[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DESECRATING OLD GLORY:
INVESTIGATING HOW THE PRO-HAMAS
PROTESTS TURNED NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE LAND INTO A VIOLENT DISGRACE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
INVESTIGATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, December 10, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-153
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
57-751 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
MIKE COLLINS, GA, Vice Chair
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, NM, Ranking Member
Matt Rosendale, MT Ed Case, HI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Ruben Gallego, AZ
Mike Collins, GA Susie Lee, NV
Anna Paulina Luna, FL Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing Memo..................................................... v
Hearing held on Tuesday, December 10, 2024....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas.......................................... 2
Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona................................................. 3
Stansbury, Hon. Melanie A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Mexico.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel I:
Greenblatt, Hon. Mark, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
the Interior, Washington, DC............................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Questions submitted for the record....................... 18
Cuvelier, Charles, Associate Director, Visitor and Resource
Protection, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC................................... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Questions submitted for the record....................... 23
Panel II:
Spencer, Kenneth, Chairman, United States Park Police,
Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC.................. 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
Questions submitted for the record....................... 49
Goldenberg, Alex, Director of Intelligence, Network Contagion
Research Institute, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina......... 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Questions submitted for the record....................... 54
Walter, Scott, President, Capital Research Center,
Washington, DC............................................. 55
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Questions submitted for the record....................... 60
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman
Capital Research Center, ``Marching Toward Violence''.... 69
Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber
Government Executive, ``National Park Service's IRA
hiring surge could fail ahead of funding deadline''.... 38
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To: House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members
From: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations staff, Michelle
Lane ([email protected]) and Lucas Drill
(Lucas.Drill@mail. house.gov) x52761
Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024
Subject: Oversight Hearing on ``Desecrating Old Glory: Investigating
How the Pro-Hamas Protests Turned National Park Service Land
into a Violent Disgrace''
________________________________________________________________________
The House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations will hold an oversight hearing titled ``Desecrating
Old Glory: Investigating How the Pro-Hamas Protests Turned National
Park Service Land into a Violent Disgrace'' on December 10, 2024, at
10:15 a.m. in 1324 Longworth House Office Building.
Member offices are requested to notify Cross Thompson
(Cross.Thompson @mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, December 9,
2024, if their member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
On July 24, 2024, the ANSWER Coalition led a large public
protest that quickly devolved into a riot on National Park
Service lands in the Union Station area of Washington, D.C.
During this specific protest, the ANSWER Coalition and
riot participants broke almost every rule of their public
gathering permit, which resulted in the permit being
revoked. The riot involved burning American flags,
assaulting police officers, and raising foreign flags on
American soil.
ANSWER Coalition has been involved in protests across the
United States, including those targeting college campuses
and infrastructure as part of the broader ``Shut it Down
for Palestine'' movement.
Concerningly, these groups and their affiliates not only
destroy property and cause violence on campuses and federal
lands, but also have ties to adversarial foreign
organizations like Hamas and the Chinese Communist Party.
II. WITNESSES
Panel I:
The Hon. Mark Lee Greenblatt, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Charles Cuvelier, Associate Director, Visitor and
Resource Protection, National Park Service, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Panel II:
Mr. Kenneth H. Spencer, III, Chairman, United States Park
Police Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Alex Goldenberg, Director of Intelligence, Network
Contagion Research Institute, Mount Pleasant, SC
Mr. Scott Walter, President, Capital Research Center,
Washington, D.C.
III. INTRODUCTION
As the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel has been a staunch
ally of the United States since its establishment. In fact, the United
States was the first country to recognize Israel as an independent
nation in 1948.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Office of the Spokesperson, U.S. Relations with Israel,
U.S. DEPT. OF STATE (Jan. 30, 2023), https://www.state.gov/u-s-
relations-with-israel-2/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 31, 2024, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was
invited to address a bipartisan, bicameral joint meeting of
Congress.\2\ The invitation was meant to give Prime Minister Netanyahu
an opportunity ``to share the Israeli government's vision for defending
democracy, combatting terror, and establishing a just and lasting peace
in the region'' \3\ after Hamas--a Palestinian terrorist organization--
savagely invaded Israel and murdered civilians there on October 7,
2023. Plans for Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech were met with plans
for anti-Israel protests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Patricia Zengerle, Israel's Netanyahu gets invitation to
address US Congress, REUTERS (May 31, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/
world/us/us-congressional-leaders-invite-netanyahu-address-joint-
meeting-congress-2024-05-31/.
\3\ See Press Release, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson,
Congressional Leaders Invite Israeli PM Netanyahu to Address Joint
Meeting of Congress (May 31, 2024), https://www.speaker.gov/2024/05/31/
congressional-leaders-invite-israeli-pm-netanyahu-to-address-joint-
meeting-of-congress/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even before Congress formally invited Prime Minister Netanyahu to
speak, leftist activists and lawmakers labeled him a war criminal and
called for his arrest for leading his nation's defensive military
effort against Hamas.\4\ On July 23, 2024, the National Park Service
(NPS) granted a public gathering permit to the ANSWER Coalition
(ANSWER)--a radical anti-Israel organization also known as Act Now to
Stop War and End Racism--to hold a protest to ``Stop the genocide in
Gaza.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Giselle Ruhiyyih Ewing, Netanyahu accepts Congress'
invitation to speak despite blowback, POLITICO (June 1, 2024), https://
www.politico.com/news/2024/06/01/netanyahu-congress-address-00161153;
Emanuel Fabian and Gianluca Pacchiani, IDF estimates 3,000 Hamas
terrorists invaded Israel in Oct. 7 onslaught, THE TIMES OF ISRAEL
(Nov. 1, 2023), https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-estimates-3000-hamas-
terrorists-invaded-israel-in-oct-7-onslaught/; Stuart Winer, Hamas
actions are war crimes, could constitute genocide-international law
experts, THE TIMES OF ISRAEL (Oct. 15, 2023), https://
www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-actions-are-war-crimes-could-constitute-
genocide-international-law-experts/.
\5\ See U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Public
Gathering Permit NCA-NAMA-EVNT24-1278, Issued to ANSWER Coalition on
July 23, 2023, for July 24, 2023, on file with the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PERMIT
ANSWER Coalition's public gathering was approved to take place on
July 24, 2024, at Columbus Plaza; John Marshall Park; Pennsylvania
Avenue North Sidewalk, 3rd-5th Street; and Pennsylvania Avenue South
Sidewalk, 3rd-5th Street.\6\ ANSWER anticipated that more than 5,000
participants would attend the protest, and the permit enabled them to
demonstrate from 5 a.m. to 4 p.m.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPS permit made clear that its approval was subject to two
conditions.\8\ First, ANSWER and the protest's participants had to
comply with every written condition and regulation attached to the
permit and with any reasonable directions of the United States Park
Police (USPP) on the day of the event.\9\ Second, ANSWER and its
protestors could not obstruct any sidewalks, walkways, or roadways.\10\
NPS reserved the right to revoke ANSWER's permit immediately and at any
time if ``it reasonably appear[ed] that the public gathering presents
clear and present danger to public safety, good order or health, or if
any conditions of [the] permit are violated.'' \11\ NPS previously
granted similar public gathering permits to the ANSWER Coalition, so
ANSWER was undoubtedly familiar with these conditions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.; see also Scott Streater, Republicans want NPS probe of
anti-Netanyahu protest, E&E NEWS (July 30, 2024), https://
www.eenews.net/articles/republicans-want-nps-probe-of-anti-netanyahu-
protest/.
\9\ See U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Public
Gathering Permit NCA-NAMA-EVNT24-1278, Issued to ANSWER Coalition on
July 23, 2023, for July 24, 2023, on file with the Committee.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Id.
\12\ See, e.g., Matt Pusatory and Jordan Fischer, Thousands turn
out for `Free Palestine' rally near White House, WUSA9 (Nov. 4, 2023),
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/dc-free-palestine-rally-
plans/65-b565f86d-3d17-4320-83b9-6843c0f321c7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER's planned protest quickly devolved into a riot as the
organization either lost control of its crowd or instigated violations
of the permit and the law. Protesters disrupted traffic near the
Capitol Complex and along Pennsylvania Avenue,\13\ and buses around
Union Station stopped service.\14\ At Union Station, the rioters turned
violent as they deliberately and maliciously defaced and destroyed
federal property. Rioters tore down the American flag, burned the
flag,\15\ and replaced the American flag with a Palestinian flag.\16\
Rioters defaced the Columbus Plaza monument and the replica Liberty
Bell with pro-Hamas graffiti.\17\ Rioters set fire to an effigy of
Prime Minister Netanyahu outside of Union Station.\18\ This illegal
activity was captured through photographs and videos, which were widely
shared and reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Laura Wainman et al., 23 arrests after thousands protest
Netanyahu's speech to Congress, WUSA9 (July 25, 2024), https://
www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/protests/protesters-on-capitol-hill-
israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-speech-to-congress-live-
updates/65-fe99a9ae-36af-49f7-9e0f-0fd16e2c9b29.
\14\ See Amber Anderson, Buses currently not running to, from Union
Station due to protests over Netanyahu Congressional speech, WUSA9
(July 24, 2024), https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/buses-currently-
not-running-to-from-union-station-due-to-protests-over-netanyahu-
congressional-speech/ar-BB1qzoQf?ocid=BingNewsVerp.
\15\ See Moon, Video: Pro-Palestinian Protesters Burn U.S. Flag
Outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., CEDAR NEWS (July 25, 2024),
https://cedarnews.net/newstasks/739699/video-pro-palestinian-
protesters-burn-u-s-flag-outside-union-station-in-washington-d-c/.
\16\ See Andrea Swalec, `What happened at Union Station was vile':
DC protest vandalism, flag-burning condemned, NBC WASHINGTON (July 26,
2024), https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-happened-at-union-
station-was-vile-dc-protest-vandalism-flag-burning-condemned/ar-BB1q
CwIs?ocid=BingNewsSerp.
\17\ See Rebecca Turco, Some faded graffiti remains outside Union
Station following protests, WJLA--WASHINGTON D.C. (July 28, 2024),
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/some-faded-graffiti-remains-outside-
union-station-following-protests/ar-BB1qMIwZ?ocid=BingNewsVerp.
\18\ See Chad De Guzman et al., Pro-Palestinian Protesters Burn
American Flags and Deface Monuments Amid Clashes With Police in D.C.,
TIME (July 25, 2024), https://time.com/7003081/photos-netanyahu-
washington-dc-protests-demonstrations-police-clashes-arrests-capitol/.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
These criminal actions required USPP, Capitol Police (USCP),
Metropolitan Police (MPD), and New York Police Department (NYPD)
officers to act jointly to control the crowd. Because of the crowd's
violence, law enforcement officers were forced to use pepper spray \19\
and make arrests. At 3:17 p.m., because of the growing violence and
destruction at Union Station, NPS officially revoked ANSWER's permit
and ordered the rioters to disperse.\20\ The ANSWER Coalition
violated--and encouraged others to violate--nearly every permit
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Brianna Herlihy, Park Police union says officers `did
everything they could' during DC anti-Israel riot, FOX News (July 26,
2024), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/park-police-union-says-
officers-did-everything-could-during-dc-anti-israel-riot.
\20\ See Brady Knox, Protesters burn American flag at Union Station
and raise Palestinian one in its place, WASHINGTON EXAMINER (July 24,
2024), https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/news/content/ar-
BB1qzmv0#::text=At%203%3A17%20p.m.%2C%20the%20United%20States%20Park
%20Police,and%20everyone%20was%20ordered%20to%20leave%20the%20area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predictably, demonstrators continued to violate the permit's
provisions even after it was revoked. ANSWER Coalition's violations--
including assaults on federal officers, destruction of federal
property, and resisting arrest--were serious enough to warrant the USPP
contacting the Committee contemporaneously.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Personal communications with USPP on file with Committee
Staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPS-issued public gathering permit imposes basic but serious
requirements on ANSWER Coalition as the permittee. The permit requires
that ``[t]he area should be left in substantially the same condition as
it was prior to the activities authorized herein.'' More specifically,
the permit makes clear that the ``[p]ermittee will be responsible for
any injury to, loss of, or damage to federal owned or controlled lands,
waters, or resources (natural or cultural resources or facilities)
resulting from [p]ermittee's activities under this permit, 18 USC
Sec. 1361.'' \22\ 18 USC Sec. 1361 provides for punishment in the form
of both fines and imprisonment. Additionally, the permit states that
the permittee, its agents, and its representatives may be held liable
for any costs and damages associated with any injury or damage to NPS
resources under 54 USC Sec. Sec. 100721-100725.\23\ To ensure that
there is no confusion, other permit provisions prohibit ``the
alteration, damage, or removal of park resources or facilities'';
attachment of any items--including signs and banners--to any landscape
elements; and climbing, removing, or injuring any ``statue seat, wall,
fountain, light poles, elevator towers, or other erection or
architectural feature, or any tree, shrub, or landscaping features.''
\24\ The National Park Service, following a recent arrest of a suspect
involved in the protest, estimated the cost to repair and clean the
graffiti alone at over $11,000.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Public
Gathering Permit NCA-NAMA-EVNT24-1278, Issued to ANSWER Coalition on
July 23, 2023, for July 24, 2023, on file with the Committee.
\23\ Id.
\24\ Id.
\25\ See Towson woman allegedly vandalized D.C. property during
Israeli Prime Minister protests, CBS NEWS (Updated September 14, 2024)
https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/towson-woman-allegedly-
vandalized-d-c-property-during-israeli-prime-minister-protests/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee is steadfast in its belief that given ANSWER's misuse
and abuse of the permit it was granted, the organization, its named
officers on the permit,\26\ and any protestors who broke the law must
be held accountable according to the terms of the permit.\27\ The
Committee also has questions regarding NPS' permit-issuing process and
the mechanisms in place to enforce permit terms when violations occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Although the permit was issued to the ANSWER Coalition, the
permit listed specific responsible parties as persons in charge and on-
site contacts. Brian Becker, ANSWER's national coordinator who is also
an organizer for the Party for Socialism and Liberation, is listed as
the person in charge. Layan Fuleihan, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, and Carl
Messineo are listed as on-site contacts.
\27\ See U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Public
Gathering Permit NCA-NAMA-EVNT24-1278, Issued to ANSWER Coalition on
July 23, 2023, for July 24, 2023, on file with the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER COALITION'S PARTNERS AND DUBIOUS ANTI-ISRAEL FUNDING
Before ANSWER's July public gathering permit was approved by NPS,
ANSWER Coalition and the People's Forum began advertising on social
media a ``National Mobilization'' effort to ``Surround the Capitol''
and ``Arrest Netanyahu'' in conjunction with the planned joint session
of Congress.\28\ The People's Forum describes itself as ``a movement
incubator for working class and marginalized communities to build unity
across the historic lines of division at home and abroad.'' \29\
However, this socialist organization has direct ties to the ongoing
antisemitic anti-Isreal campus protests of 2024, and--perhaps more
alarmingly--has received large grants from major charities due to its
status as a 501(c)(3) organization.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See The People's Forum (@PeoplesForumNYC), X (June 26, 2024,
7:10 PM), https://x.com/PeoplesForumNYC/status/1806102026406760901
(asking people to ``Get on the Bus from NYC'').
\29\ About, THE PEOPLE'S FORUM, https://peoplesforum.org/about/
#mission.
\30\ See Joseph Simonson, Anti-Isreal Group Encouraged Columbia
Protestors to Re-Create `The Summer of 2020' Hours Before Students
Stormed a Building, THE WASHINGTON FREE BEACON (May 1, 2024), https://
freebeacon.com/campus/anti-israel-group-encouraged-columbia-protesters-
to-recreate-the-summer-of-2020-hours-before-students-stormed-a-
building/.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Although ANSWER's name was on the NPS permit, the ANSWER
Coalition's activities on July 24, 2024, were part of a broader ``Shut
it Down for Palestine'' movement whose membership roster reads as a
who's who of radical leftist anti-Israel organizations.\31\ At least 17
Shut it Down for Palestine-connected organizations were listed as
partner groups for ANSWER's planned July 24 protests.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See July 24 Arrest Netanyahu! Surround Congress with the
People's Red Line, THE PEOPLE'S FORUM, https://secure.givelively.org/
donate/peoples-forum-inc/july-24-arrest-netanyahu-surround-congress-
with-the-people-s-red-line (linked directly from Shut it Down for
Palestine's ``Donate Here!'' website button, https://
www.shutitdown4palestine.org/about); see also About, SHUT IT DOWN FOR
PALESTINE, https://www.shutitdown4palestine.org/about (listing
Palestinian Youth Movement, National Students for Justice in Palestine,
ANSWER Coalition, The People's Forum, International Peoples' Assembly,
Al-Awda--NY, and Palestinian American Community Center (PACC)--NJ as
founding organizations).
\32\ A poster for ANSWER's event was previously publicly available
and advertised 17 partner organizations, including The People's Forum
and Code Pink. The poster asked viewers to ``endorse'' the July 24
protests through a link to a Shut it Down for Palestine-run website:
shutitdown4palestine.org/july24endorse. A screenshot of the poster is
on file with the Committee. It is also important to note that the
organization Jewish Voice for Peace engaged in an illegal ``sit-in''
demonstration the day before ANSWER's planned protest under the Cannon
House Office Building's Rotunda, during which 200 demonstrators were
arrested. See Ayana , About 200 people protesting Gaza war arrested in
congressional building, police say, KPBS (July 24, 2024), https://
www.kpbs.org/news/national/2024/07/24/about-200-people-protesting-gaza-
war-arrested-in-congressional-building-police-say.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER Coalition and its partner organizations involved in the July
24, 2024, protests have ties to funds that can be traced to Hamas and
Iran. For example, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and American
Muslims for Palestine (AMP) founder Hatem Bazian raised money for
KindHearts, which was investigated and had its assets frozen due to its
coordination with Hamas and Hamas officials.\33\ Furthermore, the
Biden-Harris White House acknowledges that Iran is involved in funding
U.S.-based activist organizations and protests.\34\ These Iran and
Hamas-backed organizations include the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) and AMP,\35\ which partnered with ANSWER to protest on
July 24, 2024.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Id.; see also Press Release, U.S. Dept. of Treasury,
Treasury Freezes Assets of Organization Tied to Hamas (February 19,
2006) https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/js4058.
\34\ Press Briefing, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-
Pierre and National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby (July
25, 2024), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/
2024/07/25/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-
national-security-communications-advisor-john-kirby-7/.
\35\ Lara L. Burns, Fueling Chaos: Tracing the Flow of Tax-Exempt
Dollars to Antisemitism, Testimony before the Committee on Ways and
Means (July 23, 2024), https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2024/07/Burns-Testimony.pdf.
\36\ Poster with ANSWER Coalition's protest partners on file with
the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsurprisingly, Shut it Down for Palestine-affiliated organizations
account for the vast majority of recent anti-Israel protests--including
those vandalizing federal property and disrupting university campuses--
and have ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Hamas.\37\
Concerningly, Neville Roy Singham and his wife, Code Pink founder Jodie
Evans, are heavily involved in the Shut it Down for Palestine
movement.\38\ Mr. Singham and Ms. Evans are well-known for their
efforts to promote radical leftist policies in the United States on
behalf of China.\39\ Mr. Singham's network, which includes CCP-
connected BreakThrough Media, has been the subject of numerous public
and private investigations related to foreign agency.\40\
Interestingly, Mr. Singham also funds the Progress Unity Fund, which
sponsors ANSWER and its activities.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See NETWORK CONTAGION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CONTAGIOUS
DISRUPTION: HOW CCP INFLUENCE AND RADICAL IDEOLOGIES THREATEN CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAMPUSES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES (2024), https://
networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/SID4P-Report_May-2024.pdf.
\38\ Id.
\39\ See Id.
\40\ See NETWORK CONTAGION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CONTAGIOUS
DISRUPTION: HOW CCP INFLUENCE AND RADICAL IDEOLOGIES THREATEN CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAMPUSES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES (2024), https://
networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/SID4P-Report_May-2024.pdf.
\41\ See NETWORK CONTAGION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CONTAGIOUS
DISRUPTION: HOW CCP INFLUENCE AND RADICAL IDEOLOGIES THREATEN CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAMPUSES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES (2024), https://
networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/SID4P-Report_May-2024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE TO THE RIOTS
The riots outside of Union Station were widely condemned. Fewer
than 30 arrests were made related to the Union Station protests.\42\
While these arrest numbers were criticized for being low,\43\ the U.S.
Park Police Labor Committee stresses a lack of manpower on the ground
that day.\44\ Allegedly, only 29 officers were available to control the
protesters.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Peter Hermann et al., Charges dropped against 11 anti-
Netanyahu protesters arrested in D.C., THE WASHINGTON POST (July 26,
2024), https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/07/26/dc-netanyahu-
protests-dropped-charges/; Kaelan Deese, Eight anti-Israel protesters
face federal charges after DC prosecutors drop cases, WASHINGTON
EXAMINER (July 26, 2024), https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/
justice/3101274/eight-anti-israel-protesters-face-federal-charges-dc-
prosecutors-drop-cases/; Kaelan Deese, Anti-Israel protester charged
for damaging federal property during Netanyahu visit, WASHINGTON
EXAMINER (Sept. 13, 2024), https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/
justice/3153697/anti-israel-protester-charged-damaging-federal-
property-netanyahu-visit/.
\43\ See Brianna Herlihy, Park Police union says officers `did
everything they could' during DC anti-Israel riot, FOX News (July 26,
2024), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/park-police-union-says-
officers-did-everything-could-during-dc-anti-israel-riot.
\44\ Id.
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to calls for help from law enforcement--particularly
from USPP--Committee Chairman Westerman took immediate action, calling
on U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Haaland to address
the lack of resources available for law enforcement.\46\ Additionally,
after the protests, Chairman Westerman,\47\ Speaker Mike Johnson, and
additional Members of Congress went to Union Station to visit the site,
remove foreign flags and banners, raise the American flag,\48\ and
witness the damage caused by rioters. The Committee's investigation
into the protests on NPS land and DOI's response to them continue.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See Letter from Rep. Bruce Westerman, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Natural Resources, to Deb Haaland, Secretary, U.S. Dept. of the
Interior (July 24, 2024), https://naturalresources.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/2024.07.24_hnr_ltr_uspp.pdf.
\47\ See H. Comm. on Natural Resources (@NatResources), X (July 24,
2024, 3:53 p.m.), https://x.com/NatResources/status/
1816562453758587380.
\48\ See Lauren Sforza, House Republicans restore US flags burned
in DC protest: `We righted their wrong', THE HILL (July 25, 2024),
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4792204-house-republicans-raise-
flags/.
\49\ See Letter from Rep. Bruce Westerman, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Natural Resources, et al. to Deb Haaland, Secretary, U.S. Dept. of the
Interior and Charles Sams, Director, National Park Service (July 29,
2024), https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
2024.07.29_hnr_haaland_sams_protest_investigation_letter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the aftermath of the protests, USPP and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) launched an investigation to identify and apprehend
the suspects who vandalized federal property and assaulted federal law
enforcement officers.\50\ The FBI is currently offering a reward for
information leading to the identification, arrest, and conviction of
these suspects, and have recently announced the arrest of one suspect
in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C.
(D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office).\51\ Since the July 24 protests, the D.C.
U.S. Attorney's Office has charged at least three individuals who
participated in the riots.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See FED. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, MOST WANTED SEEKING
INFORMATION: DESTRUCTION OF FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ASSAULT OF FEDERAL
OFFICERS (July 24, 2024), https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/
destruction-of-federal-property-and-assault-of-federal-officers.
\51\ Id.
\52\ See United States Attorney's Office, District of Columbia:
Rioter Federally Charged with Damaging U.S. Government Property at
Union Station Following Rally (Sept. 13, 2024) https://www.justice.gov/
usao-dc/pr/rioter-federally-charged-damaging-us-government-property-
union-station-following-rally; United States Attorney's Office,
District of Columbia: Protestor Federally Charged with Damaging U.S.
Government Property at Union Station (Oct. 4, 2024), https://
www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/protestor-federally-charged-damaging-us-
government-property-union-station; United States Attorney's Office,
District of Columbia: Protestor Federally Charged with Assault on
Officers During the July 24 Demonstration in Washington D.C. (Oct. 10,
2024), https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/protestor-federally-charged-
assault-officers-during-july-24-demonstration-washington-dc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. PARK POLICE FUNDING AND RESOURCES
The NPS manages 431 units covering over 85 million acres in all 50
U.S. states and territories.\53\ NPS' fiscal year (FY) 2025 budget
requests $3.58 billion in discretionary funding, an increase of $101.1
million over FY 2024 continuing resolution levels.\54\ This will
support an estimated 19,953 Full-Time Equivalent (FTEs)--an increase of
134 employees.\55\ The USPP officers support the efforts of NPS law
enforcement rangers in parks nationwide, but they primarily ``provide
law enforcement services to designated National Park Service sites in
the metropolitan areas of Washington, D.C., New York City, and San
Francisco.'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See About Us, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, https://www.nps.gov/
aboutus/faqs.htm.
\54\ See U.S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR, Budget Justifications and
Performance Information Fiscal Year 2025 National Park Service (2024),
https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-03/fy2025-508-
nps-greenbook.pdf, at Overview-2.
\55\ Id.
\56\ Id. at ONPS-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds for USPP come from NPS' Operation of the National Park System
(ONPS) account. Several subaccounts support USPP, including USPP
operations, Park Visitor Protection Support Functions, Presidential
Inauguration, and contributions for annuity benefit accounts. For
example, the USPP Operations in Washington, D.C., were funded at
$95,012,000 for FY 2024.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Id. at Overview-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the Committee's inquiries regarding the recent
protest, NPS predictably blamed a lack of funding and resources for its
inability to recruit, retain, and mobilize law enforcement
officers.\58\ However, in addition to ongoing funding, NPS received
$500 million to support hiring new employees through the Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, only $19 million of which the Biden-Harris
administration chose to dedicate specifically to USPP recruitment.\59\
Despite repeatedly blaming funding issues, NPS only onboarded 447
employees and spent $21.4 million out of the $500 million IRA funds as
of May 2024, according to the Department of the Interior's Inspector
General.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ September 10, 2024, response letter from Charles Sams,
Director, National Park Service, on file with the Committee.
\59\ Sean Michael Newhouse, National Park Service's IRA hiring
surge could fail ahead of funding deadline, GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE (Aug.
