.? mr. reynolds: workforce director.

rep. cummings: all i'm asking you, the chairman is talking about zero-tolerance, that was your thing. i am asking you what does that mean? i'm trying to predict your future. i'm trying to figure out how you are going to act in this position? because they have to go back. and if they will listen to you, i'm going to write a little memo, refresher course. those guys are laughing you, like you are a big joke. you know what happens? they get screwed. mr. reynolds: what it means to me -- rep. cummings: what did it mean, then tell me what it means now. mr. reynolds: admit that they would have the ability to report, that they would be protected. we have, so far. rep. cummigns: [inaudible] chair. chaffetz: i recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy. rep. gowdy: mr. reynolds, you have managed to see something i

have not seen, one of the more decent human beings that you will meet in public service, you have managed to even get him upset. getting mr. cummings and i upset is not much of a challenge. getting peter welch upset is. and i think what upsets him is that when you have a fact pattern of someone's spying on another person while they are taking a shower, you do not need a policy change. you don't need a new memo, you need handcuffs, and a trip to the sex offender registry. that is what you need. so, ms. martin, you said a couple of things that resonated with me in your statement. you said it is a deep, conflicted, risky decision for me to come forward and speak up today. and you said many women feel shame and fear of coming

forward to report misconduct, and cannot bring themselves to be the ones who have a difficult and painful task of speaking up. here is what i want to help you do. i want the fear, difficulty, pain to belong to the perpetrator. not the victim. i want you to tell us as much about your fact pattern,, your story and i want you to stop, cite all those instances where something more could have and should have been done. and do it on the half of the women who may be do not have the ability to speak up, like you do. ms. martin: thank you, congressman, for the opportunity. it is a very painful and conflicted position that i am in right now.

this happened. i was a victim of a peeping tom at grand canyon in 1987. it was a very difficult and painful experience for me. i reported to two supervisors. medially that first day, i was able to positively identify a park ranger, in uniform, that was peering through my bathroom indow. i reported to the supervisors, visibly shaken, it was very difficult for me to do. it was very embarrassing. i did not think anybody would actually even believe me. that something like this could happen to me. i was given options. i could say nothing and move on. i could file an eeo complaint or a criminal complaint. i had to think about that a couple of days, how i wanted to proceed. i was just starting my career in the federal service, in my early 20's, and i just did not

want to make this an issue. i just cannot want to come forward and admit a complaint, like this, this early in my career. be labeled a troublemaker. in the end, when i agreed to was a conference or a sit down with the two supervisors are reported this to, along with the project. he apologized to me. he assured me that this never happened before, and that it will never happen again. and so, for me, this has been with me my entire career. and when i think of zero-tolerance, i think this is the hardest part for me, it is it just inoculates -- did not feel like zero tolerance for me. i have had to live with us a long time, this particular individual continue to be moved through the park service.

just recently retired. and i believe this was the tipping point for me to come forward and tell my story, that this is why i could no longer remain silent. there are a lot of other women that i represent, that these very same things have happened, very similar things, and they just fear that management will not take action. and then, we become victims again for coming forward. rep. gowdy: the perpetrator is now enjoying the perks of retirement? ms. martin: that is my understanding. rep. gowdy: i would just say this, you should never have to choose between your career and justice. ever. you should be able to pursue oth of them, with all of the vigor. i'm sorry it happened you. i appreciate the courage it takes to come and share your story.

chair. chaffetz: we will now recognize ms. plaskett. rep. plaskett: thank you for sharing this somewhat uncomfortable discussion with us here. we all know there is an urgent eed to stem sexual harassment, discrimination, by increasing female representation in the workforce, and particularly at senior leadership positions, an individuals having a say in how these policies are done. ms martin, i'm going to quote, "the roles of the powerful favor men in superintendent, deputy superintendent, fire, law enforcement." mr. reynolds, how many superintendents are women? mr. reynolds: we have for 13 ark.

- 413 parks. as you know, there is not a superintendent in every park, but i will believe i find the actual number, around 258. superintendents. about 127 are women. give me a minute, i will give you the right number. rep. plaskett: is it about a 60/40? 60% are men. the deputy superintendent level? mr. reynolds: i have 58% men, 42% female. and i will clarify for you. 62% men, 38% female on superintendent. rep. plaskett: and the parks superintendents, are they the same size and scope, in terms of geographic size, as well as personnel, as the men that are superintendents? there are different kinds of superintendent. mr. reynolds: correct. i think it is evenly

distributed. we can look at that more carefully. but i have not heard a concern on the level, of the that our demographic numbers. rep. plaskett: ok, i know there are initiatives to expand women in the park service, so you have said that it seems to be evenly distributed. i mean, it is not exactly what the demographics of our country are, but it seems evenly distributed, as much as -- it ould not seem askew. what are the initiatives you are doing to increase the number of women in the workforce? so, we have the same number of leadership, 60/40, you have that in terms of middle management and then in terms of the workers in the park? mr. reynolds: i would have to pull out exactly numbers, but i think it tracks fairly close to that. we do have women now scattered through our senior leadership

as well, our regional director ranks for example, and the associate director ranks. we have some initiatives in general to diversify the park service. we also have strong majority numbers of our employees, so we are working across the board. we set up a new agreement office to begin to focus the hr community on that very topic. rep. plaskett: i know you have the women's employee resource group, fire management leaderboard, how are they ringing benefits to the park service? mr. reynolds: i think it is a start. i don't think they are fully achieving goals, but they bring us tools and awareness and some requirements on our leadership to be considering these hings. >> what are the goals of the initiatives? mr. reynolds: the employee resource group, there are a number that we are trying to form to give people a safe place to have a cohort to bring

forward, for example, we call them ergs's, employee research group. they can represent a voice. they can be defensive place, if they need it. rep. plaskett: and i would be remiss, i know we are talking about the harassment against women, but how many people of color do you have an superintendent? mr. reynolds: i do not have the attitude of. i can quickly get to you though. i will tell you our workforce is generally 80% white, across-the-board. >> across-the-board, ok, i would like to know how many men, women of color are eputies. mr. reynolds: i will be happy to get back to you. rep. plaskett: i yield back. chair. chaffetz: we now recognize the gentleman from alabama. rep. palmer: what steps as the national parks taken regarding the grand canyon report? mr. reynolds: yes, we have about 18 steps that we endeavor on, this includes everything

from some of the training and awareness kinds of programs that we talked about, to disciplinary action. rep. palmer: one of the action items outlined by the park service in response to the ig eport is that managers who failed to properly report all allegations of sexual harassment will be held responsible and that appropriate this binary action will be taken my may of 016. to date, any display reaction against these managers? mr. reynolds: i believe everybody in the canyon, and they can back me up on this, they have been removed from the job they had. they have been removed from the ark, and they are undergoing a display very process, as we speak. rep. palmer: well, as i was listening to testimony earlier,

it seemed that mr. healy said it was more of a promotion. did i misunderstand that? mr. healy? mr. healy: thank you. the supervisor of the river district was given a temporary otion. palm palm let me read something to you that i find particularly troubling. it's a quote from the national park service expedited investigation. it's from two trained investigators. who interviewed some of the victims. it says it's difficult to articulate in words the emotions that exuded from those interviews. it says, as -- the apparent that these employees have suffered in their positions and are traumatized by the

harassment they are subbletted o. in that regard, do you think appropriate actions have been taken? your microphone, please. mr. reynolds: i believe what you are reading from is the yosemite expedited inquiry. mr. palmer: i mean, it seems that there's a pattern across here that women were intimidated, other people were intimidated. they were traumatized. you gave one guy a temporary promotion. has anyone been fired? has that question been asked? has anyone been fired? has anyone been terminated? mr. reynolds: no one has been fired yet, no. mr. palmer: that seems to be a pattern. mr. reynolds: disciplinary actions are under way. mr. palmer: let me go on.

in 2015 the o.i.g. found that the deputy superintendent improperly shared personal information of the women who wrote to the secretary reporting the egregious sexual harassment in 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 within the grand canyon river district, i, , ong with the other victims am rightfully terrified that thing aed -- alleged perpetrators will contact us directly to retaliate against us. i'd like to enter that into the record. mr. chaffetz: without objection, so ordered. mr. palmer: what actions have you taken? mr. reynolds: the actions we've taken to date are to recognize that there was inappropriate actions for the -- mr. palmer: that's great that you recognize it. but i want to know, has anyone een fired? has anyone been demoted? i mean --

mr. reynolds: 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 disciplinaryactions. i can assure you they're under way. mr. palmer: all right. i just wonder, given all this, how any park service employees can trust the managers will keep their information confidential, thatany 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. 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 ere. let me go back to the expedited

investigation at yosemite. it's our understand of the 21people 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 elief? >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman. that was to me? mr. chaffetz: yes. mr. reynolds: we are actively engaged, the regional director who is in san francisco -- mr. chaffetz: wait. let's explore the relationship between yosemite and the region. is there a problem with that chain of command there? mr. reynolds: the regional office that oversees yosemite in san francisco. we have a regional director. mr. chaffetz: what about the deputy? who is that person?

mr. reynolds: we have three deputy regional directors. mr. chaffetz: yes. mr. reynolds: someone in seattle. and two are in san francisco. along with the regional director. mr. chaffetz: come on -- come on. you know what i'm getting at. mr. reynolds: one of the deputies is the wife of the superintendent at yosemite. mr. chaffetz: so -- mr. reynolds: 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 theinvestigative process. mr. chaffetz: ok, so 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. mr. chaffetz: how long has it been going on? mr. reynolds: i am not sure, mr. chairman. mr. chaffetz: what do you mean you're not sure? you're the head of the work force and then you got a promotion. mr. reynolds: 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. mr. chaffetz: who do the -- you mean, the inspecter general? mr. reynolds: the inspector general now is involved. mr. chaffetz: ms. martin, can you shine some light on this ongoing problem? ms. martin: 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 thei.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. mr. chaffetz: were there any repercussions for that? are you aware of anybody who had any sort of retaliation gainst them? because they had stepped forwardand made a statement about the reality of what was going on? ms. martin: 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 havean 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. mr. chaffetz: 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 appened in the 1980's. but when you came back to the park service, what was your experience? ms. martin: 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 wascoming back to the park service. i really enjoy working for the ark service.

