numbers yet. they haven't made the decision. >> i want you to get this committee, please, mr. jarvis, the latest numbers on the funds, where they will come from and whether there will be any shortfall. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. now recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. hice, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think it's clear that the national park service certainly under the direction and action of director jarvis is desperately in need of some oversight. being a member of the natural resources subcommittee on oversight and investigations, we actually had a hearing last month on this very subject, and i want to thank miss kendall for being a part of that and for being back here today. director jarvis, in your testimony you stated that you were held accountable for the book deal where you wrote it without approval from the ethics

office and your punishment, is, as i understand it, monthly ethics training for the remainder of your duration. is that correct? >> yes, sir. that's one component. >> okay. i think that's -- personally, i don't think that goes far enough, but that's not going to be the point of my questions here. you stated that you've been held accountable for the book debacle, but we also have seen in the hearing today other problems throughout the national park service, in yellowstone, in the canaveral sea shore, in grand canyon river district, sexual harassment and other issues. and these individuals were allowed to retire or they were transferred. you stated the need for people to be held accountable for their actions. do you believe that these people have been held accountable for their actions? >> i believe we are following the regulations related to federal employees and we are

applying appropriate discipline. if they are eligible to retire, then they can do that at their -- >> so you think it's appropriate discipline. >> yes, sir, i do. >> okay. miss kendall, let me ask you, do you believe it's appropriate discipline? >> it's hard to say whether it's appropriate. i think it's more the appearance. i would use, as an example, the chief ranger who was then demoted, as i understand it, in terms of grade, but took the position of superintendent which by appearances, anyway, seems to look like it was more promotion and demotion. >> all right, yeah. we've got people who -- i mean, egregious behavior, sexual harassment, for example. would you say that this is a pattern in the national park service? >> i don't have the data to say it's a pattern, but it certainly is a concern. >> back to you, mr. jarvis. when we hear that employees who engage in misconduct or mismanagement are not held

accountable and that is precisely what we hear, when we hear that, it sounds like leadership actually condones misbehavior at the park service. how do you think this affects morale? >> well, actually, i think the fact that i am being disciplined sends a message that no one is exempt in this agency. and i think that employees are being disciplined. appropriate action in accordance with the rules and regulations that govern federal employees are being applied appropriately throughout the system. >> discipline and punishment is one thing. hand slapping is another. i would hardly call what's taking place as discipline. ms. kendall, back to you. in recent cases of misconduct that you've investigated, how many people have been fired? >> i'm not aware of any that have been fired, sir. >> all right. so they are retired perhaps but not fired.

>> perhaps. >> perhaps. but you're not aware of any who have been fired. director jarvis, do you find this disturbing? >> i find that it's -- it is the system in which we live. firing a federal employee is very, very difficult. >> that's not my question. is it disturbing that people who are engaged in this type of misbehavior, is it disturbing to you that they're not being fired? >> their behavior is extraordinarily disturbing to me, but i am a federal employee and i unction the ruderstand th regulations that apply to them, and frankly, i don't have the power in most cases to fire these employees. >> all right. you still didn't answer my question. it's disturbing to us, too, the behavior, but it's also disturbing that they're not being fired. real quickly, is there, ms. kendall, are you aware of nps employees who are afraid to report misconduct?

>> i'm not specifically aware of precise nps employees that are afraid of reporting misconduct, but i do believe that across the park service and throughout the department there is some fear by employees to report misconduct. >> why would people be fearful, director jarvis? and i'll close with this. >> well, i think that it's -- i don't believe it's fear. i believe they don't think action will be taken. and i think that what you're seeing today with these reports -- and i appreciate the reports from the office of the inspector general and the actions that we're going to take and are taking, we are going to see more reporting. actually, i think we're going to get more people to be willing to step up because they're seeing management actually taking action. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> will the gentleman yield before he yields back? with the indulgence here. >> i'd be happy to yield.