16, 2024), https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2024/08/national-park-
services-ira-hiring-surge-could-fail-ahead-funding-deadline/398868/.
\60\ See U.S. Dept. of the Interior Office of the Inspector
General, Flash Report: The National Park Service's Inflation Reduction
Act Hiring Efforts and Activities (Aug. 2024), https://www.doioig.gov/
sites/default/files/2021-migration/NPS%20Staffing%20Flash%20Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A table assembled by the Congressional Research Service
demonstrates USPP funding from FY 2018 through FY 2024.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ FY 2018-FY 2023 data are from National Park Service budget
justifications. The final appropriation for each year is shown in the
budget justification for two years later (for example, the FY 2018
final appropriation is shown in the FY 2020 budget justification). The
FY 2024 data, along with data on U.S. Park Police appropriations from
P.L. 117-169, are from CRS communication with the NPS budget office on
September 18, 2024. The FY 2021 appropriation includes non-recurring
funding of $2.4 million for law enforcement, visitor and employee
safety, resource protection, and other activities conducted by the U.S.
Park Police during the Presidential Inauguration. Sections 50221-50224
of P.L. 117-169, commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,
appropriated funding to NPS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
including $250 million collectively for both agencies for land
conservation and resiliency projects (Sec. 50221), $250 million
collectively for both agencies for ecosystem and habitat restoration
(Sec. 50222), $500 million for NPS to hire employees (Sec. 50233), and
$200 million for NPS deferred maintenance (Sec. 50224). In
communication with CRS, the NPS budget office reported that $29 million
has been programmed from the IRA for the U.S. Park Police.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. CONCLUSION
Although all Americans have the right to engage in peaceful
protests, violent demonstrations such as the one on July 24, 2024, have
no place in our nation and must be condemned by action. ANSWER and
other Shut it Down for Palestine-affiliated groups that participated in
the antisemitic July 24, 2024, riots continue to wreak havoc across the
United States through so-called protests. For example, on September 26,
2024, organizations including Code Pink and the People's Forum gathered
to demand Prime Minister Netanyahu's arrest near the United Nations
Headquarters in New York.\62\ This event--according to its organizers--
served to build upon the July 24 riots.\63\ Worse yet, to celebrate the
one-year anniversary of the October 7, 2023, massacre carried out by
Palestinian terrorists in Israel, ANSWER, the People's Forum,
Palestinian Youth Movement, Code Pink and other Shut it Down-linked
groups organized international and nationwide days of action.\64\ Many
of these same groups, including ANSWER, have announced plans to protest
President Donald J. Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025.\65\ These
upcoming protests, like the one on July 24, 2024, are likely to take
place on federal lands in Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See Fueled by Outrage, People Demand Action Against Netanyahu
in NYC, CODEPINK (Sept. 23, 2024), https://www.codepink.org/
nycnetanyahuaddress.
\63\ See Id.
\64\ See, e.g., Oct. 5 Day of Action: One Year of Genocide, One
Year of Resistance, ANSWER COALITION (Sept. 20, 2024), https://
www.answercoalition.org/oct_5_day_of_action_one_year_
of_genocide_one_year_of_resistance; One Year of Genocide, One Year of
Resistance NYC, CODEPINK, https://www.codepink.org/1yearnyc; Nationwide
Days of Action Planned For One Year Anniversary of Genocide in Gaza,
CODEPINK (Oct. 1, 2024), https://www.codepink.org/
oneyeargeneralrelease.
\65\ See National day of action Jan. 20: PROTEST on Inauguration
Day--We Fight Back!, ANSWER COALITION (Nov. 18, 2024), https://
www.answercoalition.org/we-fight-back; We Fight Back--Jan 20, 2025, THE
PEOPLE'S FORUM, https://peoplesforum.org/events/we-fight-back-jan-20-
2025/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propelled by the July 2024 antisemitic riots that desecrated
National Park lands, the Committee continues to investigate ANSWER and
other groups that prop up the Shut it Down for Palestine movement.\66\
Ongoing Congressional oversight is required to ensure that the groups
are held accountable for the permit provisions and laws they violate
under the guise of protesting, and also that the public gathering
permitting processes is adapted to prevent repeat offenders from
continuing to damage federal property and incite violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See Letter from Rep. Bruce Westerman, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Natural Resources, et al. to Brian Becker, National Director, ANSWER
Coalition (Oct. 31, 2024), https://naturalresources.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/2024.10.31_hnr_letter_to_answer_coalition.pdf.
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON DESECRATING OLD
GLORY: INVESTIGATING HOW THE PRO-
HAMAS PROTESTS TURNED NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE LAND INTO A VIOLENT DISGRACE
----------
Tuesday, December 10, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:19 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gosar, Rosendale, Collins,
Westerman; and Stansbury.
Also present: Representatives Carl, D'Esposito, Miller-
Meeks, Stauber, Steil, Van Orden, Williams, and Yakym.
Dr. Gosar. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
``Desecrating Old Glory: Investigating How the Pro-Hamas
Protests Turned National Park Service Land Into a Violent
Disgrace.''
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements are
limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member. I, therefore,
ask unanimous consent that all other Members' statements be
made part of the hearing record if they are submitted in
accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be
allowed to sit and participate in today's hearing: the
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber; the gentleman from
Alabama, Mr. Carl; the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Steil; the
gentlewoman from Iowa, Dr. Miller-Meeks; the gentleman from
Indiana, Mr. Yakym; the gentleman from New York, Mr.
D'Esposito; the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Van Orden; and
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Williams.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize the Full Committee Chairman, Mr. Westerman,
for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ARKANSAS
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, and thank you to
the witnesses for being here today.
When Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a joint address
to Congress in July, violent protesters clashed with law
enforcement less than a mile away at Union Station. The rioters
chanted terrorist slogans and hurled what appeared to be human
feces at U.S. Park Police officers, destroyed government
property, burned American flags and an effigy of Prime Minister
Netanyahu, and raised a Palestinian flag in place of Old Glory
on Federal property. That night, I joined my fellow Republican
members to return Old Glory to its rightful place.
While we observed the vandalized property just a few hours
after the riots finally cleared, the questions on all of our
minds was, how did this happen? After all, DC is no stranger to
protest and free speech demonstrations. But in this case
something went horribly wrong. That is why we are here today to
investigate how pro-Hamas protests turned National Park Service
land into a violent national disgrace.
On July 23, the National Park Service issued a permit for
the ANSWER Coalition to hold a public gathering. ANSWER's own
language on the permit made it very clear that they support
anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli rhetoric. The permit authorized
organizers to gather at locations around the capital, including
Columbus Plaza at Union Station. Protest organizers
intentionally selected this date to coincide with Prime
Minister Netanyahu's joint address to Congress.
Long before the permit was approved, the ANSWER Coalition
advertised their event on social media as an opportunity to
``arrest Netanyahu.'' ANSWER Coalition is not unfamiliar with
public gathering permits and has had a long history with the
National Park Service. These permits list numerous provisions
with clear penalties, including fines and potential jail time
for breaking the rules. Climbing a statue, for example,
violates the permit. However, anyone who watched the news will
see that the organizers of this event violated nearly every one
of the permit's terms and conditions right off the bat.
The Department of the Interior and the National Park
Service also failed to provide critical support for the Park
Police for this event, despite knowing well in advance that
protests were expected.
This was not a one-off event. Shortly after the tragic
events on October 7, 2023, the ANSWER Coalition was one of the
major organizations involved with launching the Shut It Down
for Palestine movement, which has disrupted life on college
campuses and targeted infrastructure in major cities across the
United States over the last year. The group is expected back in
DC on January 20, 2025 to protest the presidential inauguration
in an attempt to disrupt the events of the day.
As our witnesses will testify, many of these organizations
advocate for hateful and radical ideologies throughout America,
and have strong ties to terrorist organizations across the
Middle East, including Hamas. They also have associations with
the Chinese Communist Party.
To be clear, I support every American's right to peacefully
protest and express their beliefs, even when we disagree. But
there are rules that must be followed, and you can't get a
permit that says what the rules are and then blatantly disobey
those rules and expect for there not to be consequences.
It is no secret that our foreign adversaries seek to divide
and disrupt our country, and they are doing so right now
through a vast network of radical advocacy groups that target
and radicalize our youth right here in the United States. Our
Federal lands should never be used as pawns for such an
insidious purpose.
I yield back, Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. I will now turn to my
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Good morning everyone. I would like to thank our
witnesses for coming before the Committee today to examine the
pro-Hamas protests at Union Station, turning National Park
Service land into a violent disgrace.
On July 24, Prime Minister Netanyahu came before this
Congress to share with us a message of hope for Israel and for
the remaining hostages held by Hamas. He called for solidarity
with Israel in the face of evil, a call heard by every member
of that chamber. However, just down the street at Union
Station, violent pro-Hamas protesters sought to disrupt
Netanyahu's address through violence and destruction.
The National Park Service had authorized the ANSWER
Coalition to hold their anti-Israel protests that day, which,
to no one's surprise, turned violent and led the National Park
Service to revoke the permit for the event. The ANSWER
Coalition operates under the Shut It Down for Palestine
movement, which is responsible for major pro-Hamas protests
following the tragic events on October 7. This movement is part
of a larger foreign effort to sow discord and distrust in our
nation, spur anti-American sentiment, influence our politics,
and to radicalize our youth.
I want to take a second to emphasize the severity of this
problem. This sustained effort, backed by some of our most
dangerous adversaries and a steady stream of dark foreign
money, is gaining serious traction with youth on college
campuses across the nation, and particularly on social media.
The Chinese Communist Party has assembled a sophisticated and
powerful network of influence with ties to radical advocacy
organizations in the United States who attempt to influence our
public discourse, disrupt major infrastructure, and espouse
hateful ideologies that divide our nation.
Meanwhile, Hamas and other dangerous terrorist groups
benefit from their close relationships with these organizations
and their ability to spread Hamas' message across the United
States uninhibited. We must put an end to the foreign powers
and terrorist organizations exploiting our First Amendment for
their own gain.
Now, going back to the events of July 24, the question
remains: Why did the National Park Service issue the permit to
the ANSWER Coalition in the first place? This could have been
prevented. The ANSWER Coalition has a known history with the
National Park Service. They have repeatedly demonstrated that
they cannot be trusted to maintain their order and peace on
National Park Service lands in other events.
In November 2023, the ANSWER Coalition held an event at the
Freedom Plaza, where D.C. Metropolitan Police reported property
damage and vandalism at the site. Two weeks after, they
participated in a demonstration outside Union Station, which
disrupted Metro services and led to three arrests for defacing
public property.
On June 8, 2024, the ANSWER Coalition protested outside the
White House, where rioters vandalized Lafayette Square and
assaulted a National Park ranger.
It baffles me that, with the troubling history of disorder
and violence, the National Park Service will still grant the
ANSWER Coalition a public gathering permit for July 24, while
even so much is being asked to pay for these fines from the
previous damages in the first place.
I strongly believe in our right to engage in peaceful
demonstrations. It is a bedrock of our democracy. However, the
events that took place on July 24 were anything but peaceful.
Our flag was torn down and burned, rioters assaulted Federal
officers, and Columbus Plaza was vandalized with anti-American
and pro-Hamas graffiti with phrases such as, ``I commend
Hamas,'' and ``Your community is next.'' The hateful rhetoric
and violence displayed that day have no place in America. None.
Today, I hope to hear from the National Park Service on how
they are working to prevent violence on Federal lands, how the
ANSWER Coalition will be held responsible for the destruction
of that day, and their plans to support the Park Police to
prevent further violation and destruction on Federal
properties. Enough is enough.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Stansbury, for her
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELANIE A. STANSBURY, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
MEXICO
Ms. Stansbury. Good morning, everyone, and thank you to the
Ranking Member and the Ranking Member for your statements this
morning.
I too share in the concern of defacing of public spaces.
Oh, Chairman. I am sorry.
Dr. Gosar. That is all right.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Stansbury. I am so sorry. The Chairman's, the
Chairman's. Pardon me, I am sorry.
I too share in the concern of defacing of our public
property and violence in public spaces, and I want to thank our
witnesses for being here today.
The U.S. Park Police support the Department of the Interior
and National Park Service in maintaining our cherished parks
and ensuring people can enjoy them safely, in part because of
the geographic area they cover. For example, in Washington, DC
they have a unique charge. This is from their vision statement:
``We are guided by the principle of the Constitution, working
to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to safely exercise
their First Amendment rights.''
To carry out this work, the Park Police must balance public
safety on one hand, and protecting Federal property with
safeguarding First Amendment rights. This, of course, can be
challenging at times here in our nation's capital.
The Park Police's preparation for demonstrations involves
planning for crowd control, assessing risks, and coordinating
responses to de-escalate potential violence. When situations
intensify, the Park Police must rely on their training, clear
protocols, and sufficient resources to address dangerous
conditions without infringing on constitutional rights.
I want to take a moment to emphasize that sufficient
resources is key, and I believe in this particular situation.
I am hopeful that today we can have a constructive
conversation about how we can improve these processes, that we
can increase resources for our National Parks and our Park
Police.
But I do worry that there is a bit of performative politics
coming from my colleagues across the aisle. This is a
rescheduled hearing that had been scheduled before the election
and, as was just stated, there is concern that there may be
protests upcoming in the inauguration. This is, of course, very
much a real concern, and we should be performing oversight and
preparing for that, much as we are preparing for both January 6
and January 20 as both an institution and our Federal agencies.
But these concerns should be applied consistently. As we
all know, our national Capitol was attacked on January 6 when
our last presidential transition occurred. And similar to what
we are talking about here today, there was the defacing of
property and violence on the Capitol grounds. I don't think
that I need to remind my colleagues about what went down on
January 6, but I would hope that we would apply a consistent
metric to our concern for Federal property and the safety of
our national law enforcement.
Many of these issues with respect to national parks come
down to resources. I will also note that in many cases the
issues that we are discussing here really come down to whether
or not our Federal agencies have sufficient staffing and
sufficient resources to address the concerns that we are
discussing. This is a budgetary matter. As we have seen time
and time again, there have been proposals to implement severe
funding cuts to the Park Police and Park Service, depriving
officers of training, equipment, and personnel, and a
consistent budget.
I will be interested to see if our new administration,
which plans to create a new government efficiency agency which
is led by outside billionaires and interests, will cut the Park
Police funding even more, leaving our public with even less
protection.
If we truly value public safety, respect for our law
enforcement, and constitutional freedoms, we cannot cherry pick
when and where these principles apply, and I hope that we can
work on a bipartisan basis to come up with real solutions and
reject cynical hearings and commit to giving the Park Police
the tools that they need to protect our Federal property, to
facilitate peaceful protests, and to respond appropriately to
escalating situations while also ensuring that those
individuals who have committed these acts are held accountable
for the exercise of their authority.
And with that I say thank you, and I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman. Maybe accountability
would be a great way to start, that you have to pay for your
problems before you can actually have a say.
I first now would like to introduce the witnesses for the
first panel: the Honorable Mark Greenblatt, Inspector General,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC; and Mr.
Charles Cuvelier, Associate Director, Visitor and Resource
Protection, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC.
Let me remind you that you have 5 minutes to speak. You
will have a green light during that time. At the 1-minute
point, it will turn yellow, and then you will see the red
light, that should kind of wrap it up.
To begin your testimony, make sure you push the ``on''
button so everybody can hear you.
And with that, I recognize Mr. Greenblatt for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK GREENBLATT, INSPECTOR
GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Greenblatt. Chairman Westerman, Chairman Gosar, Ranking
Member Stansbury, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify before you today.
Yesterday, our office published an inspection report
exploring two critical areas facing this hearing: (1) the
National Park Service's First Amendment permitting process; and
(2) how NPS manages the events once the permits are approved.
The report we issued yesterday is one in a series of
reports that shed light on the challenges confronting both the
Park Service and the Park Police related to First Amendment
demonstrations in Washington. Today, I will present three case
studies from our oversight which cover three relevant topics to
our discussion: (1) public safety; (2) damages; and (3) law
enforcement communication and coordination.
First, we have identified important public safety issues
related to prohibited items brought to demonstrations.
Specifically in one permitted rally on the Ellipse, hundreds of
people began arriving hours early before the event, with
prohibited items including backpacks and bags. Once the
attendees realized that bags could not be brought into the
Ellipse area, they began abandoning them in various locations
around the National Mall, lying on the ground and hanging in
trees. Secret Service officers and demonstration volunteers
collected many of the bags and placed them in piles on
Constitution Avenue. Park Police canine officers then swept
some of the bags for explosives.
But here's the problem: The officers said they were unable
to sweep all of the bags because there were so many, and some
of the bags were buried underneath other piles of other bags.
These bags could easily have contained explosives or other
dangerous items, posing a risk to the health and safety of
members of the public, law enforcement personnel, and even the
President of the United States who was in attendance.
We found that the NPS and Park Service police did not have
a process in place to handle the eventuality of abandoned bags.
I am concerned that malicious actors could take advantage of a
situation like that, should it happen again. Therefore, we
identified this issue in our prior report and encourage the
Department to assess and mitigate these safety risks.
Our second case study concerns damages. The issue of
damages poses a real challenge to the National Park Service. On
the one hand, Federal law provides that NPS may seek to recover
damages from event organizers, including First Amendment
demonstrations. In fact, NPS's First Amendment permits
themselves include clear language informing the permit holder
that they may be liable for costs and damages during their
events. Applicable NPS policy even provides that NPS should
inspect the sites both before and after an event to document
any damages to NPS property.
That said, we believe there are gaps related to the
Department's handling of damages during those First Amendment
events. Indeed, we found no evidence that the Park Service has
ever pursued damages from permit holders. We understand that
the Park Service has not established a process for recovering
damages, and does not have a system for tracking damages that
have occurred on those First Amendment events.
To evaluate the scope of the damages from those events, we
had to rely on the recollection of one NPS official. Based on
this one official's recollection and our discussions with
another park superintendent, we identified seven First
Amendment events that resulted in damages to NPS property. NPS
then provided documentation showing that the estimated damages
for those seven events totaled approximately $317,000.
After one of those events the Park Service documented
approximately $213,000 in damages to the Ellipse turf. Our
review found, however, that NPS had not retained the pre-event
photos that documented the condition of the site prior to the
event, and the Park Service did not attempt to recover damages
from the permit holder.
Now, when discussing this issue, I recognize that the
recovery of damages poses a real challenge to NPS, and I
acknowledge the complicated legal and policy implications that
surround this issue. Therefore, while we think NPS can take
steps to improve its handling of damages, I want to emphasize
that we appreciate that there are no easy answers here.
The third case study concerns law enforcement coordination
and communication. This is again by Park Police during First
Amendment events. Coordination and communication among law
enforcement entities are crucial for two reasons: (1) because
they are frequently noisy and chaotic environments; and (2)
because these events involve other law enforcement entities.
In a prior review, we found that poor communication and
coordination among the numerous law enforcement agencies in a
First Amendment event may have contributed to confusion and the
use of tactics that appeared inconsistent with Park Police's
operational plan. For example, we found that the Park Police
and the Secret Service did not share a radio channel to
communicate, that the Park Service Police primarily conveyed
information to assisting law enforcement entities orally, and
that several law enforcement officers could not hear the
incident commander's announcements.
We recommended that Park Police improve its communication
procedures to better manage multi-agency operations and to
promote operational consistency among various law enforcement
organizations, and the Park Police agreed with our
recommendations.
This concludes my testimony, and I hope these case studies
add value to this discussion, and I look forward to answering
your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenblatt follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Mark Lee Greenblatt, Inspector
General, U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me to testify regarding the Office of
Inspector General's work relating to the role of the National Park
Service (NPS) and the United States Park Police (USPP) in permitting,
planning for, and responding to First Amendment activities on Federal
land. As you know, inspectors general have a direct reporting
relationship to Congress. My office and I take this obligation
seriously, and we appreciate your continued support for our fair,
objective, and independent oversight.
Background
DOI OIG's Mission and Operations
The Department of the Interior (DOI) Office of Inspector General's
(OIG) mission is to provide independent oversight to promote
accountability, integrity, economy, efficiency, and effectiveness
within the DOI. The OIG's less than 300 employees oversee the programs
and operations of the DOI, which has more than 70,000 employees, 11
Bureaus, Offices, and a range of diverse programs, including roughly
$10 billion in grants and contracts, $20 billion in natural resource
revenues, Federal trust responsibilities to 574 Federally recognized
Indian Tribes and Alaska Native villages, stewardship of 20 percent of
the Nation's land, and management of lands, subsurface rights, and
offshore areas that produce approximately 17 percent of the Nation's
energy.
Our work can be grouped into two general categories: (1)
investigations on the one hand, and (2) audits, inspections, and
evaluations on the other. Our Office of Investigations investigates
allegations of criminal, civil, and administrative misconduct involving
DOI employees, contractors, grantees, and programs. These
investigations can result in criminal prosecutions, fines, civil
monetary penalties, administrative sanctions, and personnel actions.
Our Office of Audits, Inspections, and Evaluations (AIE) conducts
independent reviews that measure DOI programs and operations against
best practices and objective criteria to determine efficiency and
effectiveness. They also audit contracts, examine financial statements,
and conduct cyber security audits, to name a few examples. AIE's work
results in actionable recommendations to the Department that promote
positive change in the DOI.
National Park Service's First Amendment Permit Process
The mission of the NPS is to ``preserve unimpaired the natural and
cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the
enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.''
NPS manages 429 individual units--commonly referred to as ``parks''--
covering more than 85 million acres in all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and U.S. territories. These units include the National Mall
and Memorial Parks, national historic sites, and national monuments.
We recently completed an inspection of the NPS' First Amendment
permit process, attached as Appendix A to today's testimony. Our
objective was to explore both the permitting process and how NPS
manages the events once permits are approved.
The NPS Permitting Process for Demonstrations
Demonstrations of more than 25 people on NPS park areas in
Washington, DC, require a permit issued by the NPS. Pursuant to NPS
regulations, the National Capital Region's Regional Director (Regional
Director) is authorized to issue permits for demonstrations in NPS park
areas in and around Washington, DC. According to NPS policy, the permit
process is intended to ensure public safety and resource protection and
to avoid conflicts with other permitted activities.
NPS regulations define the term ``demonstration'' to include
``demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or
religious services and all other like forms of conduct that involve the
communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one
or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a
crowd or onlookers.'' \1\ As NPS policy explains, these activities
constitute public expressions of views protected by the First Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution as freedom of speech and freedom of
assembly.\2\ According to NPS' Management Policies 2006 and Reference
Manual Special Park Uses, when permits are issued for First Amendment
activities, there are no fees or costs, and no insurance is required
for the activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 7 .96(g)(1)(i).
\2\ Nat'l Park Serv., Management Policies 2006, Sec. 8.6.3 ``First
Amendment Activities'' (Mgmt. Policies 2006); Nat'l Park. Serv.,
Reference Manual 53: Special Park Uses, Release Number 1, App. 3--First
Amendment Activities, p. A3-1. The First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution provides that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.'' U.S. Const. amend. I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPS' First Amendment permit process begins when an organization
or individual submits an application to conduct a First Amendment
event. According to the NPS National Mall and Memorial Parks Event
Planning Guide,\3\ the application provides NPS with the preliminary
information necessary to begin an assessment of the appropriateness and
feasibility of the activities, design, and timeframe for the proposed
event. Federal regulations \4\ state that applications must be received
by the Division of Permits Management at least 48 hours in advance and
all demonstration applications are deemed granted, subject to all
limitations and restrictions applicable to said park area, unless
denied within 24 hours of receipt.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NPS, National Mall and Memorial Parks, Event Planning Guide,
``Section 2: ``Permitting Process.''
\4\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 7.96(g)(3).
\5\ According to the Chief Division of Permits Management, although
applications may be granted within 24 hours, a permit is not issued
until the applicant provides all necessary documents to NPS.
According to the NPS, once the permit application is received, a
permit specialist is assigned and will oversee the application
throughout the permitting process. Per the Event Planning Guide,
depending on the size, scope, and nature of the proposed event, the
permit specialist will schedule a consultation planning meeting with
the applicant regarding requirements and logistics to ensure proper use
and resource protection. The Event Planning Guide states that the
meeting will generally include a discussion of space availability,
event operation, and remediation of any potential damages to the park.
Depending on the event, the permit specialist can request and require
the applicant to provide documentation to ensure public safety and the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
protection of resources, such as:
A Site Plan that is drawn to scale and clearly displays
all structures the applicant wishes to set up during the
event, such as stages, video screens, food and beverage
tents, first aid tents, security or crowd-control fencing,
and portable toilets.
An Operations Inventory that ensures the site will be set
up, used, and broken down appropriately; if applicable, it
will include requirements related to structures such as
video production and displays, audio and lighting, and
trash and recycling receptacles.
A detailed chronological Event Schedule that contains
information about installation, event operations, and
removal procedures.
A Crowd Management Plan that covers necessary arrangements
for safe and efficient crowd management. This includes
appropriate plans for queuing lines, safety personnel to
manage safe access, safety staff inside the event, and
staff to manage safe egress.
A Security, Communication, Sustainability, and First Aid
Plan must be submitted and coordinated with USPP and
District of Columbia Department of Fire and Emergency
Medical Services.
A Fire and Life Safety Plan \6\ that provides
documentation showing how the permittee plans to comply
with fire and life safety codes and standards, including
fire codes, commercial cooking controls, and standards for
portable fire extinguishers. It must also include an
emergency plan with evacuation procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National Park Service, Interior I--National Capital Region, NCR
Fire and Life Safety Temporary Events Policy.
Per Federal regulation,\7\ NPS can deny a permit in writing on
specified, narrow grounds if:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 7.96(g)(4)(vii).
1. It conflicts with a ``fully executed prior application for the
same time and place'' that ``has been or will be granted''
and ``authoriz[es] activities which do not reasonably
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
permit multiple occupancy of the particular area'';
2. ``It reasonably appears that the proposed demonstration or
special event will present a clear and present danger to
the public safety, good order, or health'';
3. The proposed demonstration ``is of such a nature or duration that
it cannot reasonably be accommodated in the particular area
applied for,'' reasonably considering ``possible damage to
the park''; or
4. ``The application proposes activities contrary to any of the
provisions of this section or other applicable law or
regulation.''