but i experienced the culture that's very, very closed in terms of being able to talk bout 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. mr. chaffetz: this is a person who was arrested in 2000 -- in the year 2000. high ranking national park official accused of peeping at aked 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 appened. 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. ms. martin: 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 anindividual 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 ervice 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 ndividual 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. mr. chaffetz: and the other incident? ms. martin: 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 awork 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 ppalling 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. mr. chaffetz: some indulgence here. one more question. mr. reynolds, during your time eading the workforce, how many people were fired for sexual

harassment, sexualmisconduct, 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 thoseactions that you state. mr. chaffetz: were there any? mr. reynolds: i'll confirm with you. i don't have any recollection f any at this point. mr. chaffetz: i guess i'd like to know how many complaints came, were filed during that time. let's take the emmed of 2013 to present day. how many were -- complaints happened at any level and how any people were fired. thank you. i now recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for having this hearing.

mr. reynolds, you're the deputy director of operations? mr. reynolds: yes, sir. mr. connolly: so you in that responsibility oversee all of the national parks in some fashion. mr. reynolds: through their regional directors, yes. mr. connolly: how long you have been on the job? mr. reynolds: since august 1. mr. connolly: why did you get placed in that job on august 1 ren went we had a retirement -- august 1? mr. reynolds: we had a etirement of my previous boss, peggy o'dell. and the director asked if i would be willing to be reassigned into that job. collin some so it wasn't because of some -- mr. connolly: so it wasn't because of some policy shift or shoring up enforcement or making a statement that now we're taking it seriously? mr. reynolds: in this case, my understanding is they needed a replacement for a retirement. mr. connolly: 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 frontof us here. mr. reynolds: no. mr. connolly: how long you have been in the park service? mr. reynolds: 30 years. mr. connolly: 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, capecanaveral, 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 eserves? mr. reynolds: 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 -- mr. connolly: wait, wait. they deserve a better culture than they have. that seems to be saying there is something -- mr. reynolds: i believe we have a problem. mr. connolly: systemically wrong with our culture. mr. reynolds: i believe we have a problem and i believe we should make very urgent change to that culture. mr. connolly: is there training or orientation before i put on that uniform as an employee of the national park service? mr. reynolds: there is.

mr. connolly: on this subject? mr. reynolds: there is a little on this subject. there needs to be more. mr. connolly: all right. tell us what -- what is the s.o.p., standard operating procedure, when you get our report, whether it's unanimous, i assume you have a hotlineso 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 arassment. do i have an anonymous hotline i can call and have it followed up on? mr. reynolds: 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. mr. connolly: does that mean that each region has its own s.o.p.? mr. reynolds: in general, each region has its own offices. they should operate from one park service-wide s.o.p. that's something we're shoring up as we speak. mr. connolly: so there's 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? mr. reynolds: right, you go to your e.e.o. officer in the region. some parks have e.e.o. collateral duty, which is a fancy way of saying other duties assigned and they'reoften in hr. depending on the size of the park -- mr. connolly: sticking with s.o.p. 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 beenharassed. 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? mr. reynolds: 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 werereferring to. mr. connolly: but you 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?

ms. martin: that's correct. mr. connolly: so, mr. reynolds, going to the e.e.o. person didn't work. mr. reynolds: yeah. we've grot problems that i have to fix urgently. mr. connolly: 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'tbelieve 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? mr. healy: we do have the park service response to the o.i.g., there are 1 action items, but i think very positive step was the assignment of our new superintendent, chrisleonards. 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? mr. healy: a absolutely. mr. connolly: thank you. thank you, madam chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. rothman is recognized. mr. rothman: thank you. first of all, there was an ncident referred to by chairman chaffetz gets before

and i'm going to ask mr. reynolds about it, a situationwhere at first blush the wife was over the husband, is that true? mr. reynolds: in that situation she does not directly supervise her husband. she's in the regional office which is the next level up, sir. mr. rothman: ok. how long does did that situation exist? mr. reynolds: i would have to check, but i believe it's been many, many years that they've been in service. long serving deputy. maybe more than 10 years. roth rog 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 younever ever, ever want the government to do anything more than they have o. 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? mr. reynolds: 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.

mr. rothman: how long were you head of h.r.? mr. reynolds: two years. mr. rothman: two years. how many people did you have under you? mr. reynolds: about 18,000 permanents, upwards of 20,000 by the time the seasons come in. mr. rothman: you were the head of h.r. over 18,000 people, right? mr. reynolds: 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. mr. rothman: do you know in those two years how many people were let go, period, for anything? mr. reynolds: we fire quite a few upwards of at least 100 people a year for various infractions. mr. rothman: ok. what do they usually do? mr. reynolds: there are often conduct issues. they might be caught stealing or they might be -- the normal range of things that you might have happen. mr. rothman: ok. mr. healy, thanks for coming by. we have to ask you some questions. how pervasive is retaliation at the park service? mr. healy: i'm sorry, can you

repeat that? mr. rothman: how per vasive do you think retaliation is at the park service? mr. healy: 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 apretty extensive pattern of that and that was all described by the o.i.g. during their investigation. mr. rothman: are you afraid of retaliation for showing up and talking to us today. mr. healy: yes, i am somewhat. mr. rothman: 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? mr. healy: 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 responseto that and we're in september and we still haven't

seen some of the individuals that were implicated by the oig leave. mr. rothman: slow moving. maybe i'll switch back to mr. reynolds. are any of these managers under any jeopardy of losing their job for their slow moving here? mr. reynolds: again, as i offered earlier, i'd be happy to talk to you in person or the chairman -- mr. rothman: are they in jeopardy for poking around here? mr. reynolds: for many of these actions, as they are found true, yes, they are in jeopardy. mr. rothman: ok. mr. healy, according to your testimony a former supervisor at the grand canyon district breached confidentiality of victims and was givena 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? mr. healy: 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. mr. rothman: what was his position before and what was he promoted to? mr. healy: he was supervisory park ranger, i believe, and his temporary promotion was chief ranger at a park. so the highest ranger position at another parkfrom what i understand. mr. rothman: ok. but you feel comfortable saying what park? i won't have you do that. mr. healy: it's curaconti. it's in colorado. mr. rothman: ok. interesting. mr. healy: i will -- mr. rothman: i will go back to ms. martin. i will ask you the same question. how common do you think retaliation is at n.p.s.? ms. martin: thank you, congressman, for that. i'm fearful more of the repercussions, the retaliation i have not been a victim of and i think everybodyknows 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. mr. rothman: retaliation feels they are less likely to be promoted themselves in the future? ms. martin: yes. 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 handfulof 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. mr. rothman: 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 thepark service. could you elaborate?

mr. reynolds: 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 at the supervisory management level so we are beginning to focus on diversity in all of its forms. mr. rothman: ok. well over my time. thanks for being patient with me. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. micah is recognized for five minutes. mr. mica: thank you, madam chairman and ranking member. i haven't been able to participate. i got way laid on a host of other things, but i did stay uplast night and read some of the testimony and the staff eport. 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 ervice 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 heir 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 eople 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. k. 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 he 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 i.r.s., whether the g.s.a., f.b.i., other agencies -- and some -- actually, some of them are exempt, there's exempt and non-exempt. mr. reynolds, are your hands tied? mr. reynolds: congressman, thank you for bringing this up. it is a complex system. mr. mica: the very complex. and it's very difficult for you to navigate. mr. reynolds: yes. mr. mica: and it can take a long time >> and it can take a long time to get rid of these people. mr. reynolds: i don't want to cop out by saying the process. mr. mica: i'm not copping out either but it's the process we've set up. we've set up a system where

nobody gets fired. when you do egregious thingsyou 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. mr. reynolds: there is a g.a.o. report that says it takes us six months to a year to terminate people at times. mr. mica: and that would be a speedy termination. and the alternative is actually that they're moving people into other positions. and then what kind ofmessage does it send when they actually et 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 ederal 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 eed to be fired, removed and held accountable. would you agree with that? mr. reynolds: i agree. we need to move as fast as we can. mr. mica: 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 acrossthe spectrum of the federal government. i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. mrs. black: 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? mr. healy: i don't believe so. mrs. lummis: ms. martin, have you ever seen someone who was known to e a problem employee for the reasons we're meeting today, either transferred laterallyto a different n.p.s. property or promoted? ms. martin: 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 oved and promoted. mrs. lummis: what we've heard

today are terms like "toxic work ulture," a "closed culture." we've heard go along to get along culture. and we know thatwithin 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 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. o i will be asking the chairman and ranking member of this committee to prepare memos to the transition teams for oth 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 ind 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 hese 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 ember, mr. cummings. mr. cummings: i want to thank he chairlady and for your

words and i agree that it would be a good idea to get those letters out to the two transitionteams, and i think hopefully it will have some mpact. 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 hrough that. and, you know, i often think about how people come to work every day.

sometimes they have things that hey 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 ould have not only an impact n 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, hat'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. ou've been bold enough to come here to give your testimony and the idea that you might not ave the impact that you wanted to have have, and go back and get hurt because you've stepped forward is the worst thing that ould happen.

so i want to vow to you and i'm sure our committee, everybody n 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 said, ms. martin, if you regard -- with regard to the whole balancing thing, do i tell or do i be quiet? do i say something because if i say something my career may be ruined. and then what am i going to do? how am i going to feed my family? those are real decisions. so, you know, i know there is a survey coming out, mr. reynolds, but the thing that

struck me is that 16 years ago a similar survey came out. is that right? nd when folks were asked about sexual harassment, they were asked this question, have you personally experienced sexual harassment? 52%. hello? 52% of the respondent females in law enforcementpositions 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?

mr. reynolds: 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 iswhy we want to do a second -- you know, this new survey and to do t right this time. mr. cummings: but this was 16 years ago. mr. reynolds: yes. mr. cummings: all right. we got problems. mr. redged: yes, sir. mr. cummings: and we've got to correct them. mr. reynolds: and i would say that i will personally ensure and you may hold me absolutely accountable that these people will be protected with theircareers and their lives. mr. cummings: 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. am i right, ms. martin?