>> mr. uberunga, what happened to him? did you discipline him? >> mr. uberaga was going to be subject to discipline. we were preparing a disciplinary action for mr. uberaga for his omission of action based on the reporting in 2013. in consultation with the regional director for the intermountain region who is his line supervisor and the deputy director for operations here in washington who is the line supervisor for the intermountain region,s the three of us unanimously agreed that grand canyon needed new leadership immediately, at that mr. uberaga was incapable even though he has performed well in other issues, he was incapable of leading the change we needed at the grand canyon. so as a senior executive, he is subject to being transferred and

i told him i was transferring him out of the grand canyon immediately and he chose to retire. >> so you did offer him a position, another position. >> i did. >> okay. >> gentleman yields back. will now recognize the gentlewoman from new jersey, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i really don't know where to begin here because the picture that seems to be be painted from the discussion and from the questions and answers is that this a dysfunctional organization with very little accountability and not very good leadership. i'm going to ask you a couple of questions regarding the park service as an employer. what percentage of women and minorities do you have employed in the park service? you have 22,000 employees i think you said. what percentage of them are minorities and what percentage of them are women? >> i don't have that data in front of me. i'd be glad to get it to you.

i would say in terms of women -- i'm just roughing it here, i don't know specifically off the top of my head -- we're probably 55% male/45% women. and i think in terms of representative minorities we are significantly low. we do not represent the demographic of the nation, and i will be glad to get you the hard statistics, though. >> so you're the director, is that your title? what is your title exactly? >> director. >> director. and under you, there are a series of deputies directors or assist ant directors? >> there are two deputies, both of them women. >> and under them? >> there are seven regional directors that serve in the field. and then we have associate

directors here in washington for specific programs. >> are you familiar with the requirements of eeoc in terms of the development of a plan and the responsibility and accountability for the implementation of that plan? >> yes, ma'am. >> who in your -- >> i am very familiar with the recommendations of eeoc in terms of a model program and how to implement it. >> who in your organization is responsible for that? >> our associate director of human resources. >> and to whom does that person report? >> to the deputy director for operations. >> so is that in violation of the guidance from eeoc? is that not supposed to be a function that reports directly to the director? >> the eeoc model program definitely recommends that the eo office report directly to the director. >> so why is that not the case with you? >> well, when i came on in 2009, it was actually buried three levels below that. we moved it up to directly

report, but i agree with you that i think that it should be moved to report directly to the director of the national park service and that's an action we're going to take. >> what kind of training and management development do your -- does your staff generally routinely get? how do they get informed about the laws? how do they get informed about creating culture that would discourage sexual harassment or any other kind of discrimination? what is it that's done proactively, routinely and sustainably that would help to create a better climate there? >> so when i came on in 2009, i actually created the first program for relevancy, diversity and inclusion in the history of the national park service. i specifically gathered individuals through the organization that represent the diversity of our nation creating the allies for inclusion, and

they have been working directly with the leadership of the national park service to help us create an inclusive workforce, one that reflects the diversity of the nation and has a work environment that is supportive of diversity, that being ethnic diversity, sexual orientation, women, young people, you know, the whole range. and so we use that information both to communicate -- i've done a number of web chats, specific videos out to the field on eo, on inclusion, and diversity as well. >> thank you. director jarvis, the information that i have is that the eeoc function or functionary still reports three levels below you. so when did you actually -- did you change that reporting level? and when? >> i moved it up. no, it has been moved up. but i agree with you and this is

an issue that i've discussed with our hr, that i believe that in order to really meet the standards expected of us in eeoc and particularly in light of these new issues that have come out that clearly there is the potential for sexual harassment to occur in other pockets in the national park service i think the eo office needs to report directly to me and to meet the standards which are regular reporting to me and to the leadership, having advocates that represent the diversity of the nation and a regular understanding at the senior leadership about these issues. so i think there's change afoot. >> all right. may i just bring something to -- >> sure, go ahead. >> the report that was submitted for 2014 indicates each manager has an eeo manager that reports to a regional director and that