Depending on the size and scope of an event, an NPS event
compliance monitor may be assigned to the event. Per the Event Planning
Guide, the assigned compliance monitor physically attends the event to
ensure the permittee follows the conditions NPS set forth in the
permit. The Chief of the Division of Permits Management told us that
the compliance monitor may document, through photographs, the before
and after conditions of an area by conducting ``pre-event'' and ``post-
event'' walkthroughs to identify any damages to property resulting from
the event. According to the Event Planning Guide, if damages occur
during the event, the permittee is responsible for those damages.
The regulations also state that ``where a permit has been granted,
or is deemed to have been granted,'' the NPS ``may revoke that permit''
under certain circumstances set forth in the regulation, which largely
mirror the bases for denial of a permit in the first instance.\8\
Specifically, the USPP may revoke a permit during the conduct of a
demonstration if continuation of the event presents a clear and present
danger to the public safety, good order or health or for any violation
of applicable law or regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 7.96(g)(3). The regulation states that ``the
Regional Director may revoke'' a permit that has been granted or deemed
granted ``pursuant to paragraph (g)(6)'' of the regulation. Paragraph
(g)(6) states in pertinent part ``[a] permit issued for a demonstration
is revocable only upon a ground for which an application therefor would
be subject to denial under paragraphs (g) (4) or (5).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Amendment Jurisprudence Related to Public Demonstrations
NPS policy regarding demonstrations is informed by the unique
protections afforded to speech under the First Amendment and related
jurisprudence. More specifically, Federal courts have consistently held
that, under the First Amendment, the NPS is required to \9\ Related
jurisprudence has likewise consistently held that public areas in the
seat of the Federal Government in Washington, DC, such as the National
Mall and the Ellipse, possess ``unmistakable symbolic significance''
for the exercise of First Amendment rights.\10\ Activities in these
public spaces receive the strongest First Amendment protections, and
``the government's ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct
[in these areas] is very limited.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., A.N.S.W.E.R. Coal. v. Kempthorne, 537 F. Supp. 2d
183, 194 (D.D.C. 2008) (``In public forums such as the areas within the
Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Park at issue in this case, the
government's ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct is very
limited: the government may enforce reasonable time, place and manner
restrictions as long as the restrictions are content-neutral, are
narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave
open ample alternative channels of communication.'') (internal
citations omitted).
\10\ Id. at 194; see also A.N.S.W.E.R. Coal. v. Basham, 845 F.3d
1199, 1215 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (stating that Freedom Plaza, the White
House sidewalk, and Lafayette Park are ``areas [that] have historic and
symbolic importance'' and quoting Quaker Action IV, in which the
Supreme Court stated, ``[T]he White House sidewalk, Lafayette Park, and
the Ellipse constitute a unique situs for the exercise of First
Amendment rights''); ISKCON of Potomac, Inc. v. Kennedy, 61 F.3d 949,
951-52 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (describing the Mall as ``an area of particular
significance in the life of the Capital and the Nation'' that, among
other uses, ``is the place where men and women from across the country
will gather in the tens of thousands to voice their protests or support
causes of every kind. It is here that the constitutional rights of
speech and peaceful assembly find their fullest expression.'').
\11\ See Price v. Barr, 514 F. Supp. 3d 171, 186 (D.D.C. 2021)
(``In a traditional public forum--parks, streets, sidewalks, and the
like--the government may impose reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions on private speech, but restrictions based on content must
satisfy strict scrutiny, and those based on viewpoint are prohibited.
The same standards apply in designated public forums.'') (internal
citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In keeping with these strong First Amendment protections, it is
under only rare circumstances that a permit can be denied or revoked.
This is because the Supreme Court has held that `` `public places'
historically associated with the free exercise of expressive
activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks,'' are ``public
forums'' where the government's ability ``to limit expressive activity
[is] sharply circumscribed.'' \12\ In these public forums, the
Government's regulation of political speech ``must be subjected to the
most exacting scrutiny,'' whereby the Government must ``show that `the
regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that
it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.' '' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 (1983) (internal citations
omitted); Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Loc. Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S.
37, 45 (1983).
\13\ Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 321 (1988) (internal citations
omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPS' regulations reflect these principles, providing that the
NPS can deny a permit application if ``[i]t reasonably appears that the
proposed demonstration or special event will present a clear and
present danger to the public safety, good order, or health.'' \14\ The
regulations do not define or provide guidance on what constitutes
``clear and present danger'' sufficient to deny a permit. Federal case
law articulating the ``clear and present danger'' standard, however,
states that there must be clear evidence that a ``substantive evil[]''
will follow the speech and that the threat of such evil occurring is
real and imminent.\15\ Nonetheless, as explained in NPS policy, ``the
NPS may reasonably regulate'' First Amendment speech ``to protect park
resources and values, and to protect visitor safety.'' \16\ The policy
allows ``certain aspects'' of demonstrations to be regulated, ``such as
the time when, the place where, and the manner in which the activity is
conducted.'' \17\ The policy also provides, however, ``that it is the
conduct associated with the exercise of these rights that is regulated,
and never the content of the message.'' \18\ Moreover, when the NPS
``allows one group to use an area or facility for expressing views, it
must provide other groups with a similar opportunity, if requested . .
. provided that all permit conditions are met.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 7.96(g)(4)(vii)(B). Additional grounds for the
NPS to deny a permit application, such as if a proposed event (1)
conflicts with another event, (2) is of such a nature or duration that
it cannot be reasonably accommodated in the area applied for, or (3) is
contrary to other applicable laws or regulations. Id.
Sec. 7.96(g)(4)(vii)(A), (C), and (D), were not applicable here.
\15\ Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919); Texas v.
Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 419 (1989).
\16\ Nat'l Park Serv., Director's Order #53: Special Park Uses,
Sec. 9.1 ``First Amendment Activities.''
\17\ Id.
\18\ Id.
\19\ Nat'l Park Serv., Mgmt. Policies 2006, at Sec. 8.6.3 ``First
Amendment Activities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPS' Law Enforcement Components and Their Responsibilities
For public safety and to protect park resources, USPP will provide
law enforcement services during NPS-permitted First Amendment events.
USPP's responsibilities include:
Planning the security needs prior to the event.
Maintaining a continual security presence during the
event.
Evaluating law enforcement activities after the event to
document best practices and lessons learned, as well as
reviewing live footage and other tools after the event to
identify individuals who violated laws during the event.
According to USPP officials, to determine the security needs for
NPS-permitted First Amendment events, officials from the Special Events
Unit and the Intelligence and Counterterrorism Branch attend the
consultation meetings the Division of Permits Management holds with the
permit applicant. USPP officials told us that they fully participate in
the meetings to obtain an understanding of the event, including the
number of anticipated attendees; location; purpose of the event;
planned activities occurring during the event; and information
regarding any known potential threats specific to the event or
counterdemonstrations. USPP also informed us that officials from DC
Metropolitan Police Department, U.S. Secret Service, and U.S. Capitol
Police may also attend the meetings if the planned activities cross
into their jurisdictions.
A Lieutenant of the Special Events Unit told us information is
collected from permit meetings with the applicant, interagency
coordination meetings, and USPP's Intelligence and Counterterrorism
Branch. Using this information, officials from the Special Events Unit
prepare either (1) an Incident Brief for smaller events that are less
complex or where limited information is furnished by the applicant, or
(2) an Incident Action Plan for planning more complex events or where
more information is furnished by the applicant. According to the
Lieutenant, both documents are used to brief assigned officers and
provide guidance and information to commanders and officers in charge
who are managing an event. USPP officials also told us that in
preparing these documents, the Special Events Unit receives relevant
intelligence information from USPP's Intelligence and Counterterrorism
Branch to assist in making security and staffing decisions for an
event.
Prior to the event, the Special Events Unit develops a staffing
plan to provide officers with their specific duties for the event,
including reporting time and location. The Lieutenant of the Special
Events Unit told us that staffing is determined based on the
circumstances of each event, such as the number of people expected to
attend, the location, and the nature of the infrastructure involved.
USPP officials also informed us that depending on the event, USPP
can have a full-force presence, meaning all available law enforcement
personnel must report for duty. For the July 24, 2024 demonstration, an
organization submitted a permit application to demonstrate on
Pennsylvania Avenue between 3rd and 5th Streets, and then march to
Columbus Circle, with expected attendance of 5,000 people. According to
the Lieutenant of the Special Events Unit, USPP had a full-force
presence of 174 officers for the demonstration. On the day of the
demonstration, attendees began to conduct acts of vandalism at Columbus
Circle, including defacing monuments with spray paint. Media reports
incorrectly stated that only 29 officers were at Colombus Circle; USPP
officials informed us that staffing assignments are fluid and that when
the vandalism began, officers stationed at other locations moved to
Columbus Circle. In addition, USPP officials informed us that other
events were occurring on July 24, 2024 that required officers from
USPP, including a funeral and an address to Congress--both of which
were attended by the Prime Minister of Israel.
Public Safety During the Event
According to the Event Planning Guide,\20\ during a First Amendment
event, USPP is responsible for maintaining a continual security
presence. USPP General Order 2301 states that during the event, USPP
employs crowd management techniques, consisting of traffic posts,
patrolling, security fencing plans, and screening for prohibited items.
Also, when providing security for the event, in addition to USPP
officer assignments, USPP can incorporate a number of specialized law
enforcement units such as helicopter operations, horse-mounted patrol,
canine detection, and criminal investigation. An attorney from the
Office of the Solicitor, who has over 20 years' experience with NPS'
First Amendment activities told us that most First Amendment events are
peaceful, and participants are lawful. According to the Lieutenant of
the Special Events Unit, in cases where a few individuals cause civil
unrest during an event, removing those few individuals from the crowd
can resolve the issue. However, the Lieutenant of the Intelligence and
Counterterrorism Branch told us that, in some cases, the crowd may
swarm the officers who are trying to remove these individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Section 1.4.4, ``United States Park Police/Security.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per General Order 2301, if basic crowd control techniques are
insufficient to restore order or there is a risk of injury to officers
and the public, USPP will deploy the Civil Disturbance Unit, which is a
specialized unit consisting of highly trained and equipped personnel
whose mission is to bring a situation under control during violent and
unlawful civil disturbances. According to the Event Planning Guide,\21\
the permittee must follow all USPP instructions, and failure to comply
with USPP guidance and all established permit requirements may result
in the revocation of the permit.\22\ Once a permit is revoked, USPP
will close the park and clear everyone from the area. General Order
2301 states that absent urgent circumstances, the crowd shall be given
warnings and the opportunity to withdraw peacefully and disperse.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id.
\22\ 36 C.F.R. Sec. 7.96(g)(6) authorizes the revocation of a
permit if continuation of the event presents a clear and present danger
to public safety.
\23\ These warnings were not always effective. For example, in our
review of USPP actions at Lafayette Park on June 1, 2020, we found that
although the USPP issued three dispersal warnings to the crowd using a
long-range acoustic device, evidence suggested that not all the
protestors could hear and understand the warnings, and the USPP
warnings also did not inform protestors where to exit or provide a safe
escape route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the Event
Per Special Events Unit officials, after an event, USPP officers
can provide the Special Events Unit feedback and identify best
practices and lessons learned to improve future events. Special Event
Unit Officials told us that after each event, employees and supervisors
may voluntarily fill out an after-action review form or provide event
feedback via email. Any feedback and potential changes are discussed
during weekly USPP meetings and, if appropriate, the suggested changes
identified are implemented. These officials told us that, depending on
the event or upon request, the Special Events Unit can also solicit
feedback by (1) sending standard or tailored questions to all USPP
officers who participated in the event; (2) consolidating responses;
(3) holding one-on-one meetings with USPP officials to clarify
responses and get their feedback and ideas; and (4) evaluating
potential changes based on the responses and one-on-one meetings. For
example, the Special Events Unit officials told us that the Major
Branch Commander for the Icon Protection Branch requested that this
process be used after the July 24, 2024 permitted event that resulted
in vandalism near Columbus Circle.
Challenges Policing First Amendment Events
OIG's work illustrates other challenges that the NPS and USPP often
face when policing First Amendment demonstrations in Washington, DC.
According to the Lieutenant of the Intelligence and
Counterterrorism Branch, after an event that results in civil unrest,
USPP will review live footage, body cameras, U.S. Department of
Transportation cameras, and USPP's own surveillance cameras to identify
individuals who may have engaged in criminal activity.
For example, this official told us that USPP made 10 arrests during
the July 24, 2024 event and later identified another individual through
surveillance footage. Based on a press release \24\ from the United
States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, this individual
was arrested on October 4, 2024, for allegedly spray-painting the
monument near Columbus Circle on July 24, 2024, during an NPS-permitted
First Amendment event. The press release reported that the alleged
criminal activity was captured on video USPP filmed from an observation
post looking down at Columbus Circle, and the same event was captured
on open-source video and photos that were later posted to various
internet platforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Columbia, Press Release,
Protester Federally Charged with Damaging U.S. Government Property at
Union Station (Oct. 4, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2023, the OIG published the results of our review of the actions
of the NPS and USPP in preparing for a demonstration at the Ellipse on
January 6, 2021. Our review focused primarily on the NPS' permitting
process and related activities. We found that the NPS complied with
legal requirements in issuing the permit for the demonstration and
managed the permitting process in accordance with guidance pertaining
to the First Amendment. We also found, however, that the NPS did not
comply with notice requirements regarding prohibited items at the
Ellipse.
Specifically, USPP officers reported that hundreds of people began
arriving hours before the event with bags, backpacks, and other
prohibited items. Once attendees realized that bags could not be
brought into the Ellipse area, they began abandoning them in various
locations on the ground and in trees on the National Mall. U.S. Secret
Service officers and demonstration volunteers collected many of the
bags and placed them into piles on Constitution Avenue, and USPP K-9
officers then swept the bags for explosives. The officers said that
they were unable to sweep all the bags because there were so many, and
some of them were buried under piles of other bags.
The NPS issued its ``public use limitation'' prohibiting the public
from bringing certain items to the demonstration at 10:46 a.m., several
hours after demonstrators had already begun arriving at the Ellipse.
This limitation was issued at the request of the Secret Service in
consultation with the USPP to help ensure public safety during the
demonstration. The NPS, however, did not make its record of
determination or list of prohibited items available to the public prior
to the demonstration, as regulations require. The information did not
appear on entrance way signage, nor did the NPS provide the information
through electronic notification, press releases, social media radio
announcements, or other available means.
In our review of U.S. Park Police actions at Lafayette Park on June
1, 2020,\25\ we found that poor communication and coordination among
the numerous law enforcement agencies involved--including USPP, U.S.
Secret Service, Arlington County Police Department, the MPD, and the
Bureau of Prisons--may have contributed to confusion and use of tactics
that appeared inconsistent with the USPP's operational plan. For
example, we found that the Park Police and the Secret Service did not
use a shared radio channel to communicate, that the USPP primarily
conveyed information orally to assisting law enforcement entities, and
that several law enforcement officers could not clearly hear the
incident commander's dispersal warnings. We recommended that the USPP
improve its field communication procedures to better manage multiagency
operations and to promote operational consistency among law enforcement
organizations working jointly with the USPP. The USPP agreed with our
recommendation and stated that it had adjusted its operational planning
efforts and implemented procedures that ensure the full accountability
of all law enforcement personnel. We consider this recommendation
closed and implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Review of U.S. Park Police Actions at Lafayette Park,
available at https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/
DOI/SpecialReviewUSPPActionsAtLafayetteParkPublic.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Park Police policy provides that, before the USPP acts against
protestors, officers should generally provide people the opportunity to
withdraw and disperse peacefully as well as provide a safe escape
route. In the same review, we found that although the USPP issued three
dispersal warnings to the crowd using a long-range acoustic device
(LRAD) at Lafayette Park on June 1, 2020, evidence suggested that not
all of the protestors could hear and understand the warnings. Other
than using the LRAD, we did not identify any other steps that the USPP
took to ensure that protestors could hear the warnings. The Park Police
warnings also did not inform protestors where to exit or provide a safe
escape route. As a result, we recommended that the USPP develop a more
detailed warning policy defining procedures for operations involving
protests that may require use of force but do not involve high-volume
arrests. Among other considerations, we recommended that the policy
include detailed dispersal warning procedures and how the USPP will
ensure that everyone, including all law enforcement officials and the
individuals they are trying to disperse, can hear dispersal warnings.
The USPP agreed to implement our recommendation, and issued an updated
version of General Order 2301, ``Demonstrations and Special Events,''
in response. We also consider this recommendation closed and
implemented.
In addition to these challenges, we have also identified issues
related to the USPP's radio system and dispatch center in the
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area (WMA). The USPP's radio system and its
dispatch center personnel provide the backbone for the support
infrastructure required to facilitate accurate, real-time communication
and decision making for USPP officers and ensure officer and public
safety. Dispatchers' responsibilities include managing the USPP's radio
communications between USPP law enforcement personnel and with other
Federal, State, and local agencies; deploying and tracking personnel
and equipment; monitoring hundreds of emergency alarms located across
NPS properties in the WMA; and coordinating emergency law enforcement,
medical, and fire assistance for incidents reported by officers and the
public.
In a Management Advisory published in February 2022, we reported
that the condition of the dispatch center's workspace and equipment
undermined its ability to achieve its core public safety mission.\26\
We found holes in the roof that allowed birds to enter and leave
droppings on furniture and equipment, suspected black mold throughout
the workspace, outdated and deficient equipment, longstanding staffing
and training deficiencies, and failure to establish minimum standards
and critical guidance. We made four recommendations to the USPP that we
consider closed and implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Safety Concerns and Other Deficiencies at the U.S. Park
Police's Dispatch Operations Center in the Washington, DC Metropolitan
Area, available at Safety Concerns and Other Deficiencies at the U.S.
Park Police's Dispatch Operations Center in the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area (oversight.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the USPP's radio system in the WMA, Department of
the Interior (DOI) policy requires the USPP to record all radio and
phone communications to help support public safety and law enforcement
needs. These recordings allow dispatchers to instantly play back radio
communications or phone calls in emergency situations, and prosecutors
frequently use the recordings as evidence. In July 2022, we reported on
our review examining whether the USPP has had problems capturing
recordings for its primary dispatch radio channel and its two secondary
radio channels: the ``admin'' channel and the special events channel.
Because the phone lines for the USPP dispatch operations center, like
the USPP's radio communications, are required to be recorded, we also
examined any problems the USPP has had recording its phone lines.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Review of the U.S. Park Police's Communications Recording
System in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area, available at Review of
the U.S. Park Police's Communications Recording System in the
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area (doioig.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We found that, notwithstanding DOI requirements, the USPP failed to
record radio communications from its admin channel from October 2018
through June 2020 and from its special event channel from at least
March 2018 through August 2020. In contrast, we found that the USPP
continuously recorded radio communications from its primary dispatch
channel and dispatch center phone lines from 2018 through August 2020,
when the analog recorder was replaced. We did not find evidence
suggesting that the USPP intentionally failed to record its radio
communications.
At the time of our review, we found that technical problems
prevented the USPP from accessing recordings stored on the USPP's
analog recorder, so the USPP could not meet its records retention
obligations for recordings on that device. USPP installed its digital
recorder in October 2020, and our review found that the digital
recorder regularly recorded all radio and phone communications in the
dispatch center. Still, we found the USPP's digital recorder does not
fully comply with DOI policy because the USPP has not set up the
recorder to instantly play back radio or phone communications, a
critical feature dispatchers need in emergency situations. We also
found that the USPP faces other ongoing challenges with the recorder,
to include monitoring and maintenance, records retention, and IT
approvals. We made five recommendations to the U.S. Park Police. The
USPP has addressed each of our recommendations, and we consider them
closed.
Damage to NPS Property During First Amendment Events
According to the Events Planning Guide, if the NPS identifies
damage caused by the event, the permittee is responsible for all costs
associated with the damage, including damage caused by demonstrations
protected under the First Amendment.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Division of Permits Management does not have a system
in place to track damages that have occurred from First Amendment
events, we asked the Chief of the Division of Permits Management to
provide information about past events during which damage occurred.
According to this official's recollection, and discussions with the
Superintendent of the White House and President's Park, the First
Amendment events listed in Figure 1 resulted in damage to NPS property.
NPS provided documentation showing the total estimated damages of
$317,694 for these events.
Figure 1: Division of Permits Management First Amendment Event Damage
Estimates
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The total estimated damages include $213,185 at the Ellipse
South Quadrant, $13,300 at the Ellipse Green Roadway, and $47,280 at
the National Mall Plant Library. According to the Superintendent of the
White House and President's Park, the estimated damages at the Ellipse
South Quadrant and the Green Roadway may include damages from all three
events at the Ellipse. This is because two events took place prior to
the January 6 demonstration, and NPS did not assess the damages from
those events.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In our prior review of the NPS' actions related to the
demonstration on the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, we found that the NPS
identified over $213,000 in damages to the Ellipse turf caused by the
demonstration. NPS, however, failed to retain pre-event photographs it
took to document condition of the site prior to the demonstration and
thus made the decision not to attempt to recover costs for damages.
Without the photos, the NPS determined it did not have sufficient
evidence to attribute the damages to the demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ According to the Chief of the Division of Permits Management,
the permittee voluntarily paid for these damages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our most recent inspection, we reported that despite being
authorized to recoup damages from First Amendment permittees, we found
no evidence that NPS pursued this course of action. An attorney from
the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor, who has
over 20 years of experience with NPS' First Amendment activities, told
us that NPS has explored the possibility of recouping damages from
First Amendment events over the last 15 years. The attorney stated that
various discussions with colleagues in the U.S. Department of Justice
over that time have caused NPS law enforcement to prioritize
identifying and prosecuting \31\ individuals that caused the damage
rather than pursuing permit organizers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ This allows the Government to potentially seek restitution and
deter future activity.
This concludes my testimony, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
*****
The following document was submitted as an attachment to Mr.
Greenblatt's testimony.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20241210/117646/HHRG-
118-II15-Wstate-GreenblattM-20241210.pdf
------
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mark Greenblatt, Inspector
General, U.S. Department of the Interior
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. Can you describe some of the improvements the Division
of Permits Management is considering for the First Amendment permit
process?
Answer. According to the Chief of the Division of Permits
Management, in response to First Amendment events that resulted in
civil unrest and to improve the permit process, the National Park
Service (NPS) has implemented or is in the process of implementing
policy changes to the permit process. Specifically, the Division of
Permits Management implemented:
A new requirement that applicants must specify on their
permit application the exact date and location of their
event. NPS told us that many applicants do not list a
specific date or location, which results in the permit
staff spending significant time and resources to deconflict
the date and location. According to the updated policy, the
Division of Permits Management's previous practice was to
provide provisional authorization to applicants who
submitted applications with nonspecific dates and
locations. Acceptance of those nonspecific permit
applications resulted in challenges and delays for both the
Division of Permits Management and USPP in managing
permits, events, and demonstrations.
A new requirement that applicants wishing to change the
date of their event must submit a new application rather
than amending their existing application. Previously,
applicants amended their original application, which
presented problems when applicants changed the date just a
few days prior to a scheduled event. This had an adverse
effect on the Division of Permits Management completing a
full review of the documents related to the application.
A requirement that there must be two NPS event compliance
monitors at an event instead of one. A June 2024 permitted
demonstration at Lafayette Park (during which a compliance
monitor was by himself and was assaulted) reinforced the
need for this requirement.
Additionally, the Division of Permits Management:
Is in the process of updating the permit application to
include language that would require the applicants to
certify all the information provided in the permit
application is complete and correct, and the permittee has
not included false or misleading information or statements.
This change occurred as a result of our report on the
Department of the Interior's actions related to January 6,
2021.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Review of the U.S. Department of the Interior's Actions Related
to January 6, 2021 (Report No. 21-0286), issued December 2023,
available at https://www.doioig.gov/reports/special-review/review-us-
department-interiors-actions-related-january-6-2021.
Is updating and solidifying its event guidelines to make
sure that written policies and standard operating
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
procedures are accurate and up to date.
In addition, the Lieutenant of the U.S. Park Police's (USPP)
Special Events Unit informed us that for some events, NPS requires the
permittees to furnish their own volunteers as unarmed marshals to help
with crowd control, including assisting with participants staying on
the designated route during marches. Attorneys from the Office of the
Solicitor told us that due to past issues (e.g., marshals who were not
responsive to USPP or who participated in illegal conduct during the
events), in August 2024, NPS began requiring the permittee to provide
contact information for lead or chief marshals and information showing
the specific geographic areas where those individuals have been
assigned. According to these attorneys, the change will ensure that (1)
marshals are dispersed at specific areas known to NPS permit staff and
USPP; (2) NPS permit staff and USPP have the ability to directly
contact a known person in each area of the event; and (3) permittees
have control over their marshals in each area to give direction,
provide for participant safety, and prevent illegal or damaging
behavior. An attorney from the Office of the Solicitor told us that
such a requirement is intended to compel the permittees to make good
faith efforts to control their own crowds.
Question 2. Do you have any further recommendations for the
National Park Service to improve coordination with law enforcement
throughout the public gathering permitting process?
Answer. We do not have any further recommendations for NPS to
improve coordination with law enforcement throughout the public
gathering permitting process, based on the oversight work we have
completed to date. We will, however, remain attentive to this issue and
make recommendations in the future as appropriate. We are also
available for further discussions on this topic with the Subcommittee.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Greenblatt. I now recognize Mr.
Cuvelier for his 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES CUVELIER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
VISITOR AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Cuvelier. Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today regarding recent protests on Federal
lands in Washington, DC.
Across the nation, the Department of the Interior employs
nearly 3,000 law enforcement officers to protect visitors,
critical national infrastructure, and natural and cultural
resources on Federal and tribal lands. Within the National Park
Service, both law enforcement rangers and the United States
Park Police carry out this vital role.
The U.S. Park Police, established by President George
Washington in 1791, is a premier law enforcement organization
dedicated to providing quality law enforcement to safeguard
lives, protect national treasures and symbols of democracy, and
preserve natural and cultural resources. The Park Police
primarily oversees law enforcement on national park lands in
Washington, DC, New York City, and San Francisco, but also
provides critical support to Federal, tribal, state, and local
partners around the country.
With specialized training in handling events that involve
civil disobedience, the U.S. Park Police works closely with
these interagency partners during every large-scale
demonstration in the Washington, DC area. This year, there have
been several of those events.
The Department is committed to ensuring that citizens are
free to safely exercise their rights of free speech and
assembly, in accordance with the Constitution and the law.
There were no unanswered requests for additional resources or
support for the demonstrations from the U.S. Park Police.