ms. martin: 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 totell 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. mr. cummings: 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 youjust talked about, the ones that back you up, the ones that care, the ones that support you. ms. martin: slug. mr. cummings: they are -- they've got to understand that they are the solution. they really are. they have to be that critical mass. they've gotto 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 yield back. mrs. lummis: 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, thankyou 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. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] josh: i apologized keeping you for waiting but i hope you like the music. i'm late but we entertained some music. tgif. let's get started. reporter: the countdown clock, the buildup anticipation, but i know there are folks that work in the legislative office so do you have the sense at this point given the work you've done to try to persuade lawmakers to reconsider that you have the voice, both to

override the president's veto? josh: well, josh, we certainly are counting votes and having a number of conversations with members of congress in both parties and both houses of congress. one of the particular challenges of counting votes in this instance is the frequency with which we hear private concerns expressed that don't match the public votes that are cast. so i don't have a solid vonet count this year for you, but i can confirm for you we continue to make up that overriding the president's veto means that this country will start pursuing a less forceful approach in dealing with state sponsors of terrorism and potentially opens up u.s. diplomats bers and

and even companies to spurious lawsuits in kangaroo courts around the world. diplomats that's the crux of our concern, and i know you described it as the saudi arabia bill and they certainly are interested in the outcome here, but from the administration perspective, our concern extends not just to the impact this would have on our relationship with saudi arabia but rather the impact this could have on the united states' relationship with countries around the world. reporter: you're hearing one thing from lawmakers, are you suggesting that members of congress, including a lot of democrats, are being duplicitous by saying something to their constituents are contradictory to what they acknowledge off the record? josh: i think what i'm acknowledging is -- first of all, i don't think i'm the first person or even the first white house press secretary to stand up here and say we're getting conflicting signals from members of congress based on comparing their private

conversations and their public expressions, a position on a particular issue. i'm also acknowledging that the politics of the situation are really tough. and if anything, i think that is an illustration of the principled nature of the president's position. the president is not blind to the politics of the situation. the president understands that the talking points that are being prepared for the proponents of this bill have more political upside than the alking points that i'm able to prevent you from hearing. but if we have a long-term impact on our nation's national security, that's what's driving the position. that's what's driving the president's decision to veto this bill. not because it's politically convenient. it's not. it's politically inconvenient, but when it comes to the stakes and the impact it could have on our national security, the president is willing to take some political heat in order to

do the right thing and stand up for a principle that has an impact on the safety and security and risk that's faced by our service members and diplomats around the worrell. reporter: i know he [inaudible] does the president attach any symbolic significance to the prospect of being reviewed by congress in a way he never has for having another branch of government sort of decisively overrule his decisionmaking on a major issue? josh: no, the president's not particularly concerned about that. in part because this president has gone longer in his tenure in the white house than just about any other president in modern history before facing the prospect of having his veto overridden. that's not happened yet. we'll continue to make our much ut the president's more worried about the

long-term impact of this legislation on our national security than he is about the his t this could have in daily interactions with members of congress. reporter: one other topic. we learned that sherrill mills and two other officials were granted immunity as part of the f.b.i. -- in the email situation. given this whole controversy is basically driven by the section that the clintons play by different rules and everything else. does the white house think it was appropriate for the f.b.i. to -- office give immunity to those three individuals? josh: josh, at the top of my hand, i can't remember second guessing the f.b.i. director or vind investigator at the f.b.i. and i am not going to start today. the reason that president obama nominated director comey to lead the f.b.i. a few years ago

is based on his reputation and commitment to putting politics aside and focusing on his responsibilities as a public servant and as a senior law enforcement officials in the united states government. it's presumably that same criteria that prompted just about every member of the republican senate conference to support his nomination to this job and to confirm him in this job. so the president's got a lot of confidence in the ability of senior officials at the f.b.i. to make decisions based on their judgment, not on the politics. and that's what the president wants his f.b.i. director to do. so i don't have any insight into this decision. for more insight into it i'd refer to you the f.b.i. thank you. aisha. reporter: going back to the 9/11 bill, you say you're

making your case. as the president been making any conversations? joish i don't know of any conversations but there have been a number of conversations at the staff level here at the white house with staff members and members on capitol hill, again in both parties, in both houses of congress. reporter: secretary clinton has come out to say or her campaign has said she would sign this legislation if she was elected. does that complicate the effort to persuade lawmakers to not override this veto? josh:. because i don't think anybody was particularly surprised by that announcement. reporter: moving on to the continuing resolution and trying to fund the government. democrats have opposed

legislation from republicans in the senate because it wouldn't provide funding for flint, michigan. now, i know you're not going to negotiate this from the podium, but -- josh: as easy as that would be. reporter: but i wanted to know, does the white house support that position? should funding for the government, should it include funding for flint? josh: well, listen. the republican leader in the senate put out a proposal yesterday, and this is' some attractive element to the proposal. the first of which congress has a basic responsibility to keep the united states government open for business, and that's what the bill that he put forward would do. the president's obviously pleased to see that and that's certainly something the president would like to avoid a government shutdown. he believes that congress needs to do its job and this is one element of it. this proposal also includes funding to fight the zika virus.

not as much money we originally requested but after seven months of waiting, it is a welcomed development that republicans in congress are finally moving forward on a bipartisan proposal to give our public health professionals the resources that they need to fight the zika virus. were, however, disappointed has not the congress made a commitment to addressing the situation in flint. i know there are a bunch of democrats advocating for that approach, but not enough republicans, and the president is concerned that situation has not been addressed in the context of these ongoing negotiations. so he's concerned about that. the president's also concerned that the fact that the proposal

that would ider essentially protect the ability of special interests to funnel money into political campaigns without having to disclose it. that's -- first of all, i don't really know what a proposal like that is doing in a budget bill. setting aside the fact that transparency in government and transparency in politics is something that is worthy of bipartisan support. so one of the reasons i was a little late in joining you all today is i had an opportunity to talk to the president in the oval office about this proposal and after that conversation it's not at all clear to me that he is prepared to sign this bill because he believes that congress has got more work to do and hopefully they'll get to work on that and get it done without putting the american

eople and the american economy through another cliffhanger related to a government shutdown. ok. michelle. michelle: when we were talking about the 9/11 bill, and you're saying that sometimes conversations don't match the vote and that the politics are tough, it sounds like you're saying democrats are playing politics as you accused the republicans of doing this other issue. josh: listen, i think -- i'm not going to generalize. i think what i'd encourage you to do is talk to these members of congress what their position is. and the president's been quite clear what his position is. it's a principaled one. it's one that means he's taking some political heat, but he's prepared to take that political heat because he's committed to protecting our national security. but, look, here's the other thing i acknowledged. the president is also in a better position to take this

political heat because of his strong record of looking out for the families of those who lost loved ones on 9/11. this is the president that ordered the operation to take osama bin laden off the battlefield. this is the president who time and again advocated for legislation that provided health care to recovery workers at ground zero, even in the face of some republican opposition to that. and this is the president who time and time again has spoken movingly about the impact that 9/11 has had on our country and the way that those who lost loved ones on 9/11 serve as a daily inspiration to the president and to americans across the country in exhibiting the kind of resolve and resiliency that's unique to this country. and so look, the president is better positioned to take this political heat than your average back bencher in the united states congress, but

that's the heat the president is prepared to take nonetheless because he feels strongly about looking out for the interest of our service members and diplomats when they're representing our country overseas. michelle: if he feels so strongly about this particular piece of legislation, why isn't he having conversations or making phone calls? josh: well, i wouldn't rule out he's had conversations about this but i don't have any specific conversations to tell you about. what i can say is there's no doubt about the president's position. he stated it clearly. both in answering your questions and, you know, i've been answering a number of questions about this every day for the last couple of weeks. so i don't think there's any doubt about what the president's position is or why the president has adopted this position even in the face of some political criticism. michelle: so in having these conversations at the staff level, what you said was a little bit vague what he said in these conversations don't necessarily -- what was said in these conversations don't necessarily match the vote.

what about the progress that's made in these conversations? do you feel that there is a positively there that overrides what might not happen? josh: well, let me try to explain to you in talking about this bill to members of congress, our staffers are saying, this opens up potentially u.s. service members and u.s. diplomats to being hauled into court under spurious charges or under spurious claims in a way that ould force the united states to expend significant resources and sometimes capital to go and defend them. we also make a strong case that the most effective way for the united states to confront state sponsors of terrorism is to level a governmentwide designation against them and take appropriate steps, including sanctions, to isolate them from the united states and the rest of the international community. that is a forceful way to

compel them to stop supporting terrorism. but if we delegate that decision to a variety of judges and a variety of courtrooms in a vaferte of levels, that unmistakable solution is muddied. that's not a very effective way for us to express and confront -- to express opposition to and to confront state sponsors of terrorism. when those arguments are presented, members -- some members of congress express some sympathy to that position and in some cases even articulate their own unease about the potential impact of this bill. of just point out, members congress, those who do in private express concerns about the potential consequences of this bill, are not alone. i read to you the letter from george w. bush's attorney general expressing his deep concerns about the impact of

this. he was joined by officials in both parties who served under president bush and president clinton. we got a letter from our allies at the european union, some of our closest allies and partners in the world expressing their deep concern about the consequences of this legislation entering into law. so there's widespread concern among our allies and among our national security experts in both parties that's consistent with the argument that you heard me make and you heard the president make publicly. so the argument that i'm trying to make here, michelle, is to emp size much of the objection -- etch size much of the objection is not one based on the merits but one that's based on the politics. that's not a me -- emphasize -- that's happened

throughout the presidency and throughout the 43 other presidents but in this case we're talking about our national security. we're talking about the risk that is facing american diplomats and american service members. and that risk is significant and it's not one the president's prepared to take and he's certainly not -- does not believe that is a risk that the country should take. michelle: do you believe this conversation has swayed any vote? josh: we'll see. alana. alana: you're making a very persuasive case on the part of the administration. josh: thank you. alana: when you're talking about the diplomatic consequences of that and talking about the former secretary of state that's not a concern for her and she would in fact vote in favor of this bill if she were in his position, how do you reconcile that? josh: listen, i'll let secretary clinton and her team talk about the position she's taken on this.