the director is under the third level reporting structure. so i think that maybe there's a lack of communication within your organization as to who reports where, which is sort of a red flag that we have some serious problems with accountability and responsibility there. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank the gentlewoman. now recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. hurd, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the national parks are awesome. i have the pleasure of representing seven. i get to represent big bend national park, which is headed by an amazing superintendent, and she really is a treasure for the federal government. you all have a hard task to make sure that these jewels of our nation are around for future generations and that future generations continue to interact with them in the ways that past generations have. it's been a real pleasure over the last 17 months that i've been in congress when i

crisscross the district and talk throughout the country about encouraging americans to find their park or his or her park. this is an important resource for our country. it's unfortunate that we're here today talking about sexual harassment, poor culture of management. and my question -- my first question to you, director jarvis, is to piggyback on what my friend and colleague from new jersey has been talking about. what steps are being taken to ensure there's zero tolerance for sexual harassment within the national park service? >> well, clearly, zero tolerance was not the standard at the grand canyon or at cape canaveral, canaveral national seashore. and that's just unacceptable. we at the senior leadership a discussion that i led in may and

this is the regional directors, the associate directors and the senior superintendents of the organization, had a very open and emotional discussion about zero tolerance and why this agency has -- >> so what are you doing right now? what steps, concrete steps, have been taken to ensure this culture changes? >> so the first thing that we feel as recommended by the department of defense is a prevalent survey. and that is to get baseline, understanding of whether or not or how much harassment is occurring in the workplace in the service. so getting that survey done, we've committed to doing that by a third party as soon as possible. i can't give you a specific date because we have to go through a contracting process to get there. but that's the first step. we have reinforced a message to the field on zero tolerance and i think we're making very public the actions we're taking at the

grand canyon, in particular about disciplinary actions and expectations of behavior to meet the zero tolerance policy. >> so director jarvis, in your opinion -- and i know you're getting ready to do a survey -- in your opinion, what allowed this kind of culture to seep in in these two parks that we've been talking about today? >> i think one was the conditions of the particular activity create an environment that vulnerable individuals can be preyed upon. so this is an area the department of defense has made some -- within defense, they have sort of special unit -- in the park service, we have what we call special units, river districts, fire districts, fire crews, trail crews. these are places where individuals are thrown together in a tough environment and the potential is there.

so this is an area we're focusing on particularly right now, and we've made management aware across the system that these are areas that you need special attention. we have to create an ombudsman, individuals that are subject to this harassment can call safely. i mean, if it's your supervisor that is harassing you, that's a bad reporting chain if you have to report this to the person that's actually harassing you, so we've created the opportunity for outside of that to be able to report this issue so that we can get -- and if we find it, we're reporting it to the i.g. and saying we need to go in and investigate. >> well, you mentioned the fire crews. i also represent guadeloupe mountains national park. i know that's one place you served. over 14,000 acres of fire and what the fire crews are doing is heroic work. and ms. kendall, my last 30 seconds to you. what types of steps should be taken by the national park service to address the poor culture of management and lack of accountability and

leadership? >> well, i think holding individuals accountable for misconduct. mr. jarvis is correct in that you cannot always make public how discipline is imposed, but in doing that, doing it regularly, i mentioned progressive discipline documentation. it's something that can be done and if it's done properly, it's very effective. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. now go to the gentlewoman from michigan, ms. lawrence for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member cummings. the deputy -- this question is to you, director jarvis. the department -- the deputy secretary interyear reviewed the i.g.'s finding and issued a memo concluding, and i quote, "the department has reviewed the report of investigation

carefully and come to the conclusion that director jarvis did violate federal employee ethics standards." do you agree with that statement? >> yes, ma'am, i do. >> when asked by the inspector general if, "looking back you, quote, would you have done anything differently? you replied, "would i have done the same thing? probably. i think i knew going in that there was a certain amount of risk." why would you say that? that make it's look like you didn't care about the ethic rules. >> well, let me apologize for that. i was absolutely wrong in that statement. >> on may 27th, you sent an e-mail to all park services employees that said, and i quote, "i failed to initially

understand and accept my mistake. that was wrong." what part of the mistake did you initially fail to understand and what happened between your interview with the i.g. when you said you'd probably do the same thing again and then on may 27th when your e-mail that you stated that you were caused to accept that you had made a mistake. can you walk me through that? what changed? >> well, one of the requirements under my disciplinary action is that i receive ethics training and i have been spending that time with the departmental ethics office and i have to say i've developed a much deeper understanding and respect for and appreciation for the work of the office of the department of ethics. and i think that has resulted in me reconsidering and rethinking my position on this and saying