However, in a public protest in June and July, certain
demonstrators did violate the law by committing vandalism,
theft, and assault on Park Police officers. These acts, and all
violence in all forms, particularly against law enforcement
officers, are abhorrent. The Department has and continues to
fully condemn that behavior.
At the same time, we recognize free speech is a fundamental
constitutional right, ensuring that all Americans can express
their beliefs, question authority, and participate in public
discourse without fear of government retaliation. The National
Park Service is charged with facilitating First Amendment
activities to ensure that Americans have the ability to
exercise their First Amendment rights, while providing for
public safety and protection of resources.
The USPP, our Park Police, is actively collaborating with
several other law enforcement agencies and the United States
Attorney's Office in an effort to investigate, identify, and
prosecute those involved in the unlawful events at Columbus
Circle. In coordination with the FBI, a public bulletin was
issued seeking assistance in identifying several individuals.
To date, four arrests have been made. Charges included an
assault on a police officer, damage to government property, and
second degree theft of government property. Three other
individuals are under various stages of investigation, court
review, or prosecution.
The Park Service has been working to implement strategies
and safeguards to minimize future incidents. For example, given
the aggressive actions of individuals at these protests, we are
exploring ways to modify permit conditions to provide that
permittees and applicants who have previously held permits
ensure their participants behave lawfully and inform
participants of prohibited activity. Conversations are ongoing
regarding the appropriate use and deployment of additional
equipment, including anti-scale fencing and other icon-
hardening barriers.
It is important to note that the Department has recently
undertaken specific actions to enhance the trust afforded to
our law enforcement workforce; support the safety, health, and
wellness of officers; and ensure that law enforcement programs
continue to effectively provide for safe, equitable, access to
public lands. At the direction of Secretary Haaland and after a
rigorous research and outreach process, the Department's Law
Enforcement Task Force issued 12 recommendations in a 2023
report. Among these is a commitment to enhance training
opportunities for Park Police personnel and other DOI law
enforcement and permit-monitoring personnel in the Washington,
DC area on issues such as civil disobedience.
Often underlying these efforts is the need for greater
funding. For Fiscal Year 2024, the President's budget requested
an increase of $5.365 million for Park Police capacity needs,
and to support additional recruit classes, and $6.106 million
more to cover the increased cost of paying benefits. In total,
a 9.3 percent increase from Fiscal Year 2023 enacted in
appropriations.
Congress kept overall funding flat for the Park Police in
its Fiscal Year 2024 appropriations. Funding uncertainty is
continuing in Fiscal Year 2025. The Fiscal Year 2025
President's budget request proposed a combined net increase of
$10.16 million for the Park Police to cover the re-baselined
Fiscal Year 2024 and 2025 pay and benefit cost increases,
restore lost capacity, and provide for increased funding for
the upcoming presidential inauguration.
H.R. 8998, the Department of the Interior Environmental and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2025, which passed the
House on July 24, 2024, does not provide additional funding for
any of these Park Police needs. Though the Department welcomes
the $5 million in additional funding for inauguration, which is
included in the current continuing resolution, a portion of
which will fund law enforcement activities.
The Park Service protects some of the most significant and
meaningful icons and symbols of the United States, and we
continue to fulfill this critical mission on behalf of the
American public. Thank you for your interest and support of the
National Park Service and the United States Park Police.
Chairman Gosar, this concludes my testimony. I would be
happy to answer any questions you or other members of the
Subcommittee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cuvelier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles Cuvelier, Associate Director,
Visitor and Resource Protection, National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
regarding recent protests on federal lands in Washington, DC.
Across the Nation, the Department of the Interior employs nearly
3,000 law enforcement officers to protect visitors, critical national
infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources on federal and
Tribal lands. Within the National Park Service (NPS), both law
enforcement rangers and United States Park Police (USPP) carry out this
vital role.
The USPP, established by President George Washington in 1791, is a
premier law enforcement organization, dedicated to providing quality
law enforcement to safeguard lives, protect national treasures and
symbols of democracy, and preserve natural and cultural resources. The
USPP primarily oversees law enforcement on national park lands in
Washington, DC, New York City, and San Francisco, but also provides
critical support to federal, Tribal, state and local partners around
the country.
With specialized training in handling events that involve civil
disobedience, the USPP works closely with these interagency partners
during every large-scale demonstration or event in the Washington, DC
area. This year there have been several of these events. The Department
is committed to ensuring that citizens can safely exercise their rights
of free speech and assembly in accordance with the Constitution and the
law. There were no unanswered requests for additional resources and
support for these demonstrations from the USPP. However, at public
protests in June and July, certain demonstrators did violate the law by
committing vandalism, theft, and assault on USPP officers. These acts
and violence in all forms, particularly against law enforcement
officers, are abhorrent. The Department has condemned and continues to
fully condemn this behavior. At the same time, we recognize free speech
is a fundamental constitutional right, ensuring all Americans can
express their beliefs, question authority, and participate in public
discourse without fear of government retaliation. The National Park
Service is charged with facilitating First Amendment activities to
ensure that Americans have the ability to exercise their First
Amendment rights while providing for public safety and protection of
resources.
The USPP is actively collaborating with several state, local, and
Federal law enforcement agencies as well as the United States
Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, in an effort to
investigate, identify, and prosecute those involved in the unlawful
events at Columbus Circle. In coordination with the Federal Bureau
Investigation, a public bulletin has been issued seeking assistance in
identifying several individuals. To date, four arrests have been made.
Charges include assault on a police officer, damage to government
property, and second-degree theft of government property. Three other
individuals are under various stages of investigation, court review, or
prosecution.
The NPS has been working with the USPP to continue evaluating the
specific circumstances and to implement strategies and safeguards to
minimize future incidents. For example, we are exploring ways to modify
permit conditions to provide that permittees--and applicants who have
previously held permits--ensure their participants behave lawfully and
inform participants of prohibited activity. Also, conversations are
ongoing regarding the appropriate use and deployment of additional
equipment, including anti-scale fencing and other icon-hardening
barriers. The NPS has previously provided technical assistance to
Congress regarding potential supplemental appropriations to cover this
type of protective and icon-hardening equipment. We would be more than
happy to work with Congress to continue this dialogue.
The Department strongly supports our law enforcement personnel. At
the direction of Secretary Haaland, and after a rigorous research and
outreach process, the Department's Law Enforcement Task Force issued 12
recommendations in its 2023 Report (2023 DOI-LETF Report) with a focus
on ways to enhance the trust afforded to our law enforcement workforce,
support the safety, health and wellness of officers, and ensure that
law enforcement programs effectively continue to provide for safe and
equitable access to public lands and the free exercise of fundamental
rights in public spaces. Important among these is the commitment to
enhance training opportunities for USPP personnel and other DOI law
enforcement and permit-monitoring personnel in the Washington, DC, area
on issues such as civil disobedience.
The 2023 DOI-LETF Report identified a number of issues related to
the recruitment and retention of law enforcement workforce that the
Department is currently pursuing, including ensuring that the
Department has adequate staffing to respond to, and discourage,
incidents and enhance the resiliency of the workforce. Often underlying
these efforts is the need for greater funding.
As with other DOI law enforcement programs, staffing levels within
the USPP have declined over 15% over the last decade, as funding
provided through the annual appropriations process has not been
sufficient to meet the program's capacity and fixed cost needs. The
2023 DOI-LETF Report identified that when annual hiring does not keep
pace with attrition, and staffing levels fall, the impacts on the
remaining workforce increase the challenges of officer retention,
leading to a self-reinforcing cycle. The 2023 DOI-LETF Report
additionally found that inadequate staffing is the ``largest single
factor contributing to stress, mental health concerns, feeling unsafe
on the job, and a lack of work-life balance for DOI law enforcement
officers.''
In FY 2024, the President's Budget requested an increase of $5.365
million for USPP capacity needs and to support additional recruit
classes, and $6.106 million more to cover the increased costs of pay
and benefits--in total, a 9.3% increase from FY 2023 enacted
appropriations. Congress, kept overall funding flat for the USPP in its
FY 2024 appropriations further exacerbating USPP's ability to maintain
staffing levels. In order to operate within these budgetary
constraints, the USPP needed to hold vacant previously funded
positions. The only source of these positions is new recruit classes to
fill behind officers that have separated or retired. A recruit class
costs more than $2.5 million, including costs for background
investigations, medical exams, field training, and other support
requirements. Lapsing two recruit classes in FY 2024 allowed the USPP
to save roughly $5 million in discretionary appropriations costs in
order to meet their budget. In addition, other non-salary components of
the USPP's budget are also increasing year-over-year.
This funding uncertainty is continuing in FY 2025. The FY 2025
President's Budget Request proposes a combined net increase of $10.16
million for the USPP to cover the re-baselined FY 2024 and FY 2025 pay
and benefit cost increases, restore lost capacity, and provide for
increased funding for the upcoming Presidential inauguration. H.R.
8998, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2025, which passed the House on July 24, 2024, does
not provide additional funding for any of these USPP needs, though the
Department welcomes the $5 million in funding for the inauguration
included in the current continuing resolution, a portion of which will
fund law enforcement activities. In contrast, S. 4802, reported out by
the Senate Committee on Appropriations on July 25, 2024, provides the
full $2.9 million requested for FY 2025 pay and benefit cost increases,
as well as the full $2.4 million requested for the law enforcement
requirements needed for the upcoming Presidential inauguration. The
Senate bill also provides an increase of $25.6 million across parks and
programs to partially restore the operational capacity lost in FY 2024
due to absorption of the more than $100 million in additional pay,
benefits, and other fixed costs across the NPS, including the USPP.
While Congress has not provided the requested increases in
discretionary appropriations for the USPP, the NPS has utilized other
sources of funding to increase USPP staffing capacity. The NPS
allocated $29 million of Inflation Reduction Act (Section 50223)
funding to the USPP to support the initial hiring and equipping of a
recruit class in FY 2023, and another recruit class in FY 2024, and
will cover the salary of these sworn officers for the next several
years. Without these Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funds, the USPP
would have experienced a further decrease in staffing. With the
addition of the 2 recruit classes supported by IRA funds, there have
been 7.5 recruit classes in this Administration compared with 5 during
the previous Administration. The capacity provided by the IRA will be
temporary unless Congress appropriates an increase to their base
funding.
The USPP also faces challenges with pay disparity in relation to
other federal or state law enforcement entities. The 2023 DOI-LETF
Report found that DOI's compensation packages for law enforcement
officers ``make it difficult to compete with other law enforcement
organizations when recruiting new officers'' and also ``accounts for
some loss of personnel, particularly in urban areas and Tribal
communities.'' Competitive compensation is foundational to the
retention of an effective law enforcement workforce. At the same time,
as discussed above, if the pay scale is increased without additional
funding, law enforcement will face additional limits to its financial
ability to recruit new employees and function operationally.
The USPP pay scale is set by statute, and it is lower than the pay
scale for certain other Federal police officers, such as Secret Service
Uniformed Division officers. When competing for the same applicant
recruits, this pay disparity has a negative impact on USPP recruitment
and hiring. Similarly, the USPP lacks pay parity with its local law
enforcement partners. For example, the starting annual salary for USPP
officers in the San Francisco Field Office is $75,253, while the San
Francisco Police make $103,116 and the Oakland Police make $102,000,
challenging our ability to recruit and retain officers.
Within this challenging financial environment, the NPS has taken a
number of actions with the funding that is available to improve USPP
morale. The NPS Office of Workforce Development has focused on USPP
officer recruitment by attending over 20 events to promote the USPP to
seek quality candidates. The USPP promotes career development within
the organization. In 2023, 24 officers were transferred to specialized
positions and the Master Patrol Officer (MPO) program was reestablished
with nine MPO positions created. These 33 positions include technician
pay. The USPP has used monetary and non-monetary awards to recognize
employees for their exceptional work. Also, the Department has
supported the use of student loan forgiveness and student loan
repayment programs, using performance and achievement-based cash or
time off awards, offering advanced training opportunities, and offering
on-the-job training through detail assignments and temporary
promotions.
The NPS protects some of the most significant and meaningful icons
and symbols of the United States, and we continue to fulfill this
critical mission on behalf of the American public. Thank you for your
interest in and support of the National Park Service and the United
States Park Police.
Chairman Gosar, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Charles Cuvelier, Associate
Director, Visitor and Resource Protection, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior
Mr. Cuvelier did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. Does NPS often have to revoke approved public gathering
permits? How many revocations occurred during 2024?
Question 2. On the text of the public gathering permit for July 24,
it states that the ``organizer refused to provide specific locations
for onsite contacts.'' Generally, why does the National Park Service
require onsite contacts for such an event?
2a) Why did ANSWER Coalition's failure to provide onsite contacts
not result in denial of their permit application?
Question 3. I understand that after a first amendment public
gathering, there is an evaluation of law enforcement activities to
document best practices and lessons learned with the Special Events
Unit. Can you share the lessons learned from the evaluation for the
July 24 event, related to law enforcement?
Question 4. Do you believe that, as of today, there are enough US
Park Police sworn officers to effectively carry out the agency's
mission to protect our public lands, and prevent events such as those
on July 24?
4a) Does the National Park Service have any plans over the next
year to help address the shortage of Park Police officers and secure
National Park lands?
Question 5. Does ANSWER Coalition or any other organizations under
the Shut It Down for Palestine movement have pending, or approved,
permits for public gatherings with the National Park Service?
5a) If so, what date is the public gathering permit application
for, and which group submitted the application
Questions Submitted by Representative D'Esposito
Question 1. If you could make any improvements to the public
gathering permitting process to make it more transparent, and to
further include law enforcement expertise in the process, what would
you do?
Question 2. For what reasons would the National Park Service deny a
public gathering permit to an individual or organization? Please walk
us through what would contribute to such a decision.
Question 3. Without naming specific individuals, has the National
Park Service ever denied an organization or individual a public
gathering permit based on a past history of violence or conduct?
Question 4. The Park Police have repeatedly criticized the lack of
resources provided by the Department, and, as a result, diminishing
morale throughout the ranks.
Question 5. In the Department's estimate, how many sworn Park
Police Officers are needed to effectively carry out its mission? Please
break down your response by the three USPP jurisdictions in the
District, New York City, and San Francisco. And, how did the National
Park Service arrive at these numbers?
Question 6. In any of the last four fiscal years, has the
Department specifically asked Congress for additional appropriations to
address the officer staffing crisis at the Park Police? If so, please
describe those requests. If not, why not?
Question 7. In the last four years has the Department reached out
to Congress at all, in any respect, to request additional resources of
any kind specifically for the Park Police?
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Cuvelier. I am now going to go to
the question period. I am going to recognize the Chairman of
the Full Committee, Mr. Westerman from Arkansas.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Gosar, and thank you again to
the witnesses.
Mr. Greenblatt, if I understood your testimony correctly
and your report that you issued yesterday, there are
regulations in place and permittees technically are responsible
if they create damages, even if the Park Service isn't
currently pursuing those damages.
Mr. Greenblatt. That appears to be correct, yes, that all
the predicate is there in terms of notice and in the regs, yes.
Mr. Westerman. But there is also currently not any kind of
process in place to track damages.
Mr. Greenblatt. That is what we found over the course of
our inspection, yes.
Mr. Westerman. So, let's focus on that area for a minute. I
think everybody would agree that our country uniquely allows
people to gather and to protest. And really, when it is a good
protest, probably nothing says America quite like a good
protest. But I categorize that with ``good protest,'' when
people follow the rules, they don't infringe on other people's
rights, and when they don't destroy public property.
But I think everybody would also agree that, if public
property is destroyed, the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook
for repairing that public property. Are you aware of any other
instances where, if somebody intentionally destroyed public
property on Park Service land, that the Park Service wouldn't
go after them to pay for the damages?
Mr. Greenblatt. My understanding is that in other contexts,
not in First Amendment events, but, say, other events, business
events or weddings, say, if there is damage, that the Park
Service does pursue those. We didn't do an analysis of that,
but that is our understanding, is that First Amendment events
are treated separately.
Mr. Westerman. So, even unintentional damage, like----
Mr. Greenblatt. Correct. That is my understanding.
Mr. Westerman. So, do you think it would be good if the
Park Service put in place some kind of process to track damages
and to actually try to recoup these damages and maybe, if they
have a list of people who have damaged Park Service property,
to at least not allow them to have permits down the road?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, certainly the capturing of the data
related to how many First Amendment permits there are, where
are they, what are the damages that flow from them, I think
that we did not make a formal recommendation in here. But one
of the themes that emerged is that I think there could be a
better effort to get their arms around the scope of the issue,
and then that will help decision-makers both in NPS, in the
Park Police, but also here on the Hill to make those types of
decisions because they will have better data.
That is one of the key things, is that it was a lot of
recollection, as opposed to here is the spreadsheet of the
damage over the last 15 years. So, that is something that we
think always drives better decision-making is keeping track,
certainly.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
Mr. Cuvelier, did anyone at the Park Service have concerns
about granting the permit to ANSWER Coalition, given their
violent history during protest?
And if so, who raised those concerns, and about what?
Mr. Cuvelier. Thank you for the question, sir.
Our pre-event planning, based upon the permit application,
included our interagency partners such as the Secret Service
Uniform Division, the Metropolitan Police Department, fire
department, EMS, our intelligence unit with the U.S. Park
Police, and our special events unit with the Park Police.
We base our issuance of the permit based upon what the
applicant has put forth there. ANSWER Coalition had included
their attorney, as well as other members of the organization in
that early planning period, clarifying what their permit
request was. We initially partially denied it because the
location they had asked for was already permitted for another
event. And consistent with 36 CFR and 7.96, provided the
alternative location of Columbus Circle. We rely upon
intelligence to drive our decision-making. There was no
actionable intelligence related to the permitted event to deny
a permit or otherwise adjudicate it. We were informed by the
ANSWER Coalition that they would provide an adequate number of
marshals to conduct themselves in good order as part of the
permit.
Initially, when the First Amendment demonstration got
underway, there was no violence. It did begin in good order,
sir. But for those reasons in the early planning stages, there
was no reason to deny them a permit.
Mr. Westerman. So, how does National Park Service define
whether a proposed demonstration reasonably appears to present
clear and present danger?
Mr. Cuvelier. We really rely upon 36 CFR 7.96, that
regulatory scheme is based upon case law, in which----
Mr. Westerman. So, is an applicant's history with public
gathering permits relevant to this analysis?
Mr. Cuvelier. We rely upon the applicant submitted at the
time, and if we have actionable direct intelligence of a
contemporaneous nature, then we would act upon that.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The next person we are
going to go to who has a time schedule is the gentleman from
Indiana, Mr. Yakym.
Mr. Yakym. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding time, and
thank you for holding this hearing today.
Like you and other members on this panel, I have several
questions about the events of July 25, when a large group of
radical anti-Israel protesters at Washington, DC's Union
Station, just 400 yards from the U.S. Capitol complex,
vandalized government property with pro-terrorist slogans. They
violently assaulted police officers, and they intimidated
anyone in the vicinity who did not agree with them. They even
pulled down the American flag, burnt it, and replaced it on the
pole with a Palestinian flag.
I was proud to be among a group of members that drove the
short distance down to Union Station that night, and we
surveyed the damage, and we raised the American flag back to
its rightful place.
Mr. Cuvelier, why did the U.S. Park Police only have 29
officers to monitor what was expected to be a 5,000-person
protest?
Mr. Cuvelier. Thank you for the question, sir.
In our planning for the event, it was considered a full
force commitment. We committed 174 officers of the force to
participate in the event, and were assigned various duties and
responsibilities with the permitted activity. A full force
commitment means we ask officers to surrender their days off or
time off.
And I want to commend all of the force who consistently do
this to provide for the number of First Amendment or other
special events that occur within the National Capital Region.
But in fact, we had 174 personnel committed to the event.
Mr. Yakym. So, you had 174 personnel actually on site?
Mr. Cuvelier. They were assigned a number of different
functions within the planning cycle for the entire length and
physical footprint of the----
Mr. Yakym. With the 5,000 people actually on site, how many
officers were on site to protect the nation's capital at Union
Station?
Mr. Cuvelier. Again, sir, we had 174 personnel assigned to
the event. Within the parameters of the permit, geographic
location, the permit incurred a number of streets, sidewalks,
as well as Columbus Circle. Then, in particular, we included
our specialized units such as the Civil Disturbance Unit and
other resources as part of that event.
Mr. Yakym. But where things were actually going wrong on
site at Union Station, how many officers were on site at Union
Station, where our American flag was torn down and burned to
the ground?
Mr. Cuvelier. Sir, I am trying my best to answer your
question. There were 174 for the total event. Some of----
Mr. Yakym. Look, this is a very simple question here.
Mr. Cuvelier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Yakym. I understand there were 174 people in total for
the event. How many people were on site where the American flag
was torn down and burned, and then the Palestinian flag was
subsequently raised? It is very simple.
Mr. Cuvelier. Sure. I will get back with you to the best of
my ability with that particular question.
Mr. Yakym. But how do you not know that answer?
Mr. Cuvelier. I am aware of the number of individuals that
were assigned to the detail, that were in various functions to
ensure public safety of which were at Union Station, including,
again, our specialized units such as the Civil Disobedience
Unit, the command and general staff officers of the Park
Police, all attached to that event.
Mr. Yakym. Inspector General, so Mr. Greenblatt, I know you
have already started looking into this. You have already, it
sounds like, opened an investigation, started to maybe even
publish an additional report. Do you know the answer to that
question, how many officers were actually on site?
Mr. Greenblatt. We don't. We interacted with the Park
Service, and they told us that the number 29 that was reported
was not correct. But I don't know the specific answer.
Mr. Yakym. So, if we know that the number 29 is not
correct, we have to know then how many people were on site to
protect Union Station. Do we not?
Mr. Cuvelier. Sir, again, I am sharing with you there were
174 personnel assigned to the overall First Amendment permitted
event, including perimeter, interior, and the various roles and
functions----
Mr. Yakym. Next question. What fines or punishments were
levied against the ANSWER Coalition organizers for the damage
that they caused?
Mr. Cuvelier. Currently, we have investigations underway
identifying the individuals that were responsible for damages
to property. As I shared earlier in my testimony, four
individuals have been arrested and charged. If during that
criminal proceedings process the Department of Justice can
support restitution, that would be part of the criminal
proceedings.
Mr. Yakym. I am still trying to understand how a permit was
issued to a group that is known to cause problems in the past.
In the remaining time that I have, do we anticipate that this
group or a group under the same people with a different name
would ever be issued a permit to operate again on public land,
given their lack of respect for the American flag?
Mr. Cuvelier. Sir, per 36 CFR 7.96, that is the legal
regulatory scheme for adjudicating permits within 24 hours.
Unless they are denied, they are deemed approved. So, a future
applicant, any applicant, has a deemed approved permit when
they make the application----
Mr. Yakym. Yes, I don't even know what that means.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Montana, Mr. Rosendale, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you very much for holding this important hearing.
In Fiscal Year 2024, the American taxpayers allocated
nearly $7 billion in discretionary and operational funding for
the National Park Service. If Congress expects the public to
support significant investments, it is our responsibility to
ensure that these cherished landmarks and parks are not misused
as platforms for anti-American activities by foreign-aligned
individuals.
While foreign nationals are welcome to visit and appreciate
our parks, they must do so with respect for our country, its
lands, and its people. As a staunch supporter of the First
Amendment and the right to peacefully protest, I emphasize that
this right does not extend to violence or the desecration of
our national symbols or our public property.
Unfortunately, during the recent events, rioters violated
the conditions of their legally-obtained permit. This raises
critical questions about the responses of both the agency that
issued the permit and the local police who appeared to stand by
as one of the capital's most iconic landmarks was desecrated, a
site that serves as the first impression for many visitors who
come to our city.
I would like to know how many dual citizens or non-American
nationals were involved in this protest turned riot, and what
penalties they are facing; have they been deported yet and, if
not, when; and what steps this Committee can take to prevent
such incidents from taking place in the future. Our significant
landmarks must remain protected, clean, and free from the
malicious intent of foreign actors.
Thank you for the witnesses for joining us today, and I
look forward to having your comments.
Mr. Cuvelier, I want to stay on this line of questioning
trying to identify exactly what the process is. I like process.
That way we have some kind of consistency, the consistent
application of law. And recognizing that the great risk of
jeopardizing First Amendment rights, are there clear guidelines
which would give you the ability to deny a permit?
What are the main points? And why weren't they used on the
request from the ANSWER Coalition, an organization with a
history of violent and destructive actions?
Mr. Cuvelier. Thank you for your question, sir.
The criteria for which a permit could be denied is
expressed in 36 CFR 7.96.
Mr. Rosendale. Could you give us just a couple of points,
three points that you look to and say this is what we are
basing this on?
Mr. Cuvelier. Sure. One would be that the location is
already permitted for another event or activity, as I indicated
earlier.
The second would be that there is a clear and present
danger. That extension of that authority goes with the officer
in charge during the event, which is what occurred in this
case. When the clear and present danger occurred about 40
minutes into the permitted event, they then revoked the permit.
So, there is a revocation clause, if you will, within the
permitting process.
Mr. Rosendale. But is there language in there that gives
you the ability by identifying a group that has demonstrated
violence and destruction previously to give you the ability to
deny that permit from the start?
Mr. Cuvelier. There is nothing in the regulation that
indicates prior conduct would be a cause for future permitted
events.
Mr. Rosendale. OK. You noted that four individuals involved
in this protest have been arrested, while three additional
suspects remain under investigation. Why has it taken 6 months
to complete the investigation for the three suspects?
Mr. Cuvelier. Thank you for the question.
We have worked with our partners with the FBI who issued
this public bulletin that provided photographs asking for the
public contributing to help us identify. That is what led to
several of these arrests. We appreciate the public's
participation in providing those tips and leads. We have been
working with the Department of Justice, as well, with regard to
ongoing investigations.
Although the First Amendment permit has ended, the
investigation is ongoing, sir.
Mr. Rosendale. So, regarding the four arrested individuals,
are all four American citizens?
Mr. Cuvelier. I do not have that information in front of
me, sir. I will have to take that back.
Mr. Rosendale. Four people, and you don't have that
information available to you right now?
Mr. Cuvelier. Sir, I just did not bring----
Mr. Rosendale. The first four arrests that were made, you
don't have that. So, we can't determine my next question, which
is were any of the non-citizens unlawfully present in the
United States at the time of their involvement?
Mr. Cuvelier. I do not know the citizen status of those who
were arrested, sir.