reporter: you said you are not surprised by it. josh: yeah. reporter: you're saying she is taking the politically convenient choice? josh: i didn't characterize her position. i'll let her and her team do that. alana: is there a method somebody to look at the same information and come up with a different conclusion in terms of the diplomatic consequences? josh: potentially. you have to ask secretary clinton. i'm also not speaking on behalf of the position that's taken by individual members of congress either. they have to explain their own position and their own votes. if they want to reconcile their private conversations with the white house about this, then they're welcomed to to that. i'm not going to reveal any confidences here, so they're going to have to search their own conscience in terms of making a decision about how they want to talk about this publicly. i am not aware of any conversations between secretary clinton and president obama on this issue. so, again, to get any insight into the position that she's

taken you have to ask her. alana: will you let us know if you have a conversation? josh: potentially. alana: all right. so monday night, president have any plans, anything he's going to tune into tv and watch? josh: well, "monday night football." i don't know who's on the calendar for "monday night football" this week but i'm sure the president does. i anticipate the president will watch much of if not all of the debate. i didn't talk about him about that today. but, look, i think there will be millions of people across the country who are quite interested to see the two candidates on stage together for the first time and i imagine the president will be one of them. alana: to follow-up to yesterday's hack. you said yesterday the white house was investigating this. any update? you weren't prepared at the time to tell us whether or not this was really michelle obama's passport. can you confirm that now? josh: you can check with the

secret service who obviously is at the forefront of ensuring the safety of the first family. there continues to be administration officials who continues to look at this particular situation but i don't have any update on it at this point. alana: do you have any comment about the potential russian ties with this email hack? josh: i don't at this point. olivia. olivia: on what's being called the 9/11 bill, can you share or can you get us the number of times that this administration has invoked sovereign immunity and the circumstances urrounding the most recent case? josh: let me see what i can find out about that. i'll look into it. olivia: ok. just on the substance of the question. why shouldn't a government official who is responsible for or tied to or whatever an act of international terrorism, government officials in this country or another country, why shouldn't there be civil relief

available to relatives of people who are killed under the circumstance? josh: well, because i think the question, olivier, is to evaluate -- i think the question is about whether or not the country of saudi arabia would be held responsible. olivier: but you're pointing to specific american diplomats and service men and women so individuals here, jeopardy for individuals. josh: what i'm suggesting that could be the corresponding response to this legislation going into effect. and that would be a reasonable resip rowcation of -- resipcation of steps that the united states congress is poised to pass into law here. look, the administration believes strongly that individuals need to be held accountable and in fact we also believe that countries who sponsor terrorism should be held accountable and if

anything this legislation waters down our ability to do that. there already is a well-codified -- there already is a codified process enacted by congress for designated -- for designating specific countries at state sponsors of terrorism so there are countries like iran and syria that fit that description and they are faced with a whole set of sanctions and broader international isolation because of that designation. and that's a forceful way, that's a forceful response, and if we were going to essentially delegate that designation to individual judges considering different pieces of evidence and reaching different conclusions potentially, that waters down our ability to send an unmistakable signal that united states is prepared to confront in the toughest

possible terms governments that sponsor terrorism. ok. sherrill. sherrill: thanks, josh. on the c.r., we areary one week away from the end of the fiscal year and a possible government shutdown. do you believe that the c.r. proposal that the senate has is the best you're going to get or are you expecting them to continue negotiating this? josh: the president believes he has more work to do. i think there are a lot of democrats on capitol hill who share that view. it's unclear at best right now whether or not this particular piece of legislation will pass both houses of congress and make its way to the president's desk. even if it were it's also unclear at best right now if the president would sign it. so it sounds to me like

republicans in congress have some more work to do to make sure the government shut down a week from now. sheryl: how would you describe, at least from the white house perspective, the tenor of the negotiation? there clears -- there's clearly no panic that the government will shut down. do you think negotiations are better this year? josh: it's too early for people to panic so i'm nod advocating it. there remains important work to be done. unfortunately there's seven days to get it done and hopefully congress will not take all seven days but fit some time in working over the weekend. i don't think that's too much to ask since they had a seven-week vacation. i don't think that's too much for the american people to ask. to ensure that congress is fulfilling arguably their most

basic responsibility which is funding the government and avoiding a government shutdown. ron. ron: i don't think i understand the argument about the bill on state sponsors of terrorism. theres a no way to designate a country or to impose sanctions comprehensively on a country if this bill is -- mechanism? josh: the point is there already is an existing system for doing that. that's the point. ron: so what you're saying is this would eliminate that? josh: no, it wouldn't eliminate that. it would cloud that judgment because right now, for example, saudi arabia is not on the state sponsors of terror -- state sponsors of terror list. and this kind of legislation could open up the potential for a variety of court decisions that could reach differing conclusions about that. you could also imagine other court cases being filed that

would raise similar questions about iran's conduct or syria's conduct. and if we end up in a situation where plaintiffs in a case do not succeed in making their se against syria, hype theyical -- hypothetically, it certainly mudies the water when it comes to the u.s. government's position about whether or not syria is complicit in supporting terrorism. n: the other part of this, sovereign immunity. what is the situation? is there any situation you can recall or tell us about where without that protection abroad a diplomat, a soldier, someone would have been at risk? josh: well, for a specific case i'd refer you to the department of justice or the state department to let you know about a particular situation where this cropped up. but in general, we know that u.s. government personnel are

engaged in a variety of activities to protect our national security, to advance our interests around the world, and the prospect in carrying out that work they could get hauled into court in some other country under dubious pretenses is something that we're deeply concerned about. but that's exactly the kind of loophole that could potentially be created here. ron: do you think the saudis will do that? josh: i'm not going to speculate about individual countries and what their protension reaction would be, but you can talk to the saudis about that. ron: have they warned you or told you, told the u.s. what this ll do if in fact bill -- the veto is overridden? josh: i know they said things publicly. i'll let them characterize their position. our partners and allies at the european union are concerned about that and that's the reason they sent the letter

expressing their grave concern about this particular piece of legislation because they understand that countries around the world and potentially countries who are members of the european union would pass legislation carving out exceptions to sovereign immunity and no country has more to lose than the united states of america given the preeminent role we play in global affairs. ron: charlotte, a d.o.j. team went down there. now, this is not an investigation, quote-unquote. have they been able to give the president an assessment of where the situation stands there now in real time? there is a community relations team there. josh: that team is on the ground primarily to offer some expertise and advice to local officials who are grabbling with the difficult situation right now. their primary function is not to report back to the white house. there are other ways that the president can continue to be informed of events on the

ground. there are white house staffers here who are in close touch with the charlotte mayor and her office and the mayor and his office. i can tell you senior white house officials have been in touch with anthony fox. he's currently the secretary of transportation but also the former mayor of charlotte so he obviously has a lot of ties to that community and a lot of relationships with people who can offer an assessment of what's happening there. there are a variety of ways for the president to get a very clear understanding what's happening in charlotte right now. ron: what is the assessment right now? josh: well, the assessment that the president has received is consistent with the one that all of you have been reporting which is there continues to be protests. they appeared to have been more peaceful last night than they were in the two previous nights. that obviously is a welcomed development. you heard the president talk a

little bit yesterday in his interview with robin roberts. this is a situation that we'll closely monitor from here in terms of the impact on that broader community. ron: lastly. on this issue of the release of the videotape and all that. what is the president thinking about that particular aspect of this given there's a man for transparents in that community and so many others? josh: listen, the president believes this is a decision that should be made by local officials. the mayor and the police chief i think are the ones that ultimately will have to decide. they should do so consistent with their judgment about the best interest of the community and they also are going to have to make a judgment consistent with state and local laws. based on what i read, there may be some laws that could have an mpact on their decision. so i'm not going to speak precisely about the decision that has to be made by local

officials in charlotte. as a matter of principle, i think the president has reached the pretty commonsense conclusion that when you're in a position needing to build , ust with a group of people being as candid as possible is usually the best approach. ron: and being as transparenty as possible. candid and transparent -- i don't want to put words in your mouth. josh: jerome. inaudible] jerome: what's left on the president's ambitious trade deal policy? , the well, jerome briefing room is an appropriate setting for skeptical questions to be asked, but as is usually is the case in this setting,

we're a lot more hopeful than your question would suggest. there is plenty of reason for democrats and republicans on pitol hill to give careful consideration and eventually support the trans-pacific partnership. there's widespread support across the country and there are a variety of polls in the last few months that indicate a majority of trats and a majority of republicans -- democrats and a majority of republicans and a majority of independents across the country support the trans-pacific partnerships or trade deals like it. we also know that last year the president was able to succeed in building a bipartisan coalition to support legislation that gave him the authority to complete the negotiations. if you think about it, that eems like a much tougher sell, convincing the republicans the president authority to do something, it's a tough sale

but something we've been able to get done. in regard to the t.p.p., we're now advocating to republicans in congress, hey, do you want to vote for a bill that will cut 18,000 taxes that other countries impose on american goods? and we can go to the democrats, do you want to raise environmental standards and intellectual property standards in countries around the world in a way that will level the playing field for american workers and american businesses? we can actually do something about these broader global ends that in some cases have dealt a pretty tough blow to communities across the country. that's a pretty good case. it's not a slam dunk case but i think it's a pretty strong case. based on the track record of building a majority bipartisan last year, we're hopeful we'll be able to do the same thing by the end of this year, but we'll see. with regard to the european trade deal, we've hit -- it's not uncommon over the last several months for people to be

openly worrying about whether or not this is something that we can do. the president set an ambitious goal earlier this year of trying to complete negotiations before the end of the year. they're not completed yet. they got a lot of negotiating left to do, but as i understand it, the u.s. trade representative was just in europe within the last few weeks trying to move this forward. so we'll see if we can get you some more information from them about the current status of those negotiations, but that's an ambitious goal. i'd acknowledge that on the front end, but it's still one we're aiming to achieve. gregory. gregory: this 9/11 lawsuit bill seems to be framed as an up or down proposition. is that accurate or is there room? josh: well, we certainly would welcome congressional action that would address the concerns .hat we've raised

so i guess that's the reason we're having conversations is to try to find an approach that would satisfy the concerns and the desire of some members of adrets to want to requests of the 9/11 families -- address the requests of the 9/11 families and we're hopeful that they can find a way to do that that doesn't carve out the kinds of exceptions that put our diplomats and service members at risk around the world. gregory: your answer to libya before suggests there's two moving parts here, right? the sovereign immunity stripping and also the response from other nations which may or may not be reciprocal to that. am i charactering your position correctly? if that's true, is there anything you can do to reduce the immunity protection without

triggering some sort of international law? josh: i guess what i -- the best way i can answer your question, gregory, yes, potentially there is a way to address the significant concerns that we've raised about the risk facing u.s. service members and u.s. diplomats while also addressing the questions of the 9/11 families. no, but i think that's the nature of the conversations we're having with members of congress on capitol hill. i don't know if something like that exists but we're certainly in conversations to find out if it does. ok. reporter: thanks, josh. i want to ask you about syria. there is a new offensive there. i'm wondering if the white house still believes that the cease-fire that was agreed to ? still in effect