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

>> so, in the execution of the book, i thought i was following all of the ethical standards that are required of me. i was using a source that the park service normally uses. i was not personally benefiting. i was doing it on my own time. all of those are the ethics requirements. what i did not do was seek the advice of the ethics office which would have clarified my mistakes right upfront. that was the ethics issue. the discipline i received is appropriate to the action and i think i've been open about my mistakes to everyone that has been involved. >> we all are human and make mistakes, but we're also hired to do a job that requires us,

spae especially leadership positions, to set an example. i'm disappointed that your understanding, especially based on your previous requirements in this federal agency, did not allow you the depth of understanding and your failure to meet the ethical requirements. i yield back my time. >> before the gentlewoman yields back, would she yield to me for a second? >> yes, sir. >> director jarvis, the problem i have with the answer you think you're dealing with the highest of ethics, particularly with the book deal, is the documentation shows the opposite. you sent a letter, an e-mail, to the person who would be the publisher. there's a follow-up e-mail asking for the conversation because essentially you knew you had to have them ask you to do it as opposed to what really happened was you told them that you wanted to publish the book and you compounded the problem ethically by writing a handwritten note to the secretary assuring her that it was of the highest ethical

standards by saying it was reviewed by ethics and that they had asked you to do it, which was a lie. this wasn't an innocent mistake. it was a pattern. it was deceptive. and i think you knew you were creating an ethical problem. and as you said, i think candidly, to the i.g., i'm willing to take that risk. many, many, many times i've had these types of problems. i believe you when you write that. but the pattern, the documentation that ms. lawrence is talks about is clear. you asked them to do this. they sell millions of dollars worth of stuff through the parks. they need you. you had a telephone conversation. and then they sent you a letter saying, oh, yes, this is what we need from you. that's a pattern. and it's unethical. i yield back. now i recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. >> i thank the chair. well, forgive me if i have a dissenting voice here.

i'm not quite sure what the tempest is in a teapot with respect to the book. miss kendall, so director jarvis wanted to surreptitiously publish a book and benefit from it, is that correct? >> that's my understanding, yes, sir. >> surreptitiously benefit? >> oh, i'm sorry. >> please speak up. we can't hear you. >> i'm sorry. what was your question? >> my question was your finding is director jarvis deliberately and surreptitiously engineered the publication of the book that he surreptitiously wrote in order to benefit surreptitiously personally? >> i don't believe we concluded he would benefit -- >> no, you didn't. he benefited not at all. >> that's correct. >> his motivation was to help the park service on its centennial. is that correct? >> i believe so. >> what a crime. what a terrible thing for the

head of the park service to want to promote the park service on its 100th anniversary. and ethically we're going to what, burn him at the stake and destroy his reputation because, all right, some rules were put aside. they were put aside, if i understand it correctly, because there was a deadline we were approaching and he had some legitimate concern about that deadline. that if we didn't kind of expedite it, it wasn't going to happen because no one else was doing it. fair enough? >> it was self-imposed deadline if it was a deadline. >> well, the centennial is not a self-imposed deadline. what's the centennial? >> you're right. >> right. >> that's what was on his mind. he wasn't going to benefit from this. the proceeds he dedicated to the park foundation. you know, i must say to my

colleagues, it's -- we might walk a little humbly in the face of the lord when we're a body that's been accused individually of sexual harassment. we've had charges brought against members, including of this committee. we've had people involved in book deals, brought down two speakers. doesn't make it right. of course, everyone should follow the strict letter of the law, but i will say, my own experience in this body dealing with an ethics committee, rules can be very arbitrary. and there are two approaches to life. one is a common sense kind of work-it-through approach and the other is a very deridical law-driven, rule-driven approach to life and religion and politics. the latter may be a comfortable for some, but it's not really a practical approach to life.