Mr. Rosendale. By any chance, Mr. Greenblatt, would you
have that information?
Mr. Greenblatt. No, sir. We were not involved in the
investigation, so, unfortunately, I don't have----
Mr. Rosendale. So, we don't even know right now if any of
the people that were participating in this were non-citizens or
not.
Mr. Chair, I see my time is very nearly expired. I will
yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Montana. The
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Collins. I took too much time off.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was sitting here
trying to make some notes and ask a few things of my Chairman.
Is it Cavalier?
Mr. Cuvelier. It is Cuvelier, sir, thank you.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Cuvelier, does the National Park Service
modify the terms and conditions of public gathering permits
based on the group that is requesting the permit?
Like, for instance, would a group with a history of
violence or destruction of Federal property be subject to
additional terms and conditions to ensure the preservation and
safety of Federal lands?
Mr. Cuvelier. Thank you for the question, sir. Yes. In
fact, since the July events, we are putting as a condition of
permits the need to not only provide the marshals for your
event, but the names of those individuals who would be the lead
so we have a point of contact should that become necessary
during the----
Mr. Collins. So, the marshals are part of the group, right?
They are not part of your people?
Mr. Cuvelier. They are a part of the group. They are non-
law enforcement personnel.
Mr. Collins. So, self law enforcement.
What tools does the National Park Service have to mitigate
violence from radical groups that have no intention of
conducting a peaceful permit?
Mr. Cuvelier. We rely upon the United States Park Police
Intel Unit and our collaborative network of interagency
partners, including the Metropolitan Police Department, the
United States Secret Service. It is dependent a little bit on
the event in terms of who has primary lead, but all those
groups come together to share relevant intelligence
information.
Mr. Collins. Yes, I think, if I remember right, when we got
there that night to put those flags back up, that was Metro
Police that was there. You all weren't around.
Had the ANSWER Coalition been cited for permit violations
with the National Park Service during any of the previous
events?
Mr. Cuvelier. ANSWER Coalition, as an organization, has not
been cited. No, sir.
Mr. Collins. OK. Well, I have down that it was.
Are you all considering changing any of your permit process
at all?
Mr. Cuvelier. With each event, we undergo an after-action
review to figure out if there are better ways we can operate in
the operating environment, as was expressed in the flash report
provided by the IG, whether we can also improve the conditions
of the permit to address some of the things, like as was
described, bag drops that were made at a previous event so that
those event organizers can make it clear to their participants
what is allowable in the event, and then how to reduce the
likelihood of that reoccurring, as an example, sir.
Mr. Collins. All right. So, the Shut it Down for Palestine
event, even though they were hosted by ANSWER Coalition, and I
think many other different groups participated, none of these
groups are held liable for violating the terms of the permit.
So, how do you intend on changing that?
Mr. Cuvelier. We need to work with our partners in the
Solicitor's Office and the Department of Justice if we are
going to seek restitution in any amount. So, we would seek the
advice of agency counsel, as well as DOJ before pursuing some
restitution.
Mr. Collins. But you think they ought to be held liable?
Mr. Cuvelier. If we put forth conditions of a permit and
they are not met, we should do our best to ensure that
conditions are met before or after the fact. Yes, sir.
Mr. Collins. I am not following.
Mr. Cuvelier. If a condition of the permit explicitly
states, for instance, that you need to provide marshals, and
you don't, we need to intervene and address that issue when it
happens. If a condition of a permit relates to being held
accountable for damages, we would again work with our DOJ
partners to see if restitution can be made.
Mr. Collins. All right. Well, let me ask you. If you could
make any improvements to the public gathering permit process to
just make it more transparent, and to further include law
enforcement expertise, what would you do? I mean, change the
marshals, maybe?
Mr. Cuvelier. What we have tried to do is make it clear to
the permittee their obligations and responsibility to notify
their participants in advance, for instance, of what they can
and cannot bring, that they may give us notice of who their
marshal leads are so that they can be contacted in the event
there is a need for them to maintain good order.
It is the primary responsibility of the permittee to be
responsible for their participants.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I will tell you what I think I have learned
here in this short circle of answers is the fact that we rely
on some self-governance out there. The man doesn't even know
how many people were on site from the National Park Police
during this thing. We don't pursue any violators. There is no
process to recoup damages. But in typical bureaucrat fashion,
the answer to all the questions is more money so that we can
hire more people to watch what is going on.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cuvelier, I want to ask a question. In the IRA funds,
there were $500 million to the National Park Service for
staffing. They decided to spend $19 million on police. What did
they do with the other $481 million? What did they prioritize
that money for?
Mr. Cuvelier. Yes, thank you for your question, sir.
Of the IRA funding that you are describing, $29 million was
allocated to the Park Police, which supports the----
Mr. Stauber. $29 million or $19 million?
Mr. Cuvelier. $29 million, sir.
Mr. Stauber. OK. I had $19 million.
Mr. Cuvelier. That is OK, $29 million. That is about 47
officers that were put through basic training and will fund
them through 2030.
Mr. Stauber. OK, thank you.
I just want to make note, Mr. Chair, that the National Park
System superintendent wished to testify today, but his
participation was blocked by the Department of the Interior and
the White House.
As I look at this situation, I have some notes here, but my
colleagues have kind of changed my direction of questioning.
Mr. Cuvelier, if you could do it over, what would you do
different or better so the safety of the people would be
paramount and there was no destruction of U.S. Government
property? What would you have done better?
Mr. Cuvelier. Thank you for the question, sir.
We get about 400 permits a year for First Amendment
activity, another 2,400 for special park uses.
Mr. Stauber. I get that, I just want to know about this
tragedy at Columbus Circle.
Mr. Cuvelier. In our planning process, we will seek to rely
upon the best available contemporaneous intelligence
information which will drive our planning cycle.
Mr. Stauber. Did your intelligence work in this particular
protest?
Mr. Cuvelier. The intelligence we had did not indicate that
there was going to be a violent permitted event.
Mr. Stauber. OK. When it started to get out of hand, were
reinforcements called immediately? And where did they come
from?
Mr. Cuvelier. Thank you for the question, sir.
The Park Police supervisor on duty has the ability to
revoke a permit when the clear and present danger standard is
met. They did that that day. That was about 30 to 40 minutes
into the permitted event. There are requirements----
Mr. Stauber. When you revoke the permit, does it
automatically assume more personnel are going to be there to
stop it?
Mr. Cuvelier. Thank you sir, yes. A couple of things have
to happen. The Park Police needs to allow for an opportunity
for those who want to leave the event to peacefully egress,
right? We don't want to create further chaos on top of what is
already unacceptable behavior.
Mr. Stauber. Did you get additional resources once you
revoked the permit? My question is, did you get immediate
resources, other than the 29 that showed up?
Mr. Cuvelier. The officer on scene utilized the Civil
Disturbance Unit to come in----
Mr. Stauber. Did they show up?
Mr. Cuvelier. Yes, sir. They did.
Mr. Stauber. And in a timely fashion?
Mr. Cuvelier. Yes, sir. They were a part of the incident.
Mr. Stauber. Again, what else would you have done
different?
Mr. Cuvelier. Again, as part of the planning cycle, what we
are going to do is require the permit applicant to be informed
as to what they need to tell their participants to discourage
the bringing of whatever is prohibited for that event.
So, as was described in Mr. Greenblatt's testimony, the
Secret Service event, there is a different threshold for what
you can bring than, say, for instance, a venue that is open to
the public. Making sure that----
Mr. Stauber. Would you say it was a disgrace, what happened
that day to the government property and the American flag being
taken down and burned?
Mr. Cuvelier. Sir, as a member of the National Park Service
who are charged under Congress' direction to protect natural
and cultural resources, we don't like to see the destruction of
any government property.
Mr. Stauber. Was it a disgrace? Was it a disgrace that our
flag was burned and decimated?
Mr. Cuvelier. I think it is important to know that the
burning of the flag was not permitted under the event. It was,
as we have described before, an abhorrent act in which we are
trying to seek the individuals responsible for those actions.
Mr. Stauber. I am very sorry that you can't answer that
question, a very simple question. Was it a disgrace that the
American flag was burned and stomped on? You can't answer that
question. I find it very difficult. I love our flag.
Mr. Cuvelier. I agree with you, sir. I am a 26-year law
enforcement, and I----
Mr. Stauber. And I am 23 years. And for you not to be able
to answer that, sir, it is very disheartening for me. I don't
know what you are trying to protect. Who are you trying to
protect? That is an easy answer.
Mr. Chair, I am disgusted. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for being
disgusted. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Carl, is up next.
Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuvelier, your name has been butchered so far, so I
can't do any worse, right?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carl. OK. As Ranking Member Stansbury pointed out
January 6 and the events on January 6, I was in the middle of
January 6. I know a little bit about January 6, and I was also
on the Floor when we were reviewing video and we decided to go
raise the flags. And I raced back to my office and grabbed
three flags, and away we went. And I will tell you, it was a
sight when we got there. It stunk. I don't know what they were
throwing, but my guess is you all are right. It had burned
stuff, and sprayed all over the statue out there.
But it was a great feeling when we got those three flags
hoisted. And, of course, this old man, standing at the bottom
of one of those flags, and I look, and all these Special Forces
guys were standing around with their back to the flag, ready to
defend it. That is America, that is America as we know it. And
I am sorry you can't say that, and I understand it is a
political position you are in. You have to be careful. But with
that said, it was a proud moment for me as a Congressman.
I understand the chief of the U.S. Park Police, Chief
Taylor, was interested in providing testimony at this hearing,
but an agency decision was made for her not to testify today.
Were you involved, sir? Were you involved in the law
enforcement decision or operation related to this protest?
Did I make that clear? Were you involved in the law
enforcement decision or operations related to this protest?
Mr. Cuvelier. I was not present on scene the day of the
protest. I rely upon those frontline officers, supervisors who
have command responsibility for the other officers in the field
to make the decision, sir.
Mr. Carl. Do you think that the perspectives of the Chief
of Park Police is critical in this conversation today?
Mr. Cuvelier. The Chief of the U.S. Park Police commands
the workforce and delegates her authority to her line officers.
Mr. Carl. Yes, sir, but it is important to hear that
conversation today, correct?
Mr. Cuvelier. Yes, sir. I am here representing the
Department of the Interior on her behalf.
Mr. Carl. OK, so you coordinated with the chief in
preparation for this hearing. And if so, what is Chief Taylor's
message to this Committee?
Mr. Cuvelier. I think we have expressed to the Committee
our efforts to improve the permitting process. We have
expressed to the Committee our interagency efforts which make
this possible. We have expressed to the Committee the staffing
commitments we have made for all permitted events, depending on
scale, and how that represents sometimes a full force
commitment. And we use the available resources we have, and I
think those would be key messages for you, sir.
Mr. Carl. Does the Park Police keep track of groups, these
previous threats to officers, and violence?
Mr. Cuvelier. We consider each permit on its own individual
application. We don't retain records. It is based upon each
applicant as it is submitted, sir.
Mr. Carl. You don't keep records on any of these
individuals that cause problems?
Mr. Cuvelier. Our intelligence gathering must be
contemporaneous with the event. That is that clear and present
danger that was set forth in 36 CFR 7.96. So, we have to have
actionable intelligence commensurate with the permitted event,
and that drives our decision-making.
Mr. Carl. So, by a fluke I bumped into the administrator of
the Capitol police, and I was kidding him about protesters on
the way here, and asked him about them, and he said he knew
most of them by their names. So, I would suggest that these
same people that are being paid and keep reoccurring, we
identify who they are.
On January 6, we went through everybody that came through
the building, whether they were just tourists looking like 99
percent of them or the 1 percent that actually meant harm to
this building or to our property, and they should be held
liable just like these people should be held liable, and we
should know who they are. We have face recognition. We have
technology. We have everything to know who these people are,
and we need a database. We need to start watching who they are
because that is going to be our future if we are not careful,
if we just keep letting it pass.
Does the Park Police provide any type of report or update
to the National Park Service on groups or gatherings that turn
violent?
Mr. Cuvelier. We do not have a regular recurring report. We
do an intelligence brief on a regular recurring cycle based
upon whatever is happening in our Park Service lands.
Mr. Carl. And the intelligence briefing, is that just
within the Park Service?
Mr. Cuvelier. That is a product produced by the
Intelligence Unit of the United States Park Police for force
use.
Mr. Carl. OK. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I return my time.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you to the gentleman from Alabama. The
gentlewoman from Iowa, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Dr. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for allowing me to waive on to this important hearing today,
important to me personally because I am a 24-year military
veteran.
And on that day when I was crossing town and passed the
flagpoles with a non-U.S. flag up there, I asked my staff if
they had a flag so I could replace the flag. I didn't even know
if I could do it, but apparently if violent protest groups can
replace a flag, then I could certainly do it as a Member of
Congress.
In the testimony we have heard today, we have learned that,
unsurprisingly, the ANSWER Coalition is affiliated with
multiple organizations that are part of a well-funded network
with ties to hostile foreign governments and jihadist extremist
groups. The Shut it Down for Palestine Coalition, whose
membership includes the ANSWER Coalition, has orchestrated
frequent protest activity, including blocking roadways,
tunnels, and bridges across the country.
Mr. Greenblatt, I recognize the difficult line that you
walk of protecting American citizens' constitutional rights
while upholding law and order. As a veteran, I may not like the
Supreme Court's ruling that burning and stomping on our flag is
freedom of speech, but nonetheless I uphold their ruling.
However, when people commit crimes in this country, they are
liable to losing certain rights and privileges, depending on
the nature of the crime.
Does a history of illegal activity factor at all into the
United States Park Police's decision to issue a demonstration
permit? And we may already have that answer from Mr. Cuvelier.
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, I believe that is a question for the
Park Service in terms of their regs and policies.
Dr. Miller-Meeks. I understand, Mr. Cuvelier, that you
don't keep records of groups and of activities. So, if you
don't keep any records, then from who is actual intelligence
obtained from?
Mr. Cuvelier. If an individual were convicted of a crime,
there would be a record of that conviction. As far as
organizational records, we do not maintain records on
organizations. We base our permitting process, again, on what
is codified in 7.96 of CFR and the applications permit and the
pre-planning that goes into that application process.
Dr. Miller-Meeks. My apologies. I asked you from who is
actual intelligence obtained from. You have violent groups,
history of violence, history of destruction of property,
history of support from terrorist organizations, known
terrorist organizations, but yet you don't keep records but you
receive intelligence. So, who provides that intelligence for
you so that you can make a rational decision on who to give a
permit to, especially if they have engaged in criminal activity
in the past when trying to exert their First Amendment rights?
Mr. Cuvelier. Thank you for the question, ma'am.
We engage in an interagency planning effort. We draw on
intelligence from all our interagency partners, be they the
Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police Department, Secret
Service, and so that we all have visibility on all our
different activities occurring in our jurisdictions. And that
is one of the primary means in which we gather our
intelligence.
Dr. Miller-Meeks. Then let me ask this question. If you
don't keep records, and if those records from previous events
are not kept in order to make a decision on granting a current
permit, then is it necessary for Congress to issue to you the
authority and guidance to (1) keep records and (2) to deny
permits to individuals who have a history of destruction of
Federal property, of violent activity, of non-peaceful protest?
Do we need congressional remediation to address this gap in
your ability to grant permits?
Mr. Cuvelier. If this Committee or Subcommittee were to
take congressional action and seek our assistance for technical
assistance, we would provide that. The 36 CFR 7.96 is largely
structured based upon case law. And if there are other needs to
review that or address that through congressional action, we
would do so.
Dr. Miller-Meeks. And perhaps if the Chief of the Park
Police were here today, we might have a real answer to that
question.
Thank you so much for allowing me to waive on. I yield
back, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman from Iowa. The
gentleman: rock, paper, scissors, from Wisconsin, is now
recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Chairman, thank you for waiving on this
Committee.
Mr. Cuvelier, my first question for you is, do you have a
pencil or a pen? OK. Write this down, please. It is https://
www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organization/.
So, you are telling me that you can't deny permits? Could
you deny a permit for ISIS? Could you deny a permit from Al
Shabab, from al Qaeda, from the Haqqani Network, from
Hezbollah? Yes? Anybody.
Mr. Cuvelier. To my knowledge, we have never had an
application for a permit for those organizations.
Mr. Van Orden. Wait, you just told me you couldn't deny it,
even if you had one.
OK, so that is a list. It is really super-duper long. Yes,
keep scrolling. Those are the lists of the designated terrorist
organizations by the State Department, sir. And you have a
bunch of people you are saying that you can't deny a permit.
So, you are telling me, a Member of Congress who has fought
for this country my entire adult life, multiple combat tours,
all that stuff, about 50 of my friends killed in training and
combat since 9/11, tragically, that you would not deny a
permit, or you are incapable of denying a permit for the groups
that are responsible for killing tens of thousands of American
citizens and hundreds of thousands of our allies around the
world. Is that right?
Mr. Cuvelier. No, sir, that is not what I am saying. I am
just careful about engaging in hypotheticals that haven't
happened.
Mr. Van Orden. Don't check me out dude. A bunch of
terrorist supporters didn't hypothetically tear down the
American flag and fly a Palestinian flag on your property. So,
don't come here with that little trite thing about
hypotheticals, pal. That happened. And me and some of my
buddies went down there and flew those American flags again,
and you did it. That is pathetic.
Are you familiar with the concept of predictive analytics?
You are probably not. It is a branch of advanced analytics that
makes predictions about future outcomes using historical data
combined with statistical modeling, data mining techniques, and
machine learning. OK. I am going to give this to you so that
the next time someone applies for a permit on your property,
you could use this concept to understand that you are probably
going to have people that are destroying government property.
This is just absurd. We stand for something. You allegedly
stand for something because your conduct and the conduct of
your Department is displaying something that you say is
inappropriate, right? Is it appropriate to destroy government
property or not? Is it unlawful activity? Is it a First
Amendment right to destroy government property, yes or no?
Mr. Cuvelier. As I stated before, we are working in our
investigations to hold individuals accountable for the criminal
acts which occurred.
Mr. Van Orden. OK. You can tell that I am not a member of
this Committee, because I was speaking into the wrong
microphone.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cuvelier. I can hear you. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Orden. I know you can hear me, pal. I don't need a
microphone. And I didn't need one that night when we went down
and said the Pledge of Allegiance after we re-flew those
American flags.
So, here is what I want you to do. I want you to read that
website. I want you to write down those lists of terrorist
organizations that are acknowledged by our government. I want
you to exercise predictive analytics in the future, because
what you are doing is a disservice to the United States of
America, and it disgraces that uniform you are wearing. And I
wore one for 26 years myself. Is that clear, sir?
Mr. Cuvelier. I understand what you are sharing, sir. Thank
you.
Mr. Van Orden. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. The
gentleman from Minnesota is acknowledged.
Mr. Stauber. Yes, Mr. Chair, in my testimony I questioned
Mr. Cuvelier about the IRA money, and there was a discrepancy.
I said $19 million; you said $29 million.
I want to enter into the record the Government Executive
report that says it was actually $19 million that the Park
Service got to hire police officers, Park Service officers in
New York City, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. And I yield
back.
Dr. Gosar. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
National Park Service's IRA hiring surge could fail ahead of funding
deadline
While the legislation gave hundreds of millions to NPS for hiring, it
didn't grant new hiring flexibilities, which the Interior Department
inspector general reports is hampering progress.
Government Executive, August 16, 2024 by Sean Michael Newhouse
https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2024/08/national-park-services-ira-
hiring-surge-could-fail-ahead-funding-deadline/398868/
*****
There's a possibility that the National Park Service won't be able to
spend the $500 million it received as part of the 2022 Inflation
Reduction Act to bolster hiring before the funding expires in fiscal
2030.
``Given the challenges NPS faces with hiring and filling a large number
of positions, there is a potential risk that NPS may not fully execute
its hiring plans on time before funds expire,'' the Office of the
Inspector General for the Interior Department wrote in a flash report
published Thursday.
NPS is planning on using the IRA funding to hire 1,418 employees,
including information technology specialists, maintenance workers and
park rangers. Approximately half of the positions are term
appointments, meaning the employment period is between one to four
years.
However a NPS budget analyst told investigators that a lack of hiring
flexibilities is slowing things down. The federal government sometimes
uses such flexibilities to exempt certain processes and speed up
recruitment. It's one method federal agencies have used since 2023 to
bring on hundreds of AI experts. But without those flexibilities, NPS
said it can take several months to a year to onboard new employees.
NPS also has previously expressed that a shortage of housing for
prospective employees hinders recruitment.
The OIG reported that, as of May 31, NPS has spent about $21 million of
the money and has onboarded 447 employees.
``We appreciate the IG's review and affirmation that NPS has
established effective and accountable business systems to track these
funds provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, and that while NPS faces
challenges in recruitment we are hiring as fast as possible within
existing authorities,'' an NPS spokesperson said in a statement.
While the number of visitors to national parks has increased, the
number of full-time employees has decreased. Between fiscal 2011 and
2022, NPS reported that the total number of its workers went down by
approximately 15%.
Of the $500 million provided to NPS in the IRA:
$29 million is for a director's priority fund to address
emerging issues, such as staffing for new parks.
$19 million is to hire U.S. Park Police officers in New
York City, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
$11 million is to establish a Human Resources team to
support IRA-enabled hiring.
The remaining $441 million is allocated among the parks,
with more money going to larger parks like Yellowstone in
Wyoming and Grand Canyon in Arizona.
______
Dr. Gosar. The gentlewoman from New Mexico, Ms. Stansbury,
is recognized for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to get
this right from the very beginning.
Mr. Associate Director, can you please help us with the
pronunciation of your name?
Mr. Cuvelier. So, if you remember the car, the Cavalier, I
am a Cuvelier.
Ms. Stansbury. Cuvelier? All right, we got it. OK, Mr.
Cuvelier, first and foremost, let me just say thank you for
your service to this country. Thank you as a member of law
enforcement, thank you to the 3,000 Park Police who are law
enforcement and dutifully show up every single day in their
uniforms and serve this country. These are dangerous jobs.
These are important jobs. And we do thank you for your service.
And I do want to apologize, as you have appeared in front
of this Committee, for comments that have appeared to be
disrespectful to you or to any of the law enforcement that
serve our great nation. I know that my colleagues, especially
those across the aisle who have also served as law enforcement,
whether it was national or local, and in the military know how
important your service is. But sometimes the political arena in
which we operate can lead people to be disrespectful in their
tone and their words, so I apologize for that.
I want to take a moment to talk a little bit more about the
process of how national parks approach these applications, what
happened on the actual day, and get clarification about the
incident and its aftermath, and how the Park Service, alongside
the lawyers for the Federal Government, is pursuing justice.
So, as the National Park Service received the application
for this particular protest, was there anything to your
knowledge that raised concerns about how the protests would
proceed and that there might be some act of violence or
desecration?
Mr. Cuvelier. Based upon the permit application that was
filed, no, there was not.
As part of the pre-planning, again, we engaged with all our
interagency partners to understand what they know, what they
have as contemporaneous intelligence information. We also
engaged the permit, in this case ANSWER Coalition, seeking
clarification on what their intentions are, where, and again,
as occurred in this case, the first choice of location was
already taken, providing an alternative location. So, we do
that as part of the planning cycle.
I think the IG pointed out very clearly our planning cycle
is largely driven or compressed by when the application is
received. Sometimes we have plenty of notice, sometimes we
simply just have days.
Ms. Stansbury. And there have been a number of protests not
just this last year but over the last several years on our
National Parks property. This is one of the challenges, of
course, of being in our nation's capital and being a free
nation where we allow free speech.
And I really appreciate the IG's report, which was released
this week, which enumerates the various protests that happened
on parks land this summer. And I want to note something very
important on page 9 of the IG report, which is that there are
at least five incidents that are noted here that caused
significant damage to national parks or Federal property. And
the incident that is being discussed here today, the IG found
that the damage to the property was on the order of about
$11,000 to Federal property. That is inexcusable, of course,
and it sounds like we are going to get to the bottom of how
that is being prosecuted.
But I want to point out here that the IG found that January
6, the attack on this Capitol, caused more than a quarter
million dollars in damages just to parks property, and that
doesn't even account for the damages that happened overall to
this building. In fact, there was $2.7 billion in estimated
damages and seven deaths, according to Congress' own
investigatory body, the GAO.
Certainly, we are a nation that protects free speech. But
if we are going to talk about and apply policy and make sure
that our agencies and our Federal law enforcement are able to
respond to these incidents, we need to be honest about the
conversation here and what we are trying to do.
In this particular incident, tell us what justice is being
pursued and how those who have been found to be culpable, what
that process will look like.
Mr. Cuvelier. Yes. Thank you for your question.
We used, again, our partners with the FBI to create a
bulletin. The FBI has assisted us in identifying open source
video and other kinds of imagery, the public's tips and leads
have all led to the arrest of at least four individuals, as I
shared earlier, the investigation regarding three others. They
have been charged for damage to government property and assault
on officers. Through that criminal process they will adjudicate
either innocence or guilt. And as we work with DOJ, if there is
an opportunity for restitution we will engage in that
conversation, as well.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you very much. So, there is a justice
process, so the comments this morning that have been made that
there is no justice being pursued are just factually untrue.
And I think that IG report is very illuminating. These are
challenges that actually, as members on this panel, we do need
to address and make sure that there is consistent policy and
consistent resourcing for our Federal agencies.
And I thank you for coming today and for your service.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico. The
gentleman from New York is now recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
Chairman Gosar for allowing me to be present here today. And
Chairman Westerman, thank you for allowing me to be read in.
I want to add a different angle on the events of July 24,
and have them entered into the record, because I think they are
material. As the prime minister of Israel spoke and we were on
the House Floor is, of course, when these tragic events and a
stain on our Capitol were taking place. And as we participated
in the event of hosting Prime Minister of Israel, we were
unaware, Members of Congress, of what was unfolding just a few
blocks away.
But when I returned to my congressional office and turned
on the TV, I saw the shocking images of your officers being
assaulted. I saw the shocking images of our flags, the three
American flags, being hauled down and burned. Much has been
said about First Amendment rights, and it is true you have a
right to burn the American flag if it is your own flag. You
don't have the right to tear down government property and burn
it. That is vandalism, and that was a riot.
Like many other Americans, I was appalled by what I saw on
the television that day, and immediately my mind went to work
because this is just blocks away from the heart of our
democracy. What is it that we can do to make this right?