[inaudible] josh: well, we clearly have seen an increase in violence over the last several days and that's not a welcomed development at all. in fact, the arrangement that we tried to reach with the russians was engineered to try to reduce violence. and unfortunately that only worked for a rather short period of time. look, over the last several days we've seen syria announce their intent to unilaterally withdraw from the cessation of hostilities. we saw an attack on u.n. aid workers for which we hold the russians accountable because we know it was either carried out by the russian military or by the syrian military. and russia is a party that's taken responsibility for keeping the syrian military in line.

and obviously striking a humanitarian aid convoy is way out of line. entirely inconsistent with international principles, and in the view of many people, potentially a war crime. you also saw president assad make a statement yesterday falsely ascribing blame to the united states for this increase in violence. nothing short of a bold-faced lie. and then you had the announcement overnight, east coast time, of a new offensive by the syrian government in owe leapto. -- aleppo. considering that russia is the party that's taken responsibility for ensuring syrian compliance with the essation of hostilities,

russia's culpable and if this has a future, nt russia's going to need to step up and prove it. and they got some work to do. reporter: you often said this is an assessment of whether or not russia is willing or able have influence on the syrian regime. i'm wondering if you've been able to make an assessment of whether they were unwilling or whether they were unable and if you think there's a difference in terms of white house policy, in terms of whether or not it was one or the other? josh: listen, i -- well, that's an interesting question, actually. i think it is -- i am not prepared to offer an assessment

in each of these cases whether or not it was weakness on the where russia essentially they were rebuked by the assad regime and despite russia's warnings assad went ahead and ordered the actions that he did. or if russia failed to clearly communicate to assad what their expectations were. it's too early to tell exactly whether they were unwilling or unable. reporter: or the third option, they were not being straight with the u.s., they see a benefit of having an agreement with the u.s. and not fulfilling it? josh: i would put that in the unwilling category which is to say they weren't willing to go to the assad regime and actually make them live up to the terms of the cessation of

hostilities. but i guess the question you're asking is, does it matter? i guess it's hard to say. it certainly matters if they're unwilling, right, because it does raise significant questions about their credibility. it raises similarly difficult questions because the reason we're having this conversation with the russians is they seem to be the only people we can talk to that does have any influence over the assad regime. d if they don't,, then i'm not really sure why we would continue talking to them. so again, we'll see how this plays out and when i say how this plays out, we'll have to see what the russian response is. the credibility's on the line under either scenario. and they're going to have to decide, president putin is

going to have to decide whether he's interesting in protecting the credibility in the international community or not. reporter: one other question on wells fargo. they obviously face about $100 million in fines for setting up millions of bogus accounts the customers didn't want. now we're hearing from senator warren she believes the c.e.o. should resign, should be investigated. she sent a letter with eight other senators saying wells fargo's executives should be investigated by the labor department for potentially unfair labor practices. i don't think we've heard from the white house on this yet, so i'm wondering do you agree with senator warren that the c.e.o. should resign? do you think the fines that were put out were enough punishment? is the white house going to weigh in any further on this? josh: well, i can't recall an instance in which i called for the resignation of an executive at a private company so that seems a little outside my

purview. maybe i'll reserve the right to do that at some point. i can't imagine a scenario which that has come up. i have not done it before and i am not going to do it in this instance. with regard to the department of labor, you know, i can't speak to any potential enforcement action that they may be considering. those kinds of enforcement actions are conducted independent of any white house interference and so i certainly don't want to say something that could lead somebody to conclude there was an appropriate white house interference in that decision. if there is even a decision to be made. so i'll refer to them. more generally, though, i do anountment from the cfpb is -- announcement from the cfpb is strong vindication of the president's pursuit of tough wall street reform legislation. republicans have been four square against the cfpb since

the day that it was created. but the reason that the cfpb there ated is that previously had not been a financial regulator dedicated solely to protecting consumers. the cfpb is the only financial ed lator with the express mission statement to look out for american middle-class families. nd here it paid off in spades. you had one of the largest, most influential financial institutions in the country scamming people who are trying to set up checking accounts. and nobody was in a better position to hold them accountable for that other than

the cfpb. it led to the largest fine in history in response to this egregious conduct. that means the fine was on the order of $185 million, and that also, when you combine that with the actions that the cfpb has taken in the last several years, they put nearly $12 billion back into the pockets of 27 million american families that have been harmed by inancial institutions. i think that's a pretty good iltration of the president making good on his promise to change washington and making sure that there's somebody in washington looking out for middle-class families and he took a lot of political heat for making this a priority too. we saw millions of dollars in lobbying evers, in campaign ads pent by the most influential financial institutions in the

country to try to block this. but the president stood up to them and said no. even though those financial institutions have members of congress in their back pocket. hose members of congress who have repeatedly tried to gut funding for the cfpb. so this is a good illustration of why the president fought so hard for the cfpb, and i think it's a pretty strong vindication of his efforts and it's several million american families that are going to get the benefit from it. ok. bob. bob: yeah, josh. on the 9/11 bill, you keep saying it goes against international norms and there's this somewhat fuzzy area of sovereign immunity or is it fuzzy? josh: it's fuzzy to me. i'm certainly no expert in international law. bob: that's what i'm asking. can you say this was specifically would go against

any kind of international agreement, or is it just an international norm? sh: listen, i have not heard -- as a technical matter, no one has made the case to me this is the violation of a specific agreement. maybe it is and if it is then i'm sure one of the white house lawyers will be appearing at my door when i get back to my office to explain it to me in which case i'll explain it to all of you. my understanding, however, the way it's been described to me that there is a legal concept of sovereign immunity that countries around the world observe, and if the most influential country in the world starts carving out exceptions to sovereign immunity, then other countries are going to do the same thing. now, the problem with that approach is that there's no country in the world that has ore to lose from carving out

exceptions to sovereign immunity than the united states given the role that we play around the world. so that's what -- that's the concern that we have and that's -- and what that means is it means that there's more legal risk that our service members and our diplomats and in some cases even u.s. companies face as a result of this action. and t a certain level -- so the concern is is not just the legal risk they would face but also the significant resources and diplomatic capital that the united states government would have to spend to defend them. so that's the principle that's at stake and that's why the president feels so strongly about this. listen, i'm not an attorney so

somebody that's an expert in the technical aspect of this law would say the risk we face is really clear and, look, i think in this instance, i'd be client to believe them because it's not just white house lawyers that reached the conclusion. it's lawyers at the european union that reached that conclusion and this is not some partisan fight here. this is basically a contest between politicses that are worried about their political -- politicians that are worried about their political standing and experts in national security that are focused on the long-term best interests of the country. go ahead, john. john: thank you. you're familiar with the foreign sovereign immunity act that was signed into law in 1976 under president ford. and part of that there is one exception that's carved out for suing a foreign government and that's if a foreign state

engages in commercial activity. are you familiar with this? josh: i certainly heard of the law. i am not familiar with all the consequences of it. john: a carveout that exists right now under u.s. law -- and i assume the president has no problem with the foreign sovereign immunities act and the way this carveout exists, is that correct? josh: that's correct. the president does not have an objection to the foreign sovereign immunities act. he -- the president has a problem with other -- >> what's wrong with a carveout that would allow to sue for terrorist activity. you allow it for commercial activity, why not terrorist activity? josh: first, it's just the principle is at risk of further erosion and degradation as a result of this bill. this is a principle that

insulates and protects u.s. servicemens and diplomats around the world. s that principle of sovereign immunity that's worth protecting because the united states benefits more from that principle and international regard for that principle than any other country in the world. the other thing that's important to recognize, though, john, which is, there already is a mechanism for individuals who are harmed by state sponsors of terrorism to be compensated. so there already is a mechanism , individuals, who are harmed by state sponsors of terrorism. there's already a legal mechanism for seeking that kind of compensation. >> as for the foreign sovereign immunity act was signed into

law, i don't believe there was any rush to the courts all around the world based upon that one carveout for commercial activity that a foreign government did. what makes you think there would be a rush to the courts as it relates to terrorist activity that a foreign government against u.s. citizens on u.s. soil. josh: first of all, i'll point al-assad cast the allegations that if there were these kinds of exceptions in syria could put the u.s. at risk. it's not exactly uncommon for other countries to falsely accuse the united states of terrorism. the second thing is, all i can tell you is that that is the legal conclusion that the obama administration has reached about the potential consequences of the legislation. that conclusion was also reached by officials at the european union and that legal conclusion

was also reached by michael mukasey, the attorney general for president george w. bush. this isn't a partisan conclusion or partisan analysis that's been put forth. this is an analysis that's bipartisan in nature and has been reached by national security experts in both parties. again, i think that's the reason that we -- that there is sympathy for the case we're making to individual members of congress. the question is, is it actually going to show up in the vote count? i don't know if it will. >> bashar al-assad, does he consider -- is he considered to be the legitimate leader of syria? josh: the president believed al-assad has lost legitimacy as leader of that country. it's hard to imagine the country of syria coming together and being led by a tyrant that has

used the military might of the country to attack his own people. it is impossible for him to have any, just as a pract cat -- practical matter, setting aside the moral questions here, just as a practical matter, there's no reasonable prospect that president assad would build, earn, or win the confidence of even a majority of the syrian people. >> josh, the department finalized a rule today to clear the way for native hawaiians to have government-to-government relationship with federal government should they form a unified government. could you explain why the administration is pursuing this and whether the president's childhood and experience in hawaii influenced the approach of the administration. josh: the president took office vowing to strengthen the