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

problem prior to that? >> absolutely unaware. >> and when was that? give me just the date. >> i forget the exact -- >> quickly. >> 2014. >> okay. 2014. was that before or after the superintendent david uberaga was appointed superintendent of grand canyon? >> it was after. he'd been there for about four years. >> all right. so that was the sequence? you confirmed that, miss kendall? >> yes, sir. >> and miss kendall, when it was brought to director jarvis' attention there was a problem, did he take action? did he ignore it? did he punish whistleblowers? did he punish alleged victims? >> we received a request directly from the secretary in response to those letters, and we undertook the investigation at the secretary's request. >> but was there any -- i'm asking a different question. was there any evidence that director jarvis covered up, was complicit, turned a blind eye,

ignored these allegations? >> no, sir. >> none. i thank you. my time is up. >> go to the second round. i'm now going to recognize myself for five minutes. director jarvis, you write in your testimony, you said that you have zero tolerance for sexual harassment. what does that mean, zero tolerance? >> it means that when sexual harassment is identified within the organization at any level that there is an immediate response not only to the perpetrators but also to the victims of it, that zero means zero. >> does it mean you recommend that people be fired? >> again, chairman, these are federal employees. and jumping to firing is not an option that i have under the current laws of civil service. >> you can make the recommendation. you can push for it.

you can -- you can -- can you not? >> i'm subject to those same laws just like any other manager. i can't say fire that employee because that violates the whole title 5 rights. there's a process we need to go through. >> i understand they need to go through a process, but your recommendation does have some weight, does it not? >> it definitely has weight in terms of that we have zero tolerance. and that -- >> but what does that mean, zero toll lance? it doesn't sound like it means anything. we're not going to tolerate that, just don't keep doing it. so when you have an allegation of multiple sexual harassment issues happening, i want to know what you're doing about it. >> we are aggressively pursuing appropriate disciplinary -- >> i want to know what you think appropriate disciplinary action is for sexual harassment. >> i think removal is one of those very much possible options. and it is definitely on the

plate. >> so when did you make those recommendations either in the case of the grand canyon or in the canaveral situation? did you make any of those recommendations? >> i have not made those recommendations as yet. i have not been -- >> how many women does it take? i mean, we've got dozens. so at what point do you make a recommendation that somebody be fired? like, what -- how many times does somebody have to be sexually harassed for it to get on your radar screen to say enough's enough, now we're going to recommend firing? >> when that line supervisor for these employees brings to me the details of their proposed disciplinary action, i will at that time make my recommendation on what should be done. >> in none of the cases regarding sexual harassment in these two scenarios did you ever recommend somebody be fired? >> the process for their discipline is incomplete at this point. so i have not made a recommendation that anyone be

fired. >> and that's the heart of the problem. that's the heart of the problem. let me go back to this. i want to read this. this is from the testimony from ms. kendall, the inspector general. we're talking about the canaveral national seashore. with the the chief ranger was disciplined for a procurement violation, but a particular concern was that in 2015 the chief ranger publicly disputed a media story about a former canaveral park employee who had provided information to the oiga about allegations of improper hiring and procurement irregularities. we had substantiated those allegations, and we reported our findings to director jarvis in 2012, but he has yet to respond to our office. to date, national park service has also taken no action to address the chief ranger's unbecoming conduct." is that true or false? yeah, to you. you're the director. >> sorry. i thought you were asking --