I drove home that afternoon after the prime minister's
speech to have a short dinner with my wife in our little
apartment. And as I left there, I told her, ``Honey, I am going
to make this right,'' that, ``We are going to restore those
flags.'' It is a short distance from our apartment. We had a
late night series of votes that evening, and I purposefully
drove by Union Station to see if the Palestinian flags had been
removed, to see if the American flags had been restored, and
the American flags had not.
I am a nuclear submarine officer, a nuclear submarine
veteran, so we tend to be very meticulous. I looked up pictures
to make sure that the flags flew 24/7, and in fact, they did.
They are illuminated, and they are meant to be there on all
three flagpoles, flying. But the flagpoles were bare that
night, right about 8:30 at night. We were called back for a
late night series of votes.
I had about 45 minutes on the floor of the House of
Representatives to recruit fellow Members of Congress to come
with me to restore those flags. I am very honored to be joined
by Congressman Mike Collins, who was one of the eight who
joined me that evening. I am not going to lie to you. I was
looking for veterans and rednecks. I am not going to tell you
which one Representative Collins represents.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Williams. But I will say that I assembled about eight
other Members of Congress to come with me. Four of them were
Navy SEALs. I can pretty confidently say this is the only time
that a submariner has led Navy SEALs into combat, something I
love mentioning to them at every opportunity.
And just as I was walking off the House Floor, I ran into
Speaker Johnson and I said, ``Mr. Speaker, here is a picture of
the flagpoles that are bare right at the heart of our
democracy. Would you join us in making this right?''
I called one of my staff members, asked him to find three
flags. Congressman Morgan Luttrell had done the same. So, we
arrived there with six flags, eight Members of Congress, and we
actually ran in, sir, to your colleagues and to the
Metropolitan Police. We didn't know how we would be greeted.
And I want to tell you, your staff and your officers were so
welcoming and so excited that the leaders of the country had
come to make this right.
We raised those three flags, the three American flags that
night. It wasn't in front of 20 camera crews, there were no
other staff members other than one on my staff, just the eight
of us that had walked over to make this happen. And with the
assistance of Metropolitan Police and the Park Police, so thank
you.
After that, Congressman Van Orden, who I understand was
just here, another member of this party, said, ``Brandon, you
led us here. Why don't you lead us in the Pledge of
Allegiance?'' And we lined up and we recited the Pledge of
Allegiance. Even as a Navy veteran, it has never meant more to
me than it meant on that night of July 24.
What is important, I think, about this event is that
standing up to all forms of riot, not just because of whatever
political persuasion they are, but standing up to all of it is
significant and meaningful, and there are many who failed to
speak out against this riot. But there were eight of us that
went and made it right. And I will tell you why that is
important, and I will close with this comment.
In every community in America, we are looking for leaders
to stand up and make things right, including the gentleman, the
Marine, on the New York City subway, Mr. Penny, who has just
been acquitted of a crime for which he never should have been
tried because he stood up to make things right. And as you see
other people in your community making things right, it gives
others courage. And if you see the leaders of this nation stand
up and make things right, it will give others courage to do the
same.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity
to enter the aftermath of this into the record, and I am proud
to be joined by other members of this Committee that stood with
me that day. And I yield back, sir. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. I will now go to me. I will be the last one. I
am always about trying to reform something. One of the things I
want to ask you, Mr. Greenblatt, would it be helpful if you had
any non-government agency that actually takes any penny from
the Federal Government, that they would have to disclose where
all their money comes from? Would that help?
Mr. Greenblatt. If they would have to put up, I didn't----
Dr. Gosar. Well, yes, I just want to know if they took
Federal money, one penny of it, if it was direct or through
indirectly through a pass-through, they would actually have to
acknowledge where they got all their money from. Would that
help for transparency?
Mr. Greenblatt. That could.
Dr. Gosar. OK.
Mr. Greenblatt. You know, I haven't done the analysis on
that, but theoretically that could.
Dr. Gosar. OK. In Article I, section 9, it basically says
that Congress has the duty to oversee Federal judges and
prosecutors. In your opinion, would it be great to actually be
able to call them in and say, ``What did you do for the First
Amendment? What did you do for the Second Amendment? Third
Amendment?'' There has to be some accountability. There are
checks and balances based throughout our whole republic. Would
that help?
Mr. Greenblatt. Theoretically, sure, yes.
Dr. Gosar. Now, let me ask you another question. Do you
know of a marriage venue that doesn't charge for a deposit on a
venue?
Mr. Greenblatt. No. I would love to know which ones don't.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, I would like to find that.
Mr. Greenblatt. But yes, I think they all do.
Dr. Gosar. Well, wouldn't it be interesting that, if you
had this bond, and I know the gentleman has already talked
about a bond or a levy, that you actually had to put personal
names down. And maybe you have to. But isn't there a way to
hold those individuals accountable, based upon that bond?
Because you are forced to prove that you didn't leave it in
disarray, and it gives personal accountability to whose name is
on the list, regardless of who it is, right?
Mr. Greenblatt. Sure. I think the issue here is the barrier
to entry, the barrier to obtaining a permit, given the First
Amendment protections, which are so strong, particularly in
these spaces, that it makes having that bond or insurance a
difficult proposition.
Is there a possibility of threading that needle between the
massive First Amendment protections out there and the NPS's
requirements to protect our national and cultural heritage?
That is a possibility.
I think Mr. Cuvelier referred to engaging with DOJ and
engaging with the Solicitor's Office in the Department to see
whether there is a way to thread that needle. But that is a
difficult prospect.
I think it works in theory, that that is what you would do
in a marriage venue, say. And they do that, by the way, in
weddings on National Park property. But with the First
Amendment, I think the thumb is on the scale to approve permits
with no barriers, as opposed to something like a bond or
insurance. That is the difficulty, I think, that the Park
Service is facing.
Dr. Gosar. So, transparency would also lead us to believe
that, if you had a problem child, let's say, you put him in
time out.
Even though the prospects of the First Amendment is so
powerful, if you don't pay up you are violating your tenets of
any agreement. So, any person that has a bond, like say a jail
for a jail aspect, they could say First Amendment, and they
could get by and get a change of venue.
But I think there is a way to do this in a way that says,
listen, you violated this, your name is on the thing, you lose
this bond. And until you pay that, and I think you ought to
require it beforehand instead of aftermath, that you can make
those changes accordingly and say, listen, I would love to give
you First Amendment, but you haven't paid this up.
Mr. Greenblatt. I think the other issue that they are
facing is the bifurcation between holding the permit holder
responsible and the individuals who caused the damage
responsible, and I think the question is whether there is the
ability to tie the damage to the entity, as opposed to the
individuals. And I think that is the difficulty that the Park
Service is facing, is do you hold the permit holder responsible
even, say, if it is not their personnel, if you will, or not at
their instruction.
Dr. Gosar. I got you, but Mr. Van Orden also talked to you
about, you have a list of these bad actors.
Mr. Greenblatt. Sure.
Dr. Gosar. And it would be a simple test. Are you a part of
these bad actors? Do you have an X behind your name? You filed
for this bond, and you didn't do anything, and you have a
problem there. I think there is a way to thread that, don't you
think?
Mr. Greenblatt. I am happy to engage in the discussion and
help, but I don't know. I am going to be very frank with you. I
don't know. That is something for the Solicitor, for the
Department of Justice, and for the National Park Service to
figure out in concert with the decision makers here on the
Hill.
It is a hard line to walk. This is what I said in my
opening statement. I don't know that there is an easy answer
there because of those First Amendment protections. I am not
saying no, and I am happy to engage in the dialog. I just think
it is very difficult, given the sheer strength of those First
Amendment, you know, it would have to survive strict scrutiny
in court, and that is the key question.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, OK. That is why I alluded to the Federal
judges and prosecutors for evaluation.
OK, well, I think that solves our first panel. We are going
to take a short break and our second panel will be seated.
Thank you very much, gentleman. Thank you, I appreciate it.
[Recess.]
Dr. Gosar. Welcome back, everybody. I will now introduce
the next panel.
Mr. Kenneth Spencer, Chairman, United States Park Police,
Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC; Mr. Alex Goldenberg,
Director of Intelligence, Network Contagion Research Institute,
Mount Pleasant, South Carolina; and Mr. Scott Walter,
President, Capital Research Center, Washington, DC.
Let me remind you how our system works. Most of you
understand there is a 5-minute limit when you are testifying.
For the first 4 minutes this is green, then we will go to the
yellow. It tells you to kind of start wrapping it up. And if
you see the red, really make it short and cut off, because we
want to get to all the questions.
Make sure that your microphone is on and that you have the
right one on for you. And it is pretty easy for you down there.
Up here it is a little bit of a mess.
I will introduce Mr. Spencer for your 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH SPENCER, CHAIRMAN, UNITED
STATES PARK POLICE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Spencer. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Gosar,
Ranking Member Stansbury, and members of the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations. My name is Kenneth Spencer. My
testimony this morning is delivered in my capacity as the
Chairman of the United States Park Police, Fraternal Order of
Police.
Our organization represents the interests of approximately
350 sworn law enforcement officers in the United States Park
Police. I am honored to be here today and very thankful for
this opportunity to share officer views on and lessons learned
from the dangerous and destructive protests in and around
Columbus Circle on July 24, 2024.
On average, U.S. Park Police officers protect 160,000 daily
visitors to our parks, patrol a geographic area of 30,000 acres
over three urban metropolitan regions and more than 75 miles of
highway. Notably, we are, or at least once were, the world's
leading law enforcement agency when it comes to supporting
large-scale special events and other First Amendment
activities.
Importantly, our agency's mission includes icon protection.
Our officers proudly protect the Statue of Liberty, the
Presidio in San Francisco, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln
Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, and many others, including
the Christopher Columbus Memorial Fountain in Columbus Circle.
We also patrol many Federal highways, including the busy
commuter routes leading into and out of Washington, DC from
Maryland and Virginia.
As members of this Subcommittee are aware, the ANSWER
Coalition protests intentionally overlapped the visit of
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On July 24, the
United States Secret Service requested the U.S. Park Police to
provide tactical and civil disturbance assets in Glover-
Archbold Park while Prime Minister Netanyahu attended Senator
Lieberman's memorial service at an adjacent location.
Moreover, the U.S. Park Police provided site security in
and around the Watergate Hotel and provided motorcade escort
security for multiple dignitary movements throughout the visit.
We were also responsible for providing multiple road and
traffic closures throughout the Washington Metropolitan Area.
At the same time, our officers were charged with assigned
events at Wolf Trap for a concert, four construction details,
and a security detail at the Frederick Douglass home. And, of
course, we were expected to perform our ordinary daily patrol
responsibilities which include law enforcement and community
safety throughout the District of Columbia, as well as highway
patrols of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, the George
Washington Memorial Parkway, and many others.
We had 166 sworn officers available for the special detail
on July 24, including everyone assigned to work on their day
off. Some have questioned why only 29 officers were assigned to
Columbus Circle that day. In reality, it is amazing that even
those resources were available to us, given the aforementioned
demands of that day.
One of the main reasons I am excited to testify this
morning is to share to you about how proud our union is of the
officers who did everything they could to protect and serve in
the face of an extremely dangerous and overwhelming situation.
This was not a peaceful protest. Indeed, significant subset of
protesters were determined to commit brazen acts of violence
and costly destruction of property. To say it plainly, our
officers did a remarkable and exemplary job that afternoon with
the limited resources supplied to us by DOI, NPS, and Congress.
Unfortunately, our government's irresponsible neglect of
the agency has led to staffing shortages that were unthinkable
just a decade ago. In the last 12 months alone, our agency has
lost 37 sworn officers, many of whom left for other agencies
that don't face the budget cuts that the DOI and NPS regularly
impose upon our officers. It is disheartening that the
government has allowed our once revered department to decay to
the point where we are more than 150 officers short of the
minimum required to accomplish our mission.
Even the DOI's own Inspector General concluded earlier this
month that ``The USPP pay scale is set up by statute, and is
among the least advantageous of the Federal uniformed police
agencies.'' It is no overstatement to suggest that the safety
of Americans in Washington, New York, and San Francisco, as
well as the millions of visitors to our urban national
landmarks are at serious risk because of our agency staffing
shortage.
Importantly, Congress can and must do something about it. A
bipartisan group of representatives led by Representative
Nicole Malliotakis introduced H.R. 9928, the U.S. Park Police
Modernization Act, legislation that balances the recruitment
and retention resources among other Federal law enforcement
organizations.
In particular, our officers want to thank Chairman
Westerman, Representative Malliotakis, Representative
Gottheimer, and Senator Barrasso for their extraordinary
leadership on this issue.
Notably, the Modernization Act is strongly supported by the
National Fraternal Order of Police and the U.S. Capitol Police
Labor Committee. The incoming administration has indicated a
desire to improve the quality of life for law enforcement
officers. We hope that is true and, if so, they can get off on
the right foot by directing the Department of the Interior and
the National Park Service to incorporate the modest resources
needed for H.R. 9928 in their budget request for Fiscal Year
2026.
If Congress and the new administration fail to act, I
honestly don't know if our agency can survive as a viable urban
law enforcement organization with any reasonable expectation to
protect safety and security during First Amendment events like
the one that occurred on July 24. To ignore this reality would
be tragic and shameful.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on behalf
of the members of the U.S. Park Police, Fraternal Order of
Police, and I welcome any questions you may have. Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spencer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth Spencer, Chairman, United States Park
Police Fraternal Order of Police
Good morning Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and Members
of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, my name is Kenneth
Spencer and my testimony this afternoon is delivered in my capacity as
the Chairman of the United States Park Police Fraternal Order of Police
(``USPPFOP''). Simply put, our organization represents the interests of
the approximately 350 sworn law enforcement officers of the United
States Park Police (``USPP''). I am honored to be here today and very
thankful for this opportunity to share the USPPFOP's views on, and
lessons learned from, the dangerous and destructive protests in and
around Columbus Circle on July 24, 2024.
By way of background, in addition to my capacity as the Chairman of
the USPPFOP, I serve as a Master Patrol Officer for the USPP. In my
nearly 15 years with the agency, with the help from my brothers and
sisters at the USPP and in other law enforcement departments, I have
survived first-hand experiences with several serious and large-scale
incidents where crowd control was difficult and public safety was in
jeopardy. Events like the one in July are predictable and, in years
long gone by, the US Park Police was rightfully viewed as the world's
foremost law enforcement organization that protected First Amendment
rights of the protesters while, at the same time, ensured the safety of
the community and protected national landmarks that adorn much of the
federal land under our jurisdiction. Sadly, due to decades of neglect
by the National Park Service, Department of the Interior and the United
States Congress, our Agency's ability to effectively manage such events
is significantly diminished, leading to disappointing and dangerous
outcomes and the Answer Coalition event represents just the tip of the
iceberg for future dangerous events given the state of our political
climate.
Before my time with the USPP, I proudly served in the United States
Air Force as a Law Enforcement Area Supervisor and Nuclear Weapons
Security Escort Team Leader with the United States Air Force Security
Forces. During these years, I was deployed in support of Operation
Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, completing missions in multiple
locations throughout Iraq and Kuwait. I firmly believe my background
and experience with such ``powder keg'' environments involving large
populations is directly relevant to the discussion here today.
United States Park Police
The United States Park Police was created by President George
Washington in 1791. The Force functions as a unit of the National Park
Service (``NPS'') with jurisdiction in urban federal parks, including
federal lands throughout the District of Columbia and the Washington
Metropolitan Area, San Francisco, and New York City. In Washington, DC,
we share the same duties, responsibilities, and arrest authority as our
brothers and sisters in the DC Metropolitan Police Department. Our
mission is to provide quality law enforcement to safeguard lives,
protect our national treasures and symbols of democracy, and preserve
the natural and cultural resources entrusted to us.
On average, USPP officers protect 160,000 daily visitors to our
parks, patrol a geographic area of over 30,000 acres across 3 urban
metropolitan regions, and more than 75 miles of highway. Notably, we
are, or at least once were, the world's leading law enforcement agency
when it comes to supporting large scale special events and other First
Amendment activities.
Importantly, our agency's mission includes icon protection. Our
officers proudly protect the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln
Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial and many others, including the statue
of Justice John Marshall in John Marshall Park and the Christopher
Columbus Memorial Fountain in Columbus Circle.
United States Park Police Fraternal Order of Police
The United States Park Police Fraternal Order of Police, for the
last 30 years, serves as the exclusive representative for bargaining
unit employees of the USPP. We negotiate collective bargaining
agreements as necessary and administer the labor-management agreement
between the officers and the National Park Service. On a day-to-day
basis, the USPPFOP communicates the challenges facing USPP officers to
our senior management leadership, the public and their elected
representatives with the goal of improving the operational readiness of
the Force. Membership in the USPPFOP is voluntary and we represent all
members of the bargaining unit regardless of membership status. We do
not have a political action committee, we do not make political
donations, and we do not endorse candidates for public office.
Most recently, the USPPFOP has focused on issues related to officer
retention and recruitment as the consequences from decades of NPS
neglect (across administrations from both political parties) has come
to roost. The National Park Service has suggested that the minimum
number of officers needed to accomplish our essential missions is at
least 650. One pre-September 11th study by Booz Allen suggested the US
Park Police needs at least 820 officers to safely operate. As of today,
we have a total of 507 sworn officers across all three jurisdictions--a
smaller force than we had in 1975. It is not an overstatement to
suggest that, at current staffing levels, our agency is unsustainable.
Let me be perfectly clear--on any given day we are at least 150
officers short of our required minimum levels. Our capacity to serve
and protect the public today is literally bursting at the seams. Some
in Congress and in the media have questioned why more arrests were not
made on July 24th. That is the wrong question to ask. Instead, they
should be asking how it is possible that DOI and NPS have ignored the
US Park Police staffing crisis which, in turn, has predictably led to
out-of-control protests that endanger the public, the protesters, and
the officers themselves.
Fortunately, a bipartisan group in Congress, led by Representative
Nicole Malliotakis, introduced H.R. 9928, the United States Park Police
Modernization Act, legislation that balances the recruitment and
retention resources among similarly situated federal law enforcement
organizations.
``Stop the Genocide in Gaza'' Permitting Process
US Park Police officers have a limited role in the permitting
planning process and absolutely no role in the deliberations or
decision on whether to issue the permit. It is my understanding that
the Answer Coalition submitted its application on June 18, but the
National Park Service's consideration of the application was delayed
until July.
The US Park Police Special Events Unit was invited to participate
in three planning meetings with the NPS permitting office on July 10th,
July 18th, and July 22nd. The NPS issued the permit on July 23rd, which
was valid from 5 am to 4 pm on July 24th. The permit was based on 5,000
anticipated participants. The specific locations set aside under the
permit included John Marshall Park and the Pennsylvania Avenue
sidewalks between 3rd and 5th Street, NW.
It is worth noting that the US Park Police were familiar with the
Answer Coalition and their previous tactics. Based on our experience
with the Coalition, we expected civil disturbance and vandalism.
The United States Park Police Fraternal Order of Police takes no
position on whether the NPS rightfully issued the permit but recognize
and cherish the fundamental constitutional rights that groups, even
those with abhorrent and extremist views, have to protest peacefully on
federal land.
US Park Police Operations on July 24th, 2024
As Members of this Subcommittee are aware, the protest
intentionally overlapped the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. Whenever high-profile foreign dignitaries or leaders are in
Washington, our agency typically cancels all scheduled days off,
assigns every available sworn officer, and provides Quick Reaction
Forces (QRF) and Criminal Apprehension Teams (CAT). All of this was
done, following protocol, in the lead-up to the ``Stop the Genocide in
Gaza'' protest.
As an aside, I want to commend our Chief, Jessica Taylor, who has
done an amazing job since taking the position less than 2 years ago.
Like our union, Chief Taylor works tirelessly to repair the impact that
our officer staffing shortage has on events like the one on July 24th.
She and her Executive Command Staff work hard to advocate for the
improvement of working conditions and officer safety; unfortunately, it
often falls on deaf ears with NPS and DOI. Our officers genuinely
appreciate her leadership and thank her for doing all she can to
restore our agency to a position of full mission readiness.
On July 24th, the United States Secret Service requested the US
Park Police to provide tactical and civil disturbance assets in Glover-
Archbold Park while Prime Minister Netanyahu attended Senator
Lieberman's memorial service at an adjacent location. Moreover, the US
Park Police provided site security in and around the Watergate Hotel
and provided motorcade escort security for multiple dignitary movements
throughout the visit. We were also responsible for providing multiple
road and traffic closures throughout the Washington metropolitan area
to close the motorcade routes that occurred on or near National Park
Service jurisdiction. At the same time, our officers were charged with
assigned events at Wolf Trap for a concert, four construction details,
and a security detail at the Frederick Douglas home.
And, of course, we were expected to perform our ordinary daily
patrol responsibilities which include law enforcement and community
safety throughout the District of Columbia, as well as highway patrols
of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, the George Washington Memorial
Parkway, and many others.
We had 166 sworn officers available for the special detail on July
24th. Some have questioned why ``only'' 29 officers were assigned to
Columbus Circle that day. Frankly, it's amazing that even those
resources were available to us given the aforementioned demands of that
day. Some have suggested that our agency could have requested
additional resources from other field offices or agencies, but doing so
would have been to throw good money after bad. It made no sense (and
would have been recklessly dangerous) to put officers with no training
in civil disturbances on the front line. Moreover, all expenses related
to gear, per diems, travel and lodging would have been the
responsibility of our agency which, due to the DOI's and NPS's neglect
and indifference regarding seeking reasonable congressional
appropriations, is just not feasible.
One might say we are at capacity, stretched too thin, or running on
fumes. But those catchy phrases fail to capture the gravity of the
situation in terms of safety and security. Any thoughtful observer of
the US Park Police staffing crisis will tell you that, unless Congress
acts immediately, catastrophe is predictable.
Law Enforcement Outcomes from July 24th, 2024
One of the main reasons I am excited to testify this afternoon is
to share with you how proud our union is of the officers who did
everything they could to protect and serve in the face of an extremely
dangerous and overwhelming situation.
I am aware of complaints made by some, including by those who drape
themselves in hollow ``back the blue'' rhetoric, suggesting that not
enough arrests were made or that our officers somehow gave the
protestors a ``pass.'' With only 29 officers available at the scene
when chaos erupted, there was absolutely zero capability to safely
carry out anything close to a mass arrest enforcement operation.
To say it plainly: Our officers did a remarkable and exemplary job
that afternoon with the limited resources supplied to us by DOI, NPS
and Congress.
If Congress is hoping to identify strategies to improve federal law
enforcement response to dangerous civil disturbance and destruction of
government property, it needs force the hand of the Department of
Interior and the National Park Service to do a much better job at
recruiting and retaining good officers. That begins with the passage of
the U.S. Park Police Modernization Act.
Conclusion
Officers of the United States Park Police are truly passionate
about serving the public within the communities under our three
jurisdictions. We are humbled by our responsibility to protect the
millions of park visitors, as well as the surrounding residents and
businesses. But we are equally proud of the legacy we leave behind--
protecting our parks, highways, and national monuments so that future
generations can enjoy them safely and without impairment.
Unfortunately, our government's irresponsible neglect of the agency
has led to staffing shortages that would have been unthinkable just a
decade ago. Frankly, it is astounding that the government has allowed
our once-revered department to decay to the point where we are more
than 150 officers short of the minimum required.
It is no overstatement to suggest that the safety of Americans in
Washington, New York, and San Francisco, as well as the millions of
visitors to our urban national landmarks, are at serious risk because
of our agency's staffing shortage.
Importantly, Congress can do something about it--pass the US Park
Police Modernization Act immediately. To be sure, Chairman Westerman
along with Senator Barrasso have been amazing allies for our officers,
and Representatives Malliotakis and Gottheimer have championed the
bill, with invaluable support from the National Fraternal Order of
Police and the US Capitol Police Labor Committee, throughout this
Congress. So, my officers are reasonably wondering why hasn't anything
been done? How can the Department of Interior and the National Park
Service continue to thumb their nose at us in the face of such
formidable demand for reform.
It is noteworthy that the incoming Administration has indicated a
desire to improve the quality of life for law enforcement officers. We
hope that is true and, if so, they can get off on the right foot by
directing the Department of Interior and the National Park Service to
incorporate the modest resources needed for H.R. 9928 in their budget
request for FY 2026.
If Congress fails to act, I honestly do not know if our agency can
survive as a viable urban law enforcement organization with any
reasonable expectation to protect safety and security during First
Amendment events like the one on July 24th. To ignore this reality
would be tragic and shameful.
My position on this matter is not one of politics or public policy
regarding the unrest in the Middle East. In fact, my testimony is based
solely on law enforcement concerns that are all-too-real, dangerous,
and tragically avoidable. Regrettably, I fear for the safety of our
officers, the public, and the protestors themselves.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony on
behalf of the members of the United States Park Police Fraternal Order
of Police. I welcome any questions you have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Kenneth H. Spencer, Chairman,
United States Park Police Fraternal Order of Police
Questions Submitted by Representative D'Esposito
Question 1. Mr. Spencer, does the Park Police keep any record of
groups or organizations that have gotten violent on Public Lands? And,
does the National Park Service seek that information when dealing with
these organizations?
Answer. The U.S. Park Police (USPP) maintains an Intelligence and
Counterterrorism Unit dedicated to monitoring various groups and
gathering intelligence to assess and address potential civil unrest or
violence. The USPP collaborates closely with the FBI, with personnel
assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) to enhance monitoring
and response capabilities. Additionally, the USPP works in partnership
with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to share
information and ensure coordinated preparations for special events
within or near its jurisdiction, whether those events are officially
permitted or not. However, our efforts are significantly hindered by
staffing challenges. Despite robust intelligence gathering and thorough
preparation, the ongoing staffing crisis makes it increasingly
difficult to effectively manage and mitigate volatile situations that
arise within our jurisdiction.
Question 2. Before July 24, could you describe the experience of
the Park Police when interacting with the ANSWER Coalition?
Answer. The ANSWER Coalition has a well-documented history of
engaging in activities that contribute to civil unrest, property
damage, assaults on law enforcement and civilians, and other unlawful
behavior. They also frequently disregard the terms and conditions of
the permits issued to them by the National Park Service.
Question 3. In your opinion, how can the National Park Service
develop a more collaborative approach with the Park Police for
permitting, planning, and secure public gatherings in order to better
prevent events like those on July 24?