relationship between the united states government and tribal governments around the country, including the native hawaiian population. next week, i'm jumping ahead here, but next week the white house will convene the tribal nations conference here in washington, d.c. this is something that the president has prioritized and he's regularly appeared at this conference as a demonstration of the pyrity that he has placed on improved relations between the federal government and tribal governments. the president obviously does have his own personal connection the native hawaiian population and the rich cultural heritage of the native hawaiian

people. the president got to experience a little of that when he traveled to hawaii a few weeks ago. and the president believes that that cultural heritage isn't just worthy of our respect, it's also worth protecting. d that's the reason that, in designating the marine on mumet -- monument out there, the policy was careful to ensure that will call populations could ontinue to engage in their ancient tradition. so i think this also, i would put this in the category of the kind of policies that the president is hopeful the next president will pursue. but there's a lot of progress we've made in terms of

strengthening the relationship between the federal government and a variety to have tribal governments. but there's more work to be done. there's certainly more work to be done in terms of supporting and empowering the next generation of native americans. to ensure they've got access to good schools and quality health care and the kind of stable home life that so many other american kids benefit from. we have made some important progress, making investments that would ensure that kind of future for native populations, but there's certainly more work to be done and the president is hopeful that the next president will build on that progress. kevin. kevin: i want to ask you about the sanction legislation. there are leaders on the hill who feel the white house is getting in the way of that and given that there's not only no long aerocease fire, certainly not one that's been consistent,

to say nothing of the fact that the president himself feels like this is a man who is an illegitimate leader in that nation, why would the white house stand in the way of such legislation? josh: to put it bluntly, we've got the authority we need to impose sanctions on the assad regime if we believe that's going to advance our interests. what recent history has shown is that our sanctions strategy is most effective when it is closely coordinated and implemented with our allies and partners around the world. we were able to apply maximum pressure against the iranians and compel them to come to the negotiating table and ultimately give up the most concerning aspects of their nuclear program because the united states worked in concert with other countries around the world to apply tough sanctions against them. unilateral sanctions, imposed by the united states congress, are not likely to have the desired

effect. so congress has already given the president broad authority when it comes to imposing sanctions and his administration has not hesitated to use them. but we only use them, or at least we use them most effectively, when we're able to coordinate those activities and that strategy with our partners and our allies around the world. >> i want to push back for a second, i want to read part of speaker ryan's remarks yesterday morning, you may or may not have had a chance to hear them. he said, listen, this week we learned the syrian military was complicit in bombing a humanitarian aid convoy. we talked about that this week, it should come as no surprise. at no point has the say saud regime stopped committing atrocities against the syrian people. when you have that as a backdrop, you can understand why there are leaders that feel forcefully that anything that can be done to punish this regime, lawless regime, is a good thing, it's difficult to

reconcile that you have them thinking that this is something that should move forward when you also have a white house that feels like we need to do all we can to not only punish this specific regime but do all we can to get him out of power. why wouldn't the two sides come together. josh: what we're looking to do is maximize the pressure to apply to the assad regime. that's not -- applying those restraints is not the most effective way to do that. we need to work with leaders around the world to coordinate sanctions and apply maximum economic pressure to the assad regime. that's the approach we have take within regard to iran. that's the approach we've taken with regard to north korea. that's also the approach we've take within regard to russia. there are varying levels of success we've had in each of those instances. but what all of them have in common is that the force of our sanctions are multiplied when

they are implemented in coordination with other countries around the world. >> let me run back a bit on the c.r., did you suggest the senate hadn't really addressed that? they have, funding for flint was included in the recently passed wvar bill at 895-3. >> i am aware of that. but in the current version that the house is working on trk it's not include in there. i did notice there is funding in the c.r. that's dedicated to meeting the needs of people in places like louisiana, texas, and maryland, who have been victims of flooding. the president is obviously supportive of that. the administration was among the first to come forward and say that we believe congress should act as soon as possible to provide relief to the people of louisiana. the president promised that he would fight for the people of louisiana when he visited them in the immediate aftermath of that flooding.

wouldn't forget them. and he hasn't. the president made a similar comment when he went to flint this spring he went to flint, visited with people in that community and promised to help them as much as he could by providing them the kind of resources they need to address the infrastructure problems that have put thousands of kids at a pretty significant risk. congress has a responsibility to look out for the needs of the kids in flint just as they have response b89 to look out for the needs -- responsibility to look out for the needs of the kids in louisiana too. we need to see some congressional attention to this issue. i know a lot of democrats are focused on this issue in flint. it's time for some republicans to get the message too. >> a couple more. gitmo, i know i ask you every week about the possibility of in particular bulk transfers coming up, certainly in the days ahead. is there any reason to believe that there will not be more

transfers in the next week that you would announce? josh: nothing i have to announce from here. i will obviously keep you posted if any transfers take place. >> last, on jafta, i want to run something by you that jack quinn said, he's an tern for the victims' families of 9/11. it's increasingly apparent that these false resip rossities are a desire to keep the saudis from having to answer claims of families whose loved ones were murdered on september 11, 2001. how sensitive is the president to the notion that there is -- there's a perception, at the minimum that by voting against jafta or vetoing it, is somehow a nod to the saudi government? and our relationship with them. josh: the president made a forceful case and i've made a forceful case that our deepest concern is not limited to the impact that this bill would have on our relationship with saudi

arabia. our deepest concern is the impact this bill would have on our relationship with countries all around the world. >> we don't sponsor terrorism. we're talking about -- it's specifically tailored against state sponsors of terror. the united states doesn't do that. josh: you and i both know that but there are irresponsible people all around the world who accuse the united states of being complicit in terrorism all the time. assad just did it in an interview with the associated press two days ago. here's the other part of this. people like mr. quinn, stand to make some money from these kinds of exceptions being carved out. nothing wrong with that. but we should acknowledge the interest that he has in this as well. the president's interest is focused on our national security. the president's interest is making sure we're looking out for the safety and security and legal risk that could be facing our service members, our diplomats in u.s. companies around the world. >> can you give us a readout on

what you expect the president to say tomorrow at the african-american history museum? josh themplet president is quite excited about the prospect of appearing at the dead -- josh: the president is quite excited about the prospect of appearing at the dedication of the new smithsonian that is dedicated to african-american culture. the president and his family had a chance to get a preview of the museum and i was just talking about how -- what a special opportunity that was and how much he enjoyed taking his family there. he believes it's something all americans should see. this is the story that african-americans had to tell about their history in this country. it's in line with the american story. it's an important part of the american story. and the president was talking

about this in his interview last night. i thought he made an interesting point which is, much of the history that's contained in that beautiful new building, not ancient history, it's history that took place in his lifetime. and i think that says two really important things, particularly as we're dwelling on, and rightfully focused on, the situation in charlotte and tulsa and other communities that have encountered some of the distrust between law enforcement and african-american communities. the lesson is simply this. since that is not ancient history, we need to understand there's a legacy that's still very present. i think that can help white americans understand the concerns that many african-americans have. at the same time the fact that this is not ancient history is

indication of progress we've made in a short period of time. some profund changes have happened in this can'try and those who are advocating and demonstrating and protesting should take confidence from the progress that was hard won by people like john lewis and others who are advocates of civil rights. so this is an important -- this museum is important, not just to the african-american community but to all americans. it says something important about who we are and what we can accomplish when we put our minds to it. and the president will say it much more eloquently tomorrow than i just did but he's got some strong feelings about it and is looking forward to appearing at the dedication tomorrow. -- [inaudible]

josh: listen, i've seen some of the public reports about this incident. obviously the united states strongly condemns acts of terrorism around the world. and you know, we have long urged india and pakistan to find ways to resolve their differences not through violence but through diplomacy. over the years, they made some important progress in that pursuit. and you know, we're hopeful that they'll be able to continue to make the kind of progress that will bring greater stability to what is a rather volatile region f the world. were they met at the white

house? josh: i'm not aware of any specific conversations with the white house. but for specific conversations with the indian or pakistani government i'd refer you to the state department. yesterday, a south korean minister remarked at the u.n. , that it's mbly crucial -- josh: can you repeat the last part? north korea from u.n. member states. josh: it's crucial that north ?orea

united nations? i'm unthere are with the comments made by the foreign min stoferse south korea yesterday. why don't i take the question and see if we can get you a specific answer. >> another one, does the united states concerned about the north korea as a state sponsor of terrorism country or -- josh: the united states is certainly deeply concerned about the kind of provocations that emanate from north korea. and you hear the president on a regular basis express his solidarity and our nation's solidarity with our allies in south korea, our allies in japan, who are facing the biggest risk from north korea's activities.

so the united states is resolute in our stance in support of our allies. and the united states is committed to playing a leading role in the international community and working with not just our allies but also our partners like russia and china and applying significant pressure to north korea and bringing them into compliance with international obligations and a variety of u.n. security council resolutions that they violate all too frequently. why don't we do the week ahead and then we'll let you get started on the weekend. mark isn't here to snicker thate joke. on monday, the president will host the twibell conference in washington, d.c. this will be the president's alingte and final tribal nations conference, providing tribal leaders from the 567 federally recognized tribes with the opportunity to interact directly with high level federal government officials and members of the white house council on native american affairs. this year's conference will continue to build upon the president's commitment to strengthen the

government-to-government relationship with indian country and improve the lives of american indians and alaska natives. on tuesday, the president will participate in a d.n.c. round table. on wednesday he'll welcome kyle busch and his team members to the white house to honor his 2015 nascar sprint cup series championship. on wednesday afternoon, the president will travel to fort lee in virginia to meet with service members and the post community to thank them for their outstanding service to the community. while there, he'll tape a scene in town -- tape a town hall meeting where he'll have an opportunity to take question fres this military. on thursday, the president and first lady are looking forward to welcoming the u.s. olympic and paralympic teams in the white house to honor their participation and success in this year's olympic games in rio. on friday, next friday, the president will travel to a local high school to discuss the importance of high quality education and have the united states -- how the united states must strengthen and reform our education system to ensure that

our students have the tools, skills and support they immediate to succeed. we'll have additional details about the president's visit in the coming days and hopefully we'll even have more details about the precise location of the visit before the end they have day today. that will be somewhere here in the washington, d.c., air. everybody have -- area. everybody have a good weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> wrapping up with today's white house briefing. more with the saudi lawsuits bill now from the hill. hillary clinton would sign a controversial bill allowing famloifs victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to sue saudi arabia in u.s. courts, her campaign says, breaking with president obama. the white house is expected to veto the bill later today after it unanimously passed both the house and senate. saush has long been accused of supporting the 201 -- the 2001

hijackers. charge which saudi leadership fiercely denies. first ladies michelle obama and laura bush discuss their wartime experiences raising daughters and the need for more awareness of veterans' mental health issues. abc news correspond event, bob woodruff, who was seriously injured in 2006 while covering the war in iraq, host the -- hosts the national archives forum. watch it tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. the smithsonian national museum of african-american history and culture opens its doors to the public for the first time saturday and c-span will be live from the national mall starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern for the outdoor dedication ceremony. speakers include president obama and founding museum director lonnie bunch. watch the opening ceremony for the smithsonian national museum of african-american history and culture, live, saturday, 10:00 a.m. watch live and any time at c-span dirg and listen live on he c-span radio app.