>> no. she wrote. i mean, i'm reading what she wrote is that they provided you the findings in 2012 and has yet to respond to her office. >> these local park issues are referred to the regional director. >> so when you get an oig report and you're referring it down to the person who created the problem, the chief ranger and the superintendent, right? >> no. to the regional director, not the park superintendent. >> you give it to the regional director, wash your hands of it, but there's no response. doesn't that get on your radar? isn't that something you're worried about? >> i'm worried about i don't know why -- >> but they got no response. did you get a response, ms. kendall? >> to my knowledge, no. >> so you don't even respond to her. let me go on. "last week," again, we being ms. kendall, "issued a report to the national park service on a

pattern and practice of sexual harassment by the same chief ranger, who continues to serve in that position despite three substantiated allegations against him in less than two years." she says "the national park service has not had time to respond to this most recent report, but with three other reports in four years this is a profound example of leadership problem that the national park service has failed to address at multiple levels." what would you disagree with in her assessment there? >> we have taken action on the individual at cape canaveral. his commission has been removed. and he's been removed from the position of chief ranger. >> when did that happen? >> i do not know the exact date. >> i mean, is it in the last couple weeks? >> no. i don't know, honestly. i can get back to you, but i do not have that -- >> we're having a hearing about this. i mean, it's in our written testimony. you don't know the disposition of this person? >> i know that his commission's been removed. that's all i know. >> when his commission is removed, does he still work there? >> he is still employed. >> where? >> at canaveral. >> so there's -- how many sexual

harassments does it take to fire a federal worker or even get to your point where you even recommend somebody being fired? this is a group of 50 people. there's three substantiated allegations. and he still works there. the guy should be arrested. he should probably be in jail. he should at least be fired. and you should at least try to fire him. but you don't do any of that. what does that say to the women there? how would you look them in the eye? hey, i got two daughters about to enter the workforce. i've got a daughter and a daughter-in-law entering the workforce, and i don't want them to go and deal with the scum that is in your department in your agency because that sexual harassment as a percentage of the workforce is so detrimental. and i put it on your shoulders to hold those people accountable and at least try. at least go down fighting. at least let them know, you know what, i've got your back. because sexual harassment, it ain't going to stand in my department, in my agency.

but i don't see any of that. like, i don't know. i have no idea. and you've had dozens of situations and you've made no recommendation to try to do that. so don't complain that the system is failing you. you're failing the system. your leadership is lacking. my time's expired. i recognize the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. you know, i want to just go back for a moment to my friend, mr. conno connolly's comments and i don't want you to misunderstand -- i was hoping he'd stay around for a minute. i know he has another hearing. the problem is not so much the book. you know, my pastor has a saying. he says, "it's not what you do,

it's what you do says about you." and it seems to me that you really had an utter disregard for the ethics rules. it's not some -- you know, i can understand you're trying to get the book out. and, but when you talk about, you know, you don't mind taking a risk and that's how you -- i mean, i think you kind of laid it out very nicely. this is how you operate. you say you take a risk and you'd do it again. and what -- and i know you come in and apologized this morning and you apologized to your employees over and over again, but what do you think that says to employees?

and there probably is a link when they see the top person in the agency, the very person who is supposed to be making sure they do the right things, and when they say you're not doing the right thing, i mean, that has to affect morale. would you agree? >> well, it's -- i think my employees know who i am and have e-mailed me hundreds of e-mails of support because they look at me as a human being that makes mistakes, that i've owned up to my mistake. i've openly apologized. and admitted that i was wrong. and i'm being disciplined openly. no hiding of that discipline to anyone. and that is being applied appropriately. so i think that it may affect some people from a morale

stand point, but i think this is -- i'm doing what i need to do as the director of the national park service to own up to my mistakes and apologize for them. >> in my private life before i became a congressman one of the things that i did was counsel and work with lawyers when they had disciplinary problems. and we had lawyers who had stellar careers. stellar. and did one thing and got disbarred, never to practice law forever. so when you talk about employees knowing you and what a great guy you are, you know, but when you say things like, i think i knew going into this there was a certain amount of risk, i've never been afraid of a risk,

i've gotten my ass in trouble many, many, many -- you got three manies -- times in the park service. by necessarily -- by necessarily getting -- by not -- listen to what you said. by not necessarily getting permission. i mean, it's like -- i'm trying, i'm really, really, really bending over backwards trying to, you knows, give you the benefit of the doubt. but when somebody says basically screw you, this is how i operate. then that makes me wonder, these people doing the sexual harassing. you said something else that really kind of got next to me. you said it's not that the women are afraid. they're concerned that something will not be done about the

harassment. is that what you said? >> that's part of it, yes. >> well, if a young lady is sitting watching this right now and she's thinking about coming into the park service and she knows that -- this pattern. she knows the top guy takes an attitude of it's rules, what the hell, and doesn't see much happening and sees things happening over and over and over again, i mean, what's that say to them? if it was your daughter, i'm just curious, would you feel comfortable sending her to the park service? >> i do have a daughter who works on public health for women in africa. and she is a very strong individual. and probably watching this. as we speak.