Answer. The Labor-Management Contract with our Union explicitly
states:
``The Union shall be given the opportunity to be represented at
any formal discussion between one or more representatives of
the Employer and one or more members of the Unit or their
representatives concerning any grievance or personnel policy or
other general conditions of employment. Representatives of the
Employer involved in such meetings shall notify the Union prior
to the start of such meetings and as soon as practical after
the time, date, and place of such meeting is known. The Union
representative shall be recognized to offer the Union's view,
if any, on the matter being discussed at an appropriate time
prior to the conclusion of the meeting.''
Despite this clear obligation, the National Park Service has
consistently failed to uphold this requirement, refusing to allow the
USPPFOP to attend meetings regarding special events. This failure is
deeply troubling, especially given that our members willingly put
themselves in harm's way to safeguard First Amendment rights at every
event held on public lands in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and New
York City. It is imperative that both our Union and the United States
Park Police are given a rightful place at the table to ensure our
voices are heard and our members are adequately represented in these
critical discussions.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Spencer. I now
recognize Mr. Goldenberg for his 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALEX GOLDENBERG, DIRECTOR OF INTEL-
LIGENCE, NETWORK CONTAGION RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Goldenberg. Thank you. Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member
Stansbury, and the distinguished members of the Committee, here
in the United States, the land of free speech, a well-funded
network with ties to extremist groups is exploiting the
freedoms that protect legitimate protest in order to advance
dangerous ideologies. Their activities may well defy the legal
guardrails Congress has established to assure transparency in
our public square, to limit the political advocacy of certain
non-profits, and to prohibit the provision of material support
for foreign terrorist organizations.
I am not an attorney. I am, however, an experienced open
source intelligence analyst. The organization of which I am a
part of, the Network Contagion Research Institute, studies
cyber social threats and we have produced research on extremism
from across the political spectrum, state-backed influence
operations, child safety issues online, and more. I am here
today to share what our research has disclosed about the
violent July demonstration at Union Station, which resulted in
vandalism and at least one assault and other attempts to
paralyze public bridges, train stations, airports, and other
critical infrastructure.
Although these demonstrations were meant to appear as
spontaneous expressions of outrage, they were anything but.
They were the product of a well-funded network operating on the
outer edge of the law, if not beyond them. A network of
organizations, many of which operate with non-profit, tax-
exempt status, or are fiscally sponsored by groups with tax-
exempt status work to drown out calls for genuine peace and
resolution, including the Two State Solution that so many in
the international community advocate for. They openly celebrate
and support designated terrorist organizations, advocate for
the engagement of illegal activities including the promotion of
civil disobedience, and organizing protests that intentionally
break the law.
If 501(c)(3)'s are found to be encouraging unlawful action,
it could lose its tax exempt status.
On October 7, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel
that involved coordinated rocket strikes, rapes, mass
shootings, including the slaughter of families in their beds.
On that same day, BreakThrough News, an outlet with close ties
to the ANSWER Coalition, a key organizer for the demonstration
we are discussing today, celebrated the atrocities perpetrated
that day, framed them as ``resistance,'' and included an
interview with a member of the PFLP, a designated terrorist
organization that is reported to have been complicit in holding
hostages in Gaza.
In July, a protest at Union Station that we are organized
here to speak about was organized by the Shut It Down for
Palestine movement, with Brian Becker of the ANSWER Coalition
listed as person in charge. Who is Brian Becker, the person in
charge of this demonstration? He is the central organizer for
the Party of Socialism and Liberation, an instructor at the
People's Forum, and the National Coordinator for the ANSWER
Coalition.
It is important to note that the People's Forum shares an
office with BreakThrough News, which is run by his relative.
The ANSWER Coalition has repeatedly given voice to extremist
groups, including the PFLP. Just months after the October 7
attack, Brian Becker, the individual listed on the permit of
the July 24 protest, hosted a member of the PFLP on his YouTube
channel, reinforcing their pattern of support for violent
agendas. Videos on their online platform feature other members
of designated terrorist organizations. Many of these videos are
even listed as fundraisers for BreakThrough News.
What we are seeing is not grassroots activism. The People's
Forum, one of the main organizers that participated in the July
demonstrations, has received over $20 million from Neville Roy
Singham, a U.S.-born millionaire currently living in Shanghai
who, according to a New York Times investigation, has been
central to a global network promoting and amplifying CCP
talking points worldwide. Before October 7, this global network
focused on amplifying anti-American and pro-CCP content,
including denying CCP repression of Uyghur Muslims. After
October 7, this network shifted to amplify radical anti-Israel
narratives and help promote demonstrations like the ones that
we have seen on Union Station.
On October 7, the People's Forum called on followers to
join the All Out for Palestine rally in front of the Israeli
consulate in New York City the next day. At that October 8
rally, as Israel was still counting the dead and the United
States was determining how many Americans were killed or
kidnapped, Eugene Puryear, a host at BreakThrough News,
reported that there was ``some sort of rave or desert party
where they were having a great time until the resistance came
in in electrified hang gliders and killed at least two dozen
hipsters.'' Three hundred and sixty-four people were murdered
and many more were raped, injured, and tortured at that music
festival.
At the same demonstration, the Education Director for the
People's Forum said approvingly after October 7, ``Yesterday
the world woke up to incredible news.''
The actions we are witnessing are not simply free speech,
they are part of a larger web of extremist activism with
connections to terrorism and foreign governments. I encourage
Congress to investigate these organizations, trace their
funding sources, and hold them accountable for any and all
illegal activities in which they are engaged. Thank you, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldenberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alex Goldenberg, Senior Advisor, The Network
Contagion Research Institute
Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the
committee,
Here in the United States--the land of free speech--a well-funded
network with ties to extremist groups is exploiting the freedoms that
protect legitimate protest in order to advance dangerous ideologies.
Their activities may well defy the legal guardrails Congress has
established to assure transparency in our public square, to limit the
political advocacy of certain nonprofits, and to prohibit the provision
of material support to foreign terrorist organizations.
I am not an attorney; I am, however, an experienced open source
intelligence analyst. The organization of which I am a part of, The
Network Contagion Research Institute, studies cyber-social threats and
we have produced research on extremism across the political spectrum,
state-backed influence operations, child safety issues online, and
more. I am here today to share what my research has disclosed about the
violent July demonstration at Union Station, which resulted in
vandalism and at least one assault, and other attempts to paralyze
public bridges, train stations, airports, and other critical
infrastructure. Although these demonstrations were meant to appear as
spontaneous expressions of outrage, they were anything but. They were
the product of a well-funded network operating on the outer edge of our
laws if not beyond them.
A network of U.S. organizations, many of which either operate with
non-profit tax-exempt status or are fiscally sponsored by groups that
promote extremist ideologies and work to drown out genuine calls for
peace and resolution, including for the two-state solution that so many
in the international community advocate. They openly celebrate and
support designated terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah,
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine (or PFLP) all of which played a direct role in the October
7th attacks. They also advocate for the engagement of illegal
activities, including the promotion of civil disobedience and
organizing protests that intentionally break the law. If 501(c)(3)'s
are found to be encouraging unlawful action, it could lose its tax-
exempt status.
On October 7th, 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel
that involved coordinated rocket strikes, rapes, mass shootings
including the slaughter of families in their beds, and kidnappings. On
that day, terrorists murdered roughly 1,200 people and took more than
250 people hostage.
On that same day, Breakthrough News, an outlet with close ties to
the ANSWER Coalition, a key organizer for the demonstration we are
discussing today, celebrated the atrocities perpetrated that day,
framed them as ``resistance,'' and included an interview with a
standing member of the PFLP's politburo. As you may know, the PFLP is
reported to have been complicit in holding hostages in Gaza.
In July, a protest at Union Station in Washington, DC, was
organized by the Shut It Down for Palestine movement, with Brian Becker
of the ANSWER Coalition listed as the ``Person in Charge.'' While
burning American and Israeli flags is protected speech, as is
displaying the flags of terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah,
and the PFLP near our nation's capital, during this demonstration a
police officer was assaulted and a public monument was vandalized.
Who is Brian Becker, the person in charge of the demonstration? He
is a central organizer for the Party for Socialism and Liberation, an
instructor for the People's Forum, and the National Coordinator for the
ANSWER Coalition. The People's Forum shares office space with
Breakthrough News, which is run by his relative.
The ANSWER Coalition has repeatedly given voice to extremist
groups, including the PFLP. Just months after the October 7th attack,
Brian Becker hosted a PFLP leader, reinforcing the pattern of support
for violent agendas. Videos on their online platform feature other
members of designated terrorist organizations. Many of these videos are
listed as fundraisers for BreakThrough News.
What we are seeing is not grassroots activism. The People's Forum,
one of the organizations that participated in the July demonstrations,
has received over $20 million from Neville Roy Singham, a U.S.-born
millionaire living in Shanghai who, according to a New York Times
investigation, has been central to a global network promoting CCP
talking points.
Before October 7, this global network focused on amplifying anti-
American and pro-CCP content, including denying the CCP repression of
Uyghur Muslims. After October 7, this network shifted to amplifying
radical anti-Israel narratives and helped promote demonstrations like
the one at Union Station.
On October 7th, the People's Forum called on followers to join the
``All Out for Palestine'' rally in front of the Israeli Consulate in
New York City the next day. At that October 8th rally, as Israel was
still counting the dead and the U.S. was determining how many Americans
were killed or kidnapped, Eugene Puryear, a host on Breakthrough News,
reported that ``there was some sort of rave or desert party where they
were having a great time until the resistance came in electrified hang-
gliders and took at least several dozen hipsters.'' (Three hundred
sixty-four people were murdered and many more were raped, injured, or
tortured.)
At the same demonstration, Layan Fuleihan, the Education Director
of the People's Forum, said approvingly that, ``yesterday the world
woke up to incredible news.'' That demonstration on October 8, was an
explicit celebration of the murder and kidnapping of innocent
civilians.
The Shut It Down for Palestine coalition, the umbrella group behind
the Union Station demonstration, has not limited itself to disruptions
in Washington, DC. They have orchestrated disruptions to critical
infrastructure in New York City, blocked roads to airports like JFK and
LAX and caused bridge and tunnel closures. These illegal actions have
created not only financial burdens for cities but also significant
public safety risks.
One key group within the Shut It Down for Palestine coalition is
Al-Awda, an organization with direct ties to designated terrorist
organizations. Al-Awda's communications officer, Charlotte Kates, was
recently seen in Tehran receiving an award alongside members of
Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Her husband, Khaled Barakat, is allegedly a
senior member of the PFLP, and along with Kates, run a sham charity
that serves as an international fundraiser for the PFLP according to
the U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC).
In July, Senators Rubio and Graham called on the Department of
Justice to investigate 18 organizations tied to Neville Roy Singham for
potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. These
include the People's Forum, ANSWER Coalition, Al-Awda, Samidoun, and
Breakthrough News--all of which played a role in the Union Station
demonstration. At least three of these organizations flagged by
Senators Rubio and Graham--the People's Forum, ANSWER, and the
Palestinian Youth Movement--have already begun mobilizing to disrupt
Inauguration Day on January 20th, 2025.
The actions we are witnessing are not simply free speech. They are
part of a larger web of extremist activism with connections to
terrorism. I encourage Congress to investigate these organizations,
trace their funding sources, and hold them accountable for any and all
illegal activities in which they are engaged.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Alex Goldenberg, Director of
Intelligence, Network Contagion Research Institute
Questions Submitted by Representative D'Esposito
Question 1. Mr. Goldenberg, could you explain how organizations,
such as Breakthrough News and The People's Forum, by hosting or
amplifying content that glorifies acts of terror, might face scrutiny
under the material support statute?
Question 2. In your view, should organizations that promote
extremist content, even if they are not directly involved in violence,
be subject to scrutiny for potentially aiding foreign terrorist
organizations?
Question 3. Without delving into legal specifics, could you broadly
discuss the potential consequences for organizations that facilitate
the promotion of extremist ideologies or narratives, given the legal
precedents around material support?
Answer. Congressman D'Esposito, to answer all three questions,
As we've seen in the case of Tarek Mehanna, a U.S. citizen
convicted of providing material support to al-Qaeda by translating and
distributing jihadi propaganda, the act of promoting terrorist
content--even indirectly--can have significant legal consequences.
Mehanna's conviction stemmed from his role in translating and
disseminating videos and articles aimed at recruiting fighters for
terrorist groups.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/boston/press-releases/2012/
tarek-mehanna-sentenced-in-boston-to-17-years-in-prison-on-terrorism-
related-charges
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is directly relevant to the actions of platforms like
Breakthrough News and the People's Forum, which have hosted interviews
with members of terrorist organizations and have glorified acts of
terror. For example, a host on Breakthrough News recently celebrated
the October 7th attacks as a ``prison break.''
Breakthrough continuously hosts members of the PFLP on their
platforms and has hosted Hezbollah leadership in the past. Some of
these events were even monetized on YouTube, showing a direct fiscal
benefit to BT. People's Forum, hosted the People's Conference held in a
hall named after a PFLP terrorist, Walid Daqqah, and hosted a speaker
that is a member of the PFLP on a livestream.
The material support statute is clear in criminalizing the
provision of material support or resources to designated foreign
terrorist organizations (FTOs), which includes both tangible and
intangible resources. This applies not just to combat-related
activities but to non-combat roles as well, such as amplifying
terrorist propaganda. The statute encompasses any form of service or
expertise that furthers the goals of terrorist organizations.
Given this framework, it begs the question: does hosting and
amplifying terrorist propaganda--whether through live streams, events
where terrorists are met with standing ovations, or YouTube channels--
constitute material support for terrorism? Based on the legal precedent
set by cases like Mehanna's, the answer could very well be yes.
Breakthrough News and the People's Forum could, and indeed should,
face increased scrutiny for their roles in hosting interviews with
terrorist leaders, glorifying terrorist attacks, and facilitating
communication that furthers the agenda of foreign terrorist
organizations. These actions mirror the kind of conduct that has led to
material support convictions in the past, and it is critical that we do
not allow these activities to go unchecked under the guise of free
speech or journalism.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Goldenberg. Now I call
Mr. Walter for his 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT WALTER, PRESIDENT, CAPITAL
RESEARCH CENTER, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Walter. Chairman Gosar, Vice Chairman Collins, Ranking
Member Stansbury, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the honor of testifying. I am
President of the Capitol Research Center, where we study
radical activists. I applaud your attention to the outrages
perpetrated on Park Service land by groups who support violence
in the Middle East and America.
Free speech is precious. It is both the mark of a free
country and also the means of our self-government. But speech
is not violence, and violence is not speech. The radicals often
make those claims.
The extremists who rioted in July exalt violence, teach
techniques of violence, and justify violence. They attack the
very possibility of free government, which requires that
citizens and government officials be able to speak and debate
freely as they try to achieve their desired policies through
rational argument, rather than by using violence to coerce
those who disagree with them.
But the radicals you are investigating despise free
governments and democracies like America and Israel. They love
tyrannies that rule by violence, like Mao's Communist China,
the mullahs' Iranian theocracy, and Lenin's Soviet Union. They
follow Mao's diktat: Political power grows out of the barrel of
a gun. Without violence, these extremists cannot achieve the
dreams they graffitied onto Columbus Circle monuments: U.S.
Empire Will Burn, Israel Will Fall. They spray-painted ``Hamas
is coming,'' which means these radicals want Americans to
suffer the bloody violence Hamas perpetrates on Israelis.
As I testified to you in April, America faces a convergence
of extremist groups. Take, for instance, radical
environmentalists like Interior Secretary Haaland's friends and
family at Pueblo Action Alliance, a group that not only exalts
violence, but joined in a riotous protest at the Interior
Department that resulted in dozens of arrests and sent a
policeman to the hospital. These environmental activists also
support radical Palestinian activists, who turn around and
support other radical groups ostensibly dedicated to climate
activism, anti-police activism, and more.
In radical minds, all particular causes are part of a
single cause: the revolt of the oppressed against the
oppressor. As a 1960s American radical put it, ``The issue is
never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.''
Similarly, the protesters this July chanted, ``There is
only one solution: intifada, revolution.'' But to endorse
intifada is to endorse violence. Israel's last intifada did not
result in any effort to persuade others through rational speech
and peaceful protest. It resulted in thousands of dead
Palestinians and Israelis.
Of the 250-plus endorsers of the July riot in DC, my
colleague, Ryan Mauro, identified 90 extremist groups that
publicly support Hamas' terrorism or identify as Marxist,
communist, or anarchist revolutionaries. These radicals work
closely with foreign tyrannies opposed to America. For example,
Mauro observed that ANSWER, the leader of July's riot, signed a
declaration of the committee of anti-imperialists in solidarity
with Iran that backs Iran's direct attack on Israel and
explicitly chooses the side of the Iran-led axis of resistance
consisting of the Governments of Syria, Iran-backed Palestinian
terrorist groups like Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic jihad,
Hezbollah, the Yemen-based Houthis, and Iran-backed militias in
Iraq who are trying to kill U.S. troops.
One more bloodthirsty tyranny ANSWER supports is Putin's
Russia, which ANSWER favors over the United States and NATO.
I do not say that every critic of American or Israeli
policy has succumbed to this nihilistic lust for violence and
tyranny. And I emphatically do say that peaceful protests and
vigorous debate over foreign policy are entirely legitimate in
our free country. But this Committee and the National Park
Service that has the responsibility of overseeing protests in
the nation's capital should continue investigating what went
badly wrong in July, and determine how to prevent similar
misdeeds in the future. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Walter, President, Capital Research Center
Chairman Gosar, Vice Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Stansbury,
distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the honor of
testifying. I'm president of the Capital Research Center, where for
decades we have studied nonprofits and extremist groups.
I applaud the full Natural Resources Committee and this
subcommittee for your attention to the outrages perpetrated on Park
Service land by groups who often had ties to foreign powers. These
groups' violence on federal land fits with the groups' support of
violence in the Middle East and with their violence-soaked ideology.
In considering the riot at Union Station, we should immediately
distinguish between violence and speech. Free speech is precious in a
free country. That's why the very First Amendment protects speech in
general and why the first Article of the Constitution protects the
``Speech and Debate'' of Members of Congress in either house. But
speech is not violence, and violence is not speech, even though we
often hear radicals making both those claims.\1\ As Rutgers Professor
Mark Bray explained in his Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, these
radicals believe `` `free speech' as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy
unworthy of consideration.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Haidt, Jonathan and Greg Lukianoff. ``Why It's a Bad Idea
to Tell Students Words Are Violence: A claim increasingly heard on
campus will make them more anxious and more willing to justify physical
harm.'' The Atlantic, July 18, 2017; https://archive.is/GzJRc.
\2\ Turley, Jonathan. `` `Your speech is violence': the left's new
mantra to justify campus violence,'' The Hill, June 3, 2023; https://
thehill.com/opinion/education/4032778-your-speech-is-violence-the-
lefts-new-mantra-to-justify-campus-violence/. This article cites
several more ``speech is violence'' claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extremists who urge violence in protests are attacking the
possibility of free government, which requires citizens and government
officials to be able to speak and debate freely as they try to achieve
their desired policies through rational argument, rather than by using
violence to coerce those who disagree with them. But the kind of
radicals who led the violent protests you're investigating despise free
governments and democracies like America and Israel. Instead, as I will
document, they love tyrannies like Mao's Communist China, the mullahs'
Iranian theocracy, and Lenin's Soviet Union--all regimes ruled by
violence. Mao explained this ideology's essence: ``Political power
grows out of the barrel of a gun.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Quotations from chairman Mao Tsetung; https://archive.org/
details/isbn_9780835123884/page/60/mode/2up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without violence, how are these extremists to achieve the dreams
they graffitied onto Columbus Circle monuments, such as ``US Empire
will burn'' and ``Israel will fall''? Or take another of their graffiti
slogans, ``Hamas is comin'.'' \4\ What does that mean but that the
bloody violence Hamas perpetrated on Israelis on October 7, 2023,
will--so these radicals hope--be visited upon Americans?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Costescu, Jessica. ``Pro-Hamas Agitators Burn American Flag and
Foist Palestinian Flag Over Union Station as Bibi Addresses Congress,''
Free Beacon, July 24, 2024; https://freebeacon.com/israel/pro-hamas-
agitators-burn-american-flag-wave-terrorist-flags-clash-with-police-as-
israeli-pm-addresses-congress/. Underlining in original graffiti.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the groups who organized that protest are focused on Middle
East issues, but other groups focus on entirely different issues. This
lumping together of numerous causes may puzzle ordinary Americans, but
it is standard for the radical Left, which views all sorts of discrete
causes as united under what is sometimes called ``the omnicause.''
``In many students' eyes,'' the New York Times reported, ``the war
in Gaza is linked to other issues, such as policing, mistreatment of
Indigenous people, racism and the impact of climate change.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Peters, Jeremy W. ``It's Not Just Gaza: Student Protesters See
Links to a Global Struggle,'' New York Times, May 1, 2024; https://
www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/us/pro-palestinian-college-protests.html.
Classic examples of this agglomerating of seemingly disparate left-
wing causes appeared in my testimony to this committee in April. I
noted that Code Pink, known for its foreign policy focus, both
protested its support for Hamas in far-off Gaza and also jumped on the
domestic environmentalist bandwagon to advocate for the Green New
Deal.\6\ Likewise, another radical group, Pueblo Action Alliance (PAA),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117026/witnesses/
HHRG-118-II15-Wstate-WalterS-20240430.pdf.
seamlessly connects radical environmental views with radical
foreign policy views and shows a fondness for revolutionary
violence--all obvious just from the front page of PAA's
website. That landing page currently shows a PAA flyer for the
COP28 climate conference that includes radical environmentalism
(denouncing carbon capture, hydrogen, water and nuclear power;
demanding a complete phase-out of fossil fuels), radical
feminism (calling for ``feminist regenerative economies''), and
radical anti-Israel policies (``solidarity with our Palestine
relatives'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Ibid.
In radicals' minds, all particular causes are part of a single
cause: the revolt of the oppressed against the oppressor. As one 1960s
American radical put it, ``The issue is never the issue. The issue is
always the revolution.'' That's likely what this July's protestors
meant when they chanted, ``There is only one solution, intifada
revolution.'' \8\ To endorse intifada is to endorse violence. The last
intifada did not result in debate or an effort to persuade others
through rational speech and peaceful protest. It resulted in thousands
of deaths among Palestinians and Israelis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Costescu, Jessica. ``Pro-Hamas Agitators Burn American Flag and
Foist Palestinian Flag Over Union Station as Bibi Addresses Congress,''
Free Beacon, July 24, 2024; https://freebeacon.com/israel/pro-hamas-
agitators-burn-american-flag-wave-terrorist-flags-clash-with-police-as-
israeli-pm-addresses-congress/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An essay popular among American radicals, ``10 Anarchist Theses on
Palestine Solidarity in the United States,'' reiterates the omnicause
theme and the death wish: ``our main task as revolutionaries in the
United States remains to be the unmaking of the American empire.
Anarchists are for solidarity with Palestine . . . Freedom for
Palestine means Death to America.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Empasis in original; https://archive.org/download/zines-war/
10_Anarchist_Theses_on_ Palestine_Solidarity_in_the_United_States-
screen.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Capital Research Center colleague Ryan Mauro has documented this
phenomenon in a lengthy report, Marching Toward Violence: The Domestic
Anti-Israeli Protest Movement.\10\ As Mauro explains, dozens of groups
involved in disruptive anti-Israel protests are ``pro-terrorism.'' That
is, they support Hamas and/or the October 7 terrorist attacks, and many
possess a militancy that pushes the movement ``toward a wider, more
severe campaign focused on property destruction and violence properly
described as domestic terrorism.'' The movement's
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Mauro, Ryan. Marching Toward Violence: The Domestic Anti-
Israeli Protest Movement. Capital Research Center, October 9, 2024;
https://capitalresearch.org/article/marching-toward-violence-the-
domestic-anti-israeli-protest-movement/.
long-term goals are revolutionary. It demands the
``dismantlement'' of America's ``colonialist,''
``imperialist,'' or ``capitalist'' system, often calling for
the U.S. to be abolished as a country.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Ibid., p. 5.
Looking specifically at the 250+ endorsers of the July 2024 violent
protests in Washington, D.C., Mauro quickly identified 90 that qualify
as extremist groups. That is, they publicly support terrorism/Hamas or
identify themselves as Marxist, communist, or anarchist, which means
they are anti-American aspiring revolutionaries.
For example, CUNY for Palestine endorsed the rally and is pro-Hamas
and pro-violence. In fact, Capital Research Center broke the story that
it had arguably become a terrorist group itself by identifying as part
of the Iran-led ``Axis of Resistance'' that includes Hamas and the
other Iran-backed terrorists.\12\ In a statement, it declared, ``The
city of New York and their pigs are going to keep brutalizing and
escalating, and so will we.'' \13\ Note that this is an example of
combining radical anti-Israel ideology with radical anti-police
ideology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://capitalresearch.org/article/cuny-for-palestine-vows-
to-destroy-university-and-target-nyc/.
\13\ https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/view/
uQ2Yro0KM65RaVe46ZEwM7LgVS1st41eQ2SO7Ua HMDI/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his Marching Toward Violence report, Mauro discusses in detail
the two groups whose leadership in the July riots most disturbs the
Committee: the ANSWER Coalition and the broader coalition to which it
belongs, Shut It Down for Palestine. Both these ``coalitions,'' Mauro
documents, ``glorify and assist illegal protests of varying severity.''
They ``encourage those crimes by directing activists to militant
websites that teach how to fight police, destroy property, and commit
other guerrilla acts.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Mauro, Marching Toward Violence, p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, ANSWER explicitly lauds protesters who ``have shut
down highways, train stations [like Union Station], and bridges in the
United States.'' ANSWER ``signed a declaration of the Committee of
Anti-Imperialists in Solidarity with Iran that backs Iran's direct
attack on Israel and explicitly chooses the side of the Iran-led `Axis
of Resistance' consisting of the government of Syria, Iran-backed
Palestinian terrorist groups including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic
Jihad, Hezbollah, the Yemen-based Houthis and Iran-backed militias in
Iraq who are trying to kill U.S. troops.'' These bloodthirsty entities
who rule by violence do not exhaust ANSWER's loyalties. The coalition
also supports Putin's bellicose Russia by denouncing the ``US and NATO
proxy war in Ukraine.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Ibid., p. 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER, like many extremist groups in the anti-Israel orbit, enjoys
the privileges of a tax-exempt charity, but rather than having to
publicly report its finances, employees, board members, and the like in
the way independent charities must, it hides itself in the cloak of a
``fiscal sponsorship,'' a situation where a parent charity extends its
tax-exempt status to a project like ANSWER while relieving the project
of the burden of public disclosures of its internal operations.