top hillary clinton aide sheryl mills received an immunity deal from the justice department in the investigation into the former secretary of state's email server -- server. house committee chair jason chaffetz said this was beyond explanation, the f.b.i. was handing out immunity agreements like candy. congressman chaffetz said, i have lost confidence in this investigation. immunity deals should not be a requirement for cooperating with the f.b.i. sheryl mills served as secretary clinton's chief of staff and counselor. yesterday a house panel intended to question former hillary inton aide brian pagliano on email in operating an server. he informed committee members ahead of time he wouldn't be testifying. members debated whether to send

a contempt of congress resolution to the full house. mr. chaffetz: the committee of government oversight and reform will reconvene, this is a continuation of examination the preservation of the state department federal records. we are scheduled to have mr. pagliano attend this hearing. due to his absence and his violation of a subpoena issued by the committee on government and oversight reform, we intend to adjourn this hearing and immediately convene a business meeting to consider a hearing to report mr. pagl nambings o in con tevert of congress.

mr. cummings, do you have a statement? mr. cummings: i have a brief statement. let me just say this, this is no surprise to anyone. mr. pagliano's attorney told us he wouldn't be here. they told us it would be an abuse to force him to appear for a second time before congress just 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 let sore there's no question about what is going on here. and i quote, we have corresponded extensively with you and the committee's attorneys 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 fifth amendment rights and will decline to answer any

questions put to him by your committee, end of quote. the letter explains that he already asserted the fifth amendment rights before the benghazi select committee and he should not be forced to do so a second time. the letter continues, and i quote, a subpoena issued by a congressional committee is required by law to serve a valid legislative purpose and there is none here. you demand under the present circumstances that mr. pagliano again assert his constitutional rights in front of video cameras six weeks before the presidential election betrays a naked political agenda and furthers no valid legislative aim, end of quote. i ask unanimous consent -- consent that the full letter from mr. pagliano's attorney, sent last night to the committee be entered into the official record. i have nothing else on that, mr. chairman.

mr. chaffetz: without objection, so ordered. the hearing is adjourned. the committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. pursuant to committee rule 5-b and house rule 2-h-4, the committee announces it may postpone proceedings today on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. s that full committee business meeting to consider the resolution and report recommending to the house of representatives to find brian pagliano in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the committee on government oversight and reform. our first and only item for consideration is a resolution recommending that the house of representatives find him in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the committee on oversight and government reform. the clerk will designate the report. caller: resolution recommending that the house of

representatives find brian pagliano in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the committee on oversight and government reform. mr. chaffetz: i intend to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the report. without objection, we'll caw call up the amendment in the nature of a substitute and i'll recognize myself to give one statement on the a.n.f. and underlie regular port this ecleric will designate the amendment. caller: amendment in the nature of a substitute offered pli mr. chaffetz to the resolution that the house of representatives find bryan pagliano in contempt. mr. chaffetz: i now recognize myself for five minutes. today the committee will are consider a resolution an report recommending brian pagliano be held in con tevert of the house of representatives. subpoenas are not optional. mr. paglian sombings a crucial fact witness in this committee's

investigation in former secretary of state hillary clinton's use of an unsecured serber. this is of deep concern to the committee and we have jurisdiction over federal records, we have jurisdiction over national archives, we have jurisdiction in several places. over the course of the investigation, we have learned some of the information about mr. pagliano's involvement. mr. pagliano originally worked for secretary clinton as an i.t. specialist. as he was closing out her campaign's computer equipment he received a call from justin cooper who testified before the committee last week. it was mr. cooper who requested mr. pagliano build a server for ms. clinton in early 2009 as 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 chappaqua residence to install a new serber mr. pagliano built.

he continued to monitor and maintain the server while secretary clinton was at the state department. after setting up the server , he joined secretary clinton at the state department as a schedule c apintee in the bureau of resource management. by law, schedule c appointees are required to appoint to a presidentially appointed position. there were no presidential appointees in his bureau of resource and management, making is employment arrangement at best. later they questioned his about to maintain a private cline's server given his job. even though he worked at the state department for almost four years, the agency has been only able to find a handful of emails. we have questions about this. mr. pagliano's emails are federal records, just like secretary clinton's emails and subject to production and

response to freedom of information act request. the committee has jurisdiction over both the federal records act and foia. we also have a long record of oversight, investigative, and legislative work in this area. the committee subpoenaed mr. pagliano to appear at a hearing on september 13, 2016 he did not show up to that hearing. i explained mr. pagliano was uniquely qualified to provide testimony to help us better understand secretary clinton's use of a private email server. i also made clear the committee would consider all options to his failure to appear, including recommendation he be held in contempt. we heard several hours of testimony from mr. cooper, also involved in setting up secretary clinton's email server. mr. cooper, to his credit, explained a lot. we did appreciate his participation in answering all the questions that this committee asked. throughout his testimony, mr. cooper routinely referred to mr.

pagliano as the individual more appropriate to answer questions who knew more about the serber. it was clear from mr. cooper's testimony, his words, not ours, hat we needed to hear from mr. pagliano. mr. pagliano's attorney asserts that because his client took the fifth before the committee on benghazi he shouldn't be required to take the fifth before this committee. that's not a good faith argument. first and foremost, the select committee's jurisdiction is limited, only relating to the september 11, 2012, terrorist attack in again because -- benghazi. this committee's jurisdiction is broad. questions about these two topics alone are well outside the purr sthrife select committee's investigation. secretary clinton's emails and mr. pagliano's were subject to these laws. mr. pa fwmbings liano could explain what he knew or was told about the laws and tell us

whether they were considered by him or others in setting up secretary clinton's private email server. his testimony could provide important information informing legislative reform this is committee may want to consider, ensuring this disaster never happens again. this includes reforms based on how he was able to prevent the state department from locating most of his emails. another key difference this committee has the benefit of reviewing the testimony mr. pagliano did provide in his interview with the f.b.i. , he select committee never did see that. nor was the select committee aware of thousands of classified emails that traveled over secretary clinton's server when they spoke to mr. pagliano. this committee's questions are broader and more informed than the other committee's making a comparison unnecessary. 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

f.b.i. director comby confirmed he was recommend nothing charges be brought against anyone involved in the matter. attorney general lynch accepted this and closed the case. under the circumstance he has no fear of criminal liability preventing him answering question. the committee recessed its september 13 hearing to give mr. pagliano to show up and testify. to clear up any ambiguity created by his six lawyers about whether they'd confirm service of the prior subpoena well, had the u.s. marshals personally serb him. we scheduled a continuation of the earlier hearing for this morning but once again he failed to show. this committee cannot operate, it cannot perform its duty nor can any committee of congress if subpoenas are ignored. so we're left with no choice but to consider this resolution, report recommending the household mr. pagliano in

contempt of congress. now recognize the ranking ember, mr. cummings. mr. cummings: yesterday our committee held an important hearing on a critical issue that matters to millions of the american people. the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs. members on both sides of the aisle joined together to examine these abuses in a truly bipartisan way. that is exactly the kind of investigation our committee should be conducting, and that is the kind of investigation that the american people would want us to conduct. but today's spectacle is just the opposite. this is nothing but a blatantly

partisan republican attack on the democratic candidate for president of the united states of america. it undermines the integrity of our committee. and it make ours constituents disgusted with congress instead of proud of our work. today is our fifth day of, quote, emergency, end of quote, hearings. on hillary clinton's emails in he past three weeks. fifth day of emergency hearings. on hillary clinton's emails in the past three weeks. in that period, the chairman has issued an astonishing 12 subpoenas. if you don't count weekends that's more than one a day. that's also more than a third of the total number of subpoenas he

issued in all of 2016. got an emergency here. he issued every single one, unilaterally, with no debate. i ask the question, are hillary clinton's emails really worth a third of the committee's attention? of course not. and what exactly is the emergency? as far as i can tell, the only emergency is the election approaching in a few weeks. i suppose if republicans could argue that since hillary clinton is running for president, the american people should know everything they can before entering the voting booth. so i ask the simple question, then where is our investigation of donald trump? his potentially fraudulent business practices.

his campaign's potential connections to russian hackers. what about that emergency? his charitable foundation's illegal campaign donations, pay to play schemes, and payments to settle corporate debts. the answer's obvious. the republican frenzy is focused exclusively on -- and obsessively on secretary clinton and that is for political reason. i do believe that this is an abuse of authority and taxpayer dollars to inappropriately affect the presidential election. there's one key fact that everyone needs to understand about today's vote. mr. pagliano has already asserted his fifth amendment right before this very congress on this very topic. in fact, he did it in person. right in front of me and

chairman gowdy on the benghazi select committee. this critical fact is not mentioned anywhere in this contempt resolution. not mentioned. you can search all you want. but you will not find it. why is that fact so crucial? because it demonstrates that there is no legitimate legislative purpose in forcing mr. pagliano to assert his fifth amendment rights before congress a second time. and there is certainly no legitimate purpose in forcing him to do so in public. to do so could open the flood gates for every republican-led committee on capitol hill. committee members may not know this, but last friday, the chairman sent u.s. marshals, yes, u.s. marshals, into mr.