and i think she would say that she would work for the park service because we are aggressively addressing this issue. this issue has come out and it's incredibly disturbing to me that we have tolerated sexual harassment within our organization. but i'll tell you this. the senior leadership, the senior women of our organization are committed to rooting this out. it's not going to be easy, and it's not going to be overnight. and frankly, as we take this on aggressively, you're going to see more. more going to come out. that's exactly what the department of defense told us, is that you're going to, as we aggressively pursue it, and women that have been harassed, who have not been willing to speak out in the past, will suddenly speak out. and probably will be back in here saying how come you've got now six cases or eight cases of harassment in the organization? and that's because we are aggressively pursuing it and individuals are finally feeling empowered and protected and willing to speak. that's a commitment i'm making

and the senior part of my organization is also making backing me up on this, that we are going to root this out of the national park service. >> miss kendall, this is my last question. he just said that we're going to probably hear more cases because women are going to feel more empowered. can you tell us, to your knowledge, whether you have confidence based upon what you know that that would likely be the case? >> i don't really have any basis to say yes or no, sir. >> and your recommendations are what right now? >> we did not make specific recommendations. we usually don't with our reports of investigation except for two things that we did provide to the secretary and to mr. jarvis.

one was to be careful about backgrounds of people that they hire because they did hire back or allowed back one of the perpetrators as a volunteer. the other was to handle internal sexual harassment investigations properly, which was part of the problem in the grand canyon case. the initial investigation that they conducted internally did not proceed properly and it was also handled improperly because it was allowed to be distributed to more individuals than needed to know about it. >> mr. jarvis, you know, assuming you stay in the position, what can we do to hold your feet to the fire? what would you suggest? because we've got a problem here. we got women who want to be treated properly.

i don't want the norm to be you come in and get harassed. that shouldn't be the norm. seems like we're moving toward that if we're not already there from what you described to me. said there are more cases probably coming up. how would you hold your feet to the fire? because i think we have a duty, too, to our constituents to protect them. i mean, you're a nice guy. but, you know, if people are coming into the workplace feeling threatened, i don't understand how they can do their job properly if they're sitting there feeling afraid that somebody's going to say something improper to them or force them into a position that they don't want to be in. how do we hold your feet to the fire? >> sir, i think you hold my feet to the fire by requiring me to come back up here and meet with any individuals or group of individuals from this committee

or any of the other committees that have jurisdiction and report to you specific actions that we are taking, both a timeline, individual actions and response through the rest of this year and the coming years. i mean, we have been getting i think excellent advice from the department of defense and the national oceanic -- >> have you been taking it? >> yes, absolutely we have been taking it. we are actively engaged with them on this process. and i think you need to hold me accountable. you need to hold the agency accountable. that, and we owe it to the women and the men of the organization that we create an inclusive workforce, a respectful and supportive and safe workplace for all of our employees and we are absolutely committed to that and you should hold me accountable. >> do you have a plan? you have a plan, right? >> yes, we do have a plan. >> thank you. >> mr. jarvis, director, the i.g. dealing with the chief

ranger in canaveral sent you a report in 2012. i guess i fundamentally don't understand why you can just dismiss that and send that off to your regional person to deal with. there's a reason why they have the inspectors general give them directly to either directors or cabinet secretaries, so it can be on their radar screen. so they can take care of it. let me read to you another thing that ms. kendall wrote in her testimony. finally, this is again talking about canaveral. "the same superintendent, not the chief ranger but this time the superintendent