Worse, ANSWER's fiscal sponsor is Progress Unity Fund, a far-left
501(c)(3) ``charity'' which also fiscally sponsors Pivot to Peace, one
of whose members was arrested in 2023 for illegally acting as a foreign
agent for China.\16\ InfluenceWatch reports it ``is closely connected
to the Workers World Party (WWP) and its break-away group, the Party
for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), both of which are revolutionary
Marxist-Leninist parties'' that celebrate revolutionary violence.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-801204.
\17\ https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/progress-unity-
fund/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1960s, the WWP worked with violent extremists in the Weather
Underground, which conducted dozens of bombings. Later it would demand
the release of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal,\18\ and more
recently its leaders traveled to North Korea to celebrate the
anniversary of the ``tremendous victory'' of Communist North Korea in
the Korean War. In this celebration of solidarity with the most
brutally repressive regime on the planet, the WWP reports it was joined
by the ANSWER coalition.\19\ Brian Becker and other leaders of ANSWER
are Workers World Party members, and ANSWER has been described as ``an
outgrowth'' and a ``front'' for the Party.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ https://workersworld-party.org/about/.
\19\ Holmes, Larry. ``What Workers Need to Know About Korea.''
Workers World, August 28, 2013; https://www.workers.org/2013/08/10587/.
\20\ Corn, David. ``Behind the Placards.'' LA Weekly, November 7,
2002; https://web.archive.org/web/20081103052350/http:/
www.laweekly.com/2002-11-07/news/behind-the-placards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progress Unity Fund's ties to the Party for Socialism and
Liberation, which formed the Fund, are arguably even more disturbing.
This party backs the Chinese Communist Party's murderous repression of
the Tiananmen Square student democracy movement, even as it still
supports the Soviet Union's murderous repression of a popular uprising
against its rule in Hungary in 1956.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://socialism.com/fs-article/a-political-critique-of-the-
party-for-socialism-and-liberation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such loyalty to the current Chinese Communist Party's leaders may
result in financial support from the Party and deserves investigation,
which brings us to the larger coalition, Shut It Down for Palestine.
Shut It Down lists \22\ as its members the following groups:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ https://www.shutitdown4palestine.org/about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palestinian Youth Movement
National Students for Justice in Palestine
ANSWER coalition
The People's Forum
International Peoples' Assembly
Al-Awda-NY
Palestinian American Community Center
Note that National Students for Justice in Palestine has stated in
a toolkit that it distributes, ``We as Palestinian students in exile
are PART of this movement, not in solidarity with this movement.'' It
does not name the movement, but since Hamas is an acronym for Islamic
Resistance Movement, Students for Justice is clearly claiming to be
Hamas.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ [Students for Justice in Palestine]. ``Day of Resistance
Toolkit--imgix.'' October 12, 2023; https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/
2023/10/DAY-OF-RESISTANCE-TOOLKIT.pdf, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for The People's Forum, it is ``funded by Mr. [Neville Roy]
Singham,'' reports the New York Times in a story whose headline
explains how Singham, who now lives in Shanghai, is a tool of Chinese
Communist Party propaganda: ``A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads
to a U.S. Tech Mogul: The Times unraveled a financial network that
stretches from Chicago to Shanghai and uses American nonprofits to push
Chinese talking points worldwide.'' \24\ The Times adds that Singham's
groups enjoy hundreds of millions of dollars of funding and combine
``progressive advocacy with Chinese government talking points.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ https://www.nytimes.cm/2023/08/05/world/europe/neville-roy-
singham-china-propaganda.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a thorough report on Shut It Down, the Network Contagion
Research Institute observes that its seven Convenors divide into ``two
distinct groupings based on ideological affiliation and fiscal
sponsorship.'' First, the far-left members; namely, The People's Forum,
International People's Assembly, and ANSWER Coalition, which
``demonstrate significant financial, personnel, and operational
overlap.'' Second, the remaining four Convenors, ``all pro-Palestinian
activist organizations, with at least two, [National Students for
Justice in Palestine] and Al-Awda, known to have ties to U.S.-
designated terrorist organizations.'' In addition, Shut It Down is
endorsed by Samidoun, ``which some Western intelligence services
classify as a front for the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine) which is designated as a foreign terrorist organization by
the United States, Germany, and Israel.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ https://networkcontagion.us/reports/ccp-influence-and-radical-
ideologies/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here again we see how the anti-Israel movement has two branches:
one composed of far-left radical groups pushing a variety of agenda
items; the other made up of explicitly Palestinian-focused groups. Yet
they all work together, based on a shared hatred of Israel, America,
and other democracies, and on a shared love of tyrannies like Communist
China.
Unfortunately, these extremists don't just love violence when it's
practiced in those repressive tyrannies. They also desire to see
violence practiced in this country, as we see in both their slogans
like ``Hamas is comin' '' and ``US Empire will burn'' as well as their
actual violence in July in Washington.
I do not say that every critic of American or Israeli policy has
succumbed to this nihilistic longing for violence and tyranny, and I
emphatically do say that peaceful protests and vigorous debates over
foreign policy are legitimate in our free country. But this committee,
and the National Park Service that has the weighty responsibility of
overseeing protests in most of the nation's capital, should continue
investigating what went badly wrong in July and should ponder how to
prevent similar misdeeds in the future. As Ronald Reagan famously
warned, ``Freedom is . . . never more than one generation away from
extinction.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/january-5-1967-
inaugural-address-public-ceremony.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Scott Walter, President, Capital
Research Center
Questions Submitted by Representative D'Esposito
Question 1. Mr. Walter, in your opening statement, you described
how radical organizations like Answer Coalition demonstrate blatant
violence, loyalty to foreign adversaries, and have signed declarations
in solidarity with Iran. You also stated that they ``explicitly choose
the side of the Iran-led `Axis of Resistance,' '' which includes the
government of Syria, Iran-backed Palestinian terrorist groups such as
Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Yemen-based
Houthis, and Iran-backed militias in Iraq.
1a) Considering that groups at Union Station have a documented
history of violence and promoting terrorist ideologies--actions that
violate 18 U.S. Code Sec. 2339B--do you believe a permit should be
granted to an organization with a known history of supporting the
ideology of a terrorist group responsible for attacks on U.S. soil?
1b) For example, if there were an attack on our homeland by Hamas
or Hezbollah, and organizations like Answer Coalition, SJP, Code Pink,
or Shut It Down for Palestine continued to act as they have since
October 7th and July 24th, do you think they would legally be allowed
to secure a permit?
Answer. Thank you for the question, Rep. D'Esposito. Both parts of
your question involve permit policy for the National Park Service
(NPS), which neither my colleagues at the Capital Research Center nor I
have studied, so my ability to comment is limited. As far as I could
follow the discussion of this policy at the hearing, there seemed to be
a consensus that the laws and regulations governing NPS permit policy
were inadequate to the serious threats posed by radical extremists like
ANSWER Coalition, which violated its permit this July at Union Station.
My personal, non-expert opinion would be that NPS should have ways
to determine whether groups seeking to demonstrate have in the past
violated demonstration permits, in which case NPS should have authority
to protect federal lands from violent extremists whose actions indicate
they seek not peaceful protest but unlawful violence.
While the First Amendment dictates that all Americans have the
right to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress
of grievances, this sacred right protects speech, not violence. ANSWER
and other extremists clearly have a chilling attachment to violence, as
I testified. Their right to access public grounds should not be limited
on the basis of their voicing unpopular opinions, but in principle that
right could be limited on the basis of their committing or supporting
acts of violence. To my non-expert ears, it sounds as if the NPS may
need Congress to clarify or strengthen the Service's ability to refrain
from issuing permits to groups with a history of violent actions.
My colleagues and I at Capital Research Center likewise uphold the
right of Americans to associate freely, including by forming nonprofit
groups. But as you rightly observe, there is a statutory limit to this
right of association; namely, such groups may not provide ``material
support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization,'' and if they
do, they face not only the loss of tax-exempt status but criminal
penalties. As outlined in Capital Research Center's recent report by
Ryan Mauro, Marching Toward Violence, many dozens of nonprofits,
including the ANSWER Coalition, are in fact supporting terrorism yet
have not received the proper legal consequences from the Internal
Revenue Service and the Treasury Department.\1\ That explains why the
House recently passed H.R. 6408 to encourage the Secretary of the
Treasury to act to ensure this law is upheld.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mauro, Ryan. Marching Toward Violence: The Domestic Anti-
Israeli Protest Movement. Capital Research Center, October 9, 2024;
https://capitalresearch.org/article/marching-toward-violence-the-
domestic-anti-israeli-protest-movement/.
\2\ H.R. 6408, ``To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
terminate the tax-exempt status of terrorist supporting
organizations.'' https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-
bill/6408.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, any nonprofit group that violates the law against
support for terrorism should not be able to continue any activities as
a nonprofit, including to obtain NPS demonstration permits. How best to
deal with the current difficulties in this situation I must leave to
the relevant Congressional Committees.
______
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. I am now going to go to
the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Westerman, for his
first 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, and thank you to
the witnesses for being with us today.
Mr. Spencer, I am concerned there is a disconnect. As an
outside observer, it doesn't appear to me that the Department
officials are communicating effectively with the officers on
the ground and the ones that are putting their life on the line
every day, and I just want to get your input. How well does
leadership in the Park Service coordinate with officers and
take your input on issues such as safety and security threats,
and particularly as it relates to events like what happened on
July 24?
Mr. Spencer. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
I mean, to say it in the best terms that I can is we work
under the National Park Service, and these are bureaucrats that
have never worked law enforcement with the United States Park
Police ever. Since we are directly under them, there is a huge
disconnect between what we do as a law enforcement agency in
urban areas.
The vast majority of visitor and resource protection for
the National Park Service is with your huge parks and
everything that is out West there patrolled by law enforcement
rangers, and a lot of people get us confused with them. We are
an urban law enforcement agency under the National Park Service
that works in Washington, New York, and San Francisco. We are
one of the most public-facing law enforcement agencies in the
Federal Government for uniformed police. And with that said,
nobody in the National Park Service has any experience with
what we do, in my opinion.
I actually believe we should be our own bureau under the
Department of the Interior, and I think that might help things
a little more. I also believe our Chief of Police should have
been here today, and not somebody from the National Park
Service who has never worn our uniform or been involved with
some type of civil unrest, especially in Washington, DC.
Mr. Westerman. And when Park Service police run into issues
like you experienced on July 24, and you asked for additional
reinforcements, what kind of process do you have to go through
and how did that process work on July 24?
Mr. Spencer. Well, yes, sir, that would be our executive
command staff that does that with the National Park Service and
the Department of the Interior if they want to request
additional resources.
From what I know, if that would have happened, it would
have fell on our budget. And our budget is already as slim as
it can be. We can barely afford to hire 24 people a year right
now per Fiscal Year.
Mr. Westerman. And that is even though there was $500
million set aside in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act?
Mr. Spencer. Correct, sir. And I don't know where that
money went. It certainly didn't make it down to the United
States Park Police, from what I understand, to the best of my
knowledge.
But I do know our budget, right now, my chief, she is
frustrated as well with how much money we have to operate with
the current staffing levels that we have. If we would have
asked for additional resources, it would have fell on our
budget, and that is including lodging, travel, and then, of
course, the salaries and the overtime of the people that are
coming out here to help us out.
Mr. Westerman. Yes, I have more questions, I am going to
move on to Mr. Goldenberg.
Are you aware of any direct or indirect involvement by Mr.
Singham in the events of July 24?
Mr. Goldenberg. Mr. Singham is, based on reporting from the
New York Times, the Daily Beast, and our own independent
reporting, a major funder behind the People's Forum, which is
the convener behind the Shut It Down for Palestine movement. I
think it just so happened that Brian Becker of the ANSWER
Coalition was listed as person in charge. It was really an
event hosted broadly by the Shut It Down for Palestine
movement, that is supported by the People's Forum, that is
supported by Mr. Singham in Shanghai.
Mr. Westerman. Yes, and as you mentioned, it has been
widely reported that Mr. Singham is an advocate for the Chinese
Communist Party within the United States. Can you explain his
long-standing connections to the CCP?
Mr. Goldenberg. Yes, absolutely. As stated in my testimony
and letters sent by members of the House Ways and Means
Committee to the IRS, Mr. Singham operates out of Shanghai and
shares an office space with a group called Maku Media, a
Chinese media company that openly shares its stated goal to
``tell China's story well,'' a phrase commonly associated with
foreign propaganda.
Mr. Westerman. So, how does China stand to benefit from
these disruptive and divisive protests that are associated with
Mr. Singham?
Mr. Goldenberg. It is my belief that Mr. Singham,
potentially at the behest of the CCP, we know he has long-
standing relationships with the CCP, seek to leverage the
People's Forum and other non-profits funded by Singham----
Mr. Westerman. I am running out of time.
Mr. Goldenberg. Oh, I am sorry, sir.
Mr. Westerman. I have to get one more question in. If the
CCP is not bad enough, do we know if he has any direct or
indirect ties to the terrorist organization Hamas?
Mr. Goldenberg. I don't know, but I know the organizations
he funds are very supportive of Hamas, ideologically.
Mr. Westerman. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. The
gentlewoman from New Mexico, the Ranking Member, Ms. Stansbury,
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
the tenor at the end of the last panel of really seeking
solutions and to better understand the structural constraints
that are on Park Police, how, as policy matters, we review
applications, how our Park Police and the Federal Government
decide how to do permitting, et cetera.
To that end, Mr. Spencer, I really appreciate you being
here. Thank you for your service. Thank you for representing
our law enforcement officers. I want to pull on the thread a
little bit more that you have been talking about with
resources. And also you mentioned that several dozen members of
the force have left over the last several years. Talk to us a
little bit more about that.
How are budgetary constraints affecting the Park Police
force? And why do you believe that members of the law
enforcement community that you work with are leaving?
Mr. Spencer. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
Basically, right now, to quickly answer it, in DC alone we
are supposed to have 432 Park Police officers sworn. Right now,
we have 334. So, just DC alone, we are roughly 100 officers
below staffing, which is huge. And because of that there is a
vicious cycle of continuously canceling days off. And to put it
into perspective, in 2016 we had 30 days of our officers' days
off canceled for special events and First Amendment activities.
Fast forward to today, 2024. We had 72 so far this year,
and maybe even more since I looked at that number. So, that is
one of the reasons. And with the low staffing, we are
consistently always having to work upwards of 18-hour shifts
just to do our jobs, and people get stressed out, burned out,
and they say I could go to another Federal law enforcement
agency for better pay and not have to be so forward-facing with
the public and have to deal with these contentious civil unrest
and some of the jobs that we have.
That is basically the meat and the potatoes of why people
walk out the door. We are behind the eight ball when it comes
to our pay scale. Our pay scale, it takes 30 years to max out.
Other law enforcement agencies are looking at 20, 22 years. We
have a lot of veterans that work for the United States Park
Police that will never, including myself, I will never reach
our max pay because I will age out before we are able to do
that for our retirement.
So, those are some of the reasons why people are walking
out the door right now.
Ms. Stansbury. Is it your sense that your colleagues that
you work with enjoy the job and, notwithstanding having to work
long overtime and these pay issues, that they would like to
stay with the force but it is just folks are getting burned
out, they are not getting paid enough, and this is a tough gig
here in DC? Is that your sense of it?
Mr. Spencer. Yes, ma'am. I mean, the job itself is great.
When I came on this job, at one point we were upwards of 650
officers strong, and that lessened the workload, that made it
more enjoyable. Days off weren't canceled nearly as much.
I mean, what we were able to do in the past is, you take a
simple special event that occurs downtown in DC. We had extra
patrols on the street that could supplement some of the
activities that we would have to do to stand up a detail for a
special event. We have five stations in the DC area, so they
would pull the extra officers down and have them work that
event on their straight time during their regular shift. The
way it is now is almost every event that we have in Washington,
DC, your days off are canceled for that, and that is because we
can't staff it with our regularly-assigned patrols anymore. We
don't have enough people to do so.
Ms. Stansbury. Got it. Well, this sounds like something
that we can actually work on here in Congress. I know that law
enforcement, all levels of government, Federal, tribal, state,
local are struggling to catch up and modernize their pay
scales. I know in the state of New Mexico we had to adjust
retirement and pay scales for both law enforcement and first
responders in our fire departments. So, I would propose to my
colleagues across the aisle this is potentially a bipartisan
issue that we can work on in the Federal budget, and something
that would have a demonstrable impact on the Park Service's
ability to serve.
With that, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady for her comments. It
sounds great. I now recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr.
Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Spencer, I want to begin by thanking you personally for
your service, along with the dedicated men and women of the
United States Park Police. Like you, I am proud to have worn
the uniform, so I recognize the sacrifices that not only you
and the men and women you represent, but also all of your
families make. They make the commitment each and every day.
And as Ranking Member Stansbury said, you want to lower
morale in a department? You force overtime. You take their
vacations away that they have been planning for 4 months. I
can't imagine working 18, 19 hours a day with limited rest and
being forced to come back in. And to be honest, it was very
clear this past July that you did not receive the respect that
you deserved. And this isn't right.
In your written testimony, you discussed the challenges the
U.S. Park Police faced on July 24, due in no small part because
of the lack of resources, namely personnel. As the U.S. Park
Police is called on to respond to countless planned and special
events within DC each year, this can't be an outlier.
Mr. Spencer, how often does the Park Police face these
resource and staffing shortages for planned events?
Mr. Spencer. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
As far as planned events, special events?
Mr. Stauber. Yes.
Mr. Spencer. It is a lot. I don't have the number with me
right now, but we are constantly inundated. If you look at our
weekly bulletin, the agency puts out information on which days
off will be canceled. And they try to give us a heads up for
the big ones that we know that is going to happen every year.
But every so often a permit will just come right through, and I
get a call from somebody in the executive command staff saying,
``I am sorry, but just let your officers know we are going to
be putting out information that your days off are canceled in
the next few days or so.''
Mr. Stauber. Would you say that upwards of 90 percent of
the events that are planned or come through that need a permit,
that you have to either cancel someone's overtime or their
vacation so you can properly staff them? Would that be correct?
Mr. Spencer. I don't have that number in front of me, but
that is reasonable to say so, yes.
Mr. Stauber. How often does the Park Police request
additional units from other stations outside of Washington, DC
or from other jurisdictions completely?
Mr. Spencer. For the big events that we have planned
yearly, like the 4th of July and then every 4 years, the
inauguration is another big one that we work, those ones
typically we ask for outside resources, and that comes out of a
separate budget from the United States Park Police itself. That
is funded from another law enforcement budget.
Mr. Stauber. Speaking of budgets, $500 million was
dedicated out of the IRA for hiring in the Park Police. We
noted from earlier testimony that only $19 million went for
hiring. Where do you think the other $481 million went?
Mr. Spencer. I have no idea. And I did hear Mr. Cuvelier
say that it was $29 million. I don't have that information, but
the people I have talked to in my leadership, I have been told
$19 million.
Mr. Stauber. Yes. In fact, Mr. Cuvelier, he erred. There
was a government report that I actually entered into the record
that said it was $19 million.
So, when you have a planned event, how often are these
requests fulfilled by your staff? Let's say you have a planned
event and you need 35, well, let's say 40, additional staff for
that event. How often do you get those 40 officers voluntarily
without forcing them overtime and without taking their time
off? Does that make sense? Does the question make sense?
Mr. Spencer. Yes. Almost never.
Mr. Stauber. Yes.
Mr. Spencer. I mean, if there is an event in DC, for the
most part, unless it is something small enough where, like, our
Special Forces branch where we have SWAT and K9, if they are
not doing a mission or working the street and if they are
available, they will try and supplement that first if it is
downtown.
But no, if there is an event in DC, most likely somebody's
days off are going to be canceled, and that is all the time.
Mr. Stauber. Again, I spent 23 years in uniform. I was only
forced once to come in, and that was at Y2K. Everybody, I
think, around the nation. That was it. You start forcing these
men and women to forego their family vacations or their days
off, or forcing them to overtime, you are going to have a
morale problem, and you are seeing this. It is sad that we put
the law enforcement men and women in this position.
I think that, as the Chairman understands, there needs to
be a discussion about this. You have to properly staff.
Otherwise, you are going to burn the men and women out. And
when you start burning them out, they make mistakes,
unintentional, you know, and the quality of life, we can raise
your quality of life. We must raise your pay to make it equal
with other law enforcement, Federal law enforcement officers.
I am very concerned with your comments about the morale. I
want to assure you I will do everything I can to make sure the
men and women who serve on our National Park Police are given
the resources that they need to successfully deal with any
situation they are given. I don't want next year you coming in
front of this Committee and saying so many were forced
overtime, so many had to take their vacations off. You talk
about a family destroyer, right? Thank you for your service.
I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. Thanks for going down
that line.
Mr. Spencer, I am going to ask you some questions.
Hopefully, you can answer these.
Do you feel that your leadership gives you enough advance
notice or advanced training for these events?
Mr. Spencer. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. Our
leadership does. They do as best they can. And I see their
frustration, too.
I mean, let's be clear. The Chief, our Special Events Unit,
when they get these permits coming in they don't want to call
me and say, ``Hey, I am taking your guys' and your girls' days
off again.'' Like, they don't want to have to say that, but it
happens a lot. And the fact is if National Park Service
approves a permit, comes our way, and there is law enforcement
need, we have to stand up a detail for it.
Dr. Gosar. Are you ever consulted in advance about a group
coming in, as to whether they are violent or anything like
that?
Mr. Spencer. We have an intel office, counterintelligence
and counterterrorism, that when we have roll call that day, I
can say that they will brief us if there is going to be any
potential for violence with the incident.
Dr. Gosar. But you are not given any advance to a group,
let's say, that has a history of violence.
I am going to go back to qualify that. We have college
campuses across the country that say, ``This is your free
speech zone.'' They can restrict even just to a zone. So, why
would you have to actually OK a permit for a certain area if
you go to some other area that might be more applicable, where
it is more defensible? Why couldn't you do something like that?
Mr. Spencer. Are you talking about stand up a detail for a
specific area?
Dr. Gosar. Yes, absolutely. You say, listen, we are not
going to apply your permit for this area because we want to
make sure that it has the resources you need, and we are going
to direct you over here. Why couldn't you do that, or can you?
Mr. Spencer. I represent the rank and file officers. We
have no say in the permit process whatsoever. And I know our
leadership in the United States Park Police, the Chief and the
executive command staff, our Special Events Unit, they are at
the table sometimes, but they also have a limited role in the
permit process. They basically tell them what we can and can't
do as far as our security posture goes. And then the National
Park Service is the sole entity that takes care of the
permitting.
Dr. Gosar. So, that seems to me like that would be an area
of collaboration we could actually do, you know, consultation.
It seems like some people want to do free speech, but you know
what? The timing may not be right. Maybe you can give them a
different zone that they could go to. It seems like we have to
have more consultation with those officers on the ground. Would
you say that?
Mr. Spencer. It would definitely be helpful if we could
have a seat at the table. I know the union, we are not allowed
at these meetings sometimes just because I might say something
that they don't like. But I think the U.S. Park Police should
have more of a role in the permit process, or at least be able
to express their concerns more than what we do.
Dr. Gosar. And transparency of allocated resources like
money should be something on the table, should it not, for
everybody to see where the money goes?
Mr. Spencer. As far as----
Dr. Gosar. Where the money goes.
Mr. Spencer. The money from?
Dr. Gosar. Well, that Congress allocates to the Park
Service, don't you think?
Mr. Spencer. I would absolutely love to see that myself,
sir.
Dr. Gosar. OK. Thank you very much, and thank you very much
for your service.
Mr. Goldenberg, I think you were in the audience when I
talked about disclosure on NGOs. For example, if they took one
penny from the Federal Government directly or indirectly
through a pass-through, they would be required by law to
actually show us where they got that money. Transparency would
be very good with that aspect, would it not?
Mr. Goldenberg. Yes, absolutely. And if it wasn't for
independent reporting into the People's Forum and the Singham
Network, no one would have known where that money came from
because it was being passed through a philanthropic fund
connected to a major bank that hid his identity. So, there
definitely needs to be more transparency into funding into the
non-profit system.
Dr. Gosar. Would you agree with that, Mr. Walter?
Mr. Walter. With foreign funding, there definitely should
be significantly more disclosure. I mean, on the one hand,
American citizens have a serious right to privacy with their
funding, but foreign nationals absolutely do not.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I think if you were taking Federal
dollars, I think you have to have that transparency, don't you
not, Mr. Walter?
Mr. Walter. Well, yes----
Dr. Gosar. Regardless if you are a citizen or non-citizen.
I know there are limits on that aspect, but if it is taxable
income, if it is given by the Federal Government, you have
reporting requirements.
Mr. Walter. Well, you are quite right. And when one group
is giving to another group, that is not private citizens and
should be disclosed. And Capital Research Center, where I work,
has put out extensive suggestions for improving the IRS filings
for fiscal sponsorships, for foreign funding and such things,
and communicated with your colleagues at the Ways and Means
Committee about this, who I think are taking an interest.
Dr. Gosar. Now, I guess I have one more question for the
two of you. Let's say that you had something that was business-
related, something that would be applied to our defense of this
country like, say, the grid, like an electrical company or a
solar company that has access to the grid. Would you agree or
could you give me some offers of why it would be inadequate to
ask that a United States citizen or those who hold a green card
from the United States are required to sit on any operating
board or over any oversight board of that industry? Make sense?
Mr. Goldenberg. Yes, that falls outside of my area of
expertise, but maybe Mr. Walter----
Mr. Walter. Yes, it is a little beyond my area of
expertise, although it certainly sounds reasonable on the face
of it.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. I guess what I am getting to is if you have
a bad actor, then if they have a green card or they are a
citizen of the United States, you have treason aspects that you
can hold in law that you don't have with others.
With that being said, I think we are done with our
questions. I thank all the witnesses for your participation.
There may be some more people that have some questions from
the Committee, and we ask that you will respond to those in
writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee may
submit their questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on
Friday, December 13. The hearing record will be held open for
10 business days for these responses.
With that, the Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Westerman
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II15/20241210/117646/HHRG-
118-II15-20241210-SD009.pdf
[all]