pagliano's workplace to personally serve a second subpoena for his appearance before the committee. the committee could have sent a staffer in a coat and tie but they sent federal marshals with guns. this served no purpose but to harass and intimidate mr. pagliano. the chairmanned ored this action in secret. without even notifying the democratic committee members of his plan. got an emergency going on here. secret. no consultation. secret. no debate. secret. no votes. secret. emergency. these actions are the definition of abuse. they are harassment. and i believe that they are unethical.

i've said it before, i'll say it again. of mr. ho the passion lynch who has spoke on this subject extensively. the committee's actions in trying to force mr. pagliano to come back to congress and invoke his fifth amendment rights yet gone raise serious legal, ethical, and constitutional concerns. members should not be placed in any position of voting for a resolution that could subject them or their staffs to potential disciplinary action. the american bar association, the d.c. bar, and the maryland bar which i have been a member since 1976, all have ethics rules that prohibit attorneys from taking actions to embarrass, harass, or burden

private citizens. it is professional misconduct. the d.c. bar's legal ethics committee warns that no attorney should compel any witness to appear in a congressional hearing when, and i quote, it is known in advance that no information will be obtained and the sole effect of the summons will be to pillry the witness, end of quote. that is exactly what we have here. now, republicans may try to argue that mr. pagliano received immunity from the justice department. but that immunity agreement was limited. and we all had the opportunity to read it just this morning to confirm that. that is why a federal court has already ruled that mr. pagliano can continue to assert his constitutional privileges in

separate proceedings which he has done. as i close, one exposes the committee's abuses for what they really are -- what exposes the committee's abuses for what they really are is this. if the chairman really wanted to obtain mr. pagliano's fifth amendment assertion for the record he could have easily held a closed deposition, just as chairman gowdy did on the benghazi committee. but that is obviously not the goal here, ladies and gentlemen. republicans want a photo op. they want a ready made campaign commercial. no matter what anyone says, that's not a legitimate legislative purpose and as i've said before, i deem it and believe it to be unethical. although i strongly support the committee's authority and prerogatives of the house of representatives, i simply cannot vote for resolution that is

potentially so unethical that it could subject members of the committee or our staff to this -- to disciplinary action. for all of these reasons, i urge all members to vote no on this resolution and i yield back. mr. chaffetz: the gentleman yields back. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record all the correspondence we've had with mr. pagliano's attorneys. without objection, so ordered. does any other member wish to speak? the chair recognizes mr. mica of florida. mr. mica: thank you, mr. chairman. this is difficult situation when you have to hold someone in contempt or vote. but again, i have to refer to my years on the panel and being the senior member, this -- 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. we all represent hundred os of thousands of incredible people who today are working, struggling to make a living, pay their taxes. raise their families and retire someday. and they send us here to make certain that the constitution laws of the land are upheld. and we have one of the most important responsibilities in this committee to see that just that is done. our responsibility and authority under the constitution gives us the right to demand the appearance of any -- any individual, particularly those who have been been involved in government activity, and

legitimately ask questions of them. this gentleman was requested in a proper request to appear before us. we had others who came at that same hearing and came and they had the same opportunity, they exercised their fifth amendment right. they took the fifth amendment. this gentleman defied and was in contempt of this committee. he was in contempt. we can't make this government work, we cannot function if people will not adhere to the constitution, the rules, and the toic ability of the congress talk to these people. he could have come here, immunity or whether it's limbed or not doesn't make any difference. he would not be denied his fifth

amendment rights. he could have expressed that here. but he -- you cannot have as an option, you'll destroy this committee, you will destroy the congressional oversight process, and whether it's a republican or democrat, now listen to this, it doesn't matter whether it's chairman chaffetz or if it was chairman cummings, we cannot have people come here and deny the right under the constitution for us to question them. they may not want to answer an they have that right under the constitution, just like we have the right to question them. so again, this is very fundamental to the process. he acted in contempt. he thwarted the constitution and laws and the procedures that -- and if you continue that, you destroy the whole basis of our government. that's the difference between our government and other

governments. it's really the principal responsibility of this committee, i tell you, this isn't, again, a partisan issue, it's not a political issue, this is -- this is an issue that goes to the very core of the integrity of our democratic and constitutional process. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentleman. any other member wish to speak? recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for five minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. it is my opinion, at least from the course of these investigations, that mr. pagliano has indeed previously complied with a subpoena for the same information that the committee seeks today. and he has been given limited use immunity, only limited use immunity, and the previous -- in the previous interviews, which ould, again, expose him to

possible prosecution if we -- if he were to, i think it's reasonably predictable that he would be subject to criminal prosecution because of the eferral by this committee. on this matter. in essence, what's going on here is this is what we're engaging in is a review. a review of the decision by director comby not to prosecute. that's what we're doing here -- director combey not to prosecute. that's what we're doing here. that's why the prosecutorial notes were requested by this committee and surrendered. that's why all of this is ongoing, because this committee wishes to go beyond the

legislative function we have and to have a de novo review of what the attorney general has dismissed and closed and what the director of the f.b.i. has refused to prosecute. i think that, especially this is a violation of the separation of powers clause in the constitution. i think what we're doing here today is something that if it's denied even to the judiciary, when a prosecutor looks at the facts and this is an extensive interview process, review process, investigation process, when they decide that there's -- there are not sufficient facts to prosecute, then that is their decision. they condition -- they can decide which statutes to

prosecute under and whether to prosecute and that decision has been made. and because of the nearness of the election, this committee is going where no committee has gone before, basically review the decision of the f.b.i. not to prosecute in this matter. and this particular hearing, to hold mr. pagliano in contempt, really boils down to this, is that the chairman is saying that his rule, his rule is that the witness has to come before the committee and be subjected to what the witnesses were ubjected to last week. which was total embarrassment. we had reports that were read and forcing them to repeatedly declare their fifth amendment

rights. being publicly embarrassed on tv. that's the chairman's rule. but that is not the law. we know because in previous hearings, mr. gowdy, and i give him credit, in compliance with the law, brought that witness in, in a closed hearing, executive session, and that witness exercised his fifth amendment rights. and that was the decent and fair and legal thing to do. that's not what we're doing here. we're continuing to try to embarrass this particular , as other witnesses were embarrassed, mr. thornton, last week. that is not necessary. and i think it's beneath the asnity of this committee and

well, i think violative of the constitutional rights of that witness. that's what this boils down to. i think -- i think this contempt proceeding will have short is rift in the district court -- short shrift in the district court. i don't think it's going anywhere and i take comfort in that fact because we are so far afield of the constitution again in this committee. not only the fifth amendment but also now the separation of powers where we try to take up a new -- take up anew this matter that's been settled by the f.b.i. director and the attorney general. . chayspets feather -- mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentleman. mr. gowdy. mr. gowdy: most members of the committee probably know how they're going to vote. i don't think this is going to change any minds. i want to talk for a second to the folks who may be following

this back home just trying to figure out what these lawyers are arguing about. mr. chairman, there are two separate issues at play. number one, is whether or not you have to come when you have been issued a summons or subpoena. there are people sitting in jury rooms right now all across this country because they received a summons, even though they're not going to be called for jury service they may be excused, they may, frankly, be disqualified, but you still have to come. there are subpoenas being issued all across this country to firefighters and e.m.s. and police officers and doctors and everyone else who may have witnessed anything from a crime to a traffic accident. they may not get called as a witness. but they have to come. so issue number one is whether or not you have to come when you are issued legal process. and the answer is yes. the quns himself or herself does

not get to pick and choose which legal process you're going to follow and which ones you're not or nobody would go to jury service. so issue number one is do you have to come? issue number two is whether or not you have to talk. and unless your name is jack bauer, you cannot force anyone to talk. now, we can have a robust debate about whether or not this witness has been immunized. i read the immunity agreement. what i find interesting is the double speak that i hear from some of my colleagues. you cannot in one sentence say d.o.j. has refused to prosecute, that this is a nothing case, and then the next sentence say you're worried that d.: j. is going to prosecute. congress cannot prosecute anyone, for anything. nothing. the only entity in this country that can level criminal charges is the executive branch.

and they have already said they're not going to do so. so where is his criminal exposure? where is it? unless they're going to say, mr. chairman, that we are worried that he is going to make a false statement before congress. that would be interesting if that's the argument. we are worried that this witness who cooperated with the f.b.i. may tell congress something different. guess what? the agreement he has with the department of justice requires him to be truthful. so you wouldn't want people to say the same thing to congress that you say to the f.b.i. -- so you would want people to say the same thing to congress that you say to the f.b.i. this is what i find most interesting of all. the department of justice said they're not going to prosecute anybody for anything, this matter is closed. but i'll bet you that agreement allows for this witness to cooperate with other entities of

government. in fact, in the old days, it required that witness to cooperate with other entities of government and i'll tell you why, mr. chairman. i have sat while some of the very member who are sitting in this room right now provided oversight over the f.b.i., over national security letters. they didn't give one second thought about second-guessing the f.b.i. in the issuing of national security letters. i mean who else would provide oversight over the f.b.i. if not for congress? and i listened to some of the very same mens on this committee provide oversight over the department of justice. over the prosecution of ted stevens. so they have no problem providing oversight over the department of justice. when they don't like the outcome. but when they do like the outcome, oh, no, no, no. we cannot second-guess. that's the one entity in this

republic that can never be second-guessed, is the f.b.i. i find that fascinating, particularly coming from as many criminal defense attorneys as we have on the other side who made a dadgum living questioning the f.b.i. i mean, that's what -- that's how they made their living is second-guessing the f.b.i. but no, once you take the oath of office for congress, whatever they do, you don't want to prosecute the f.b.i., we're fine with that. you dent want to do anything about the people who committed fraud in the housing crisis? we're fine with that. god forbid we ask the f.b.i. anything. all i want to know is did you give immunity to the person who destroyed federal records after a subpoena was in place. that's a fair question and i would think every member of congress would want to know the answer. r. chaffetz: mr. chaffetz: the gentleman's time has expired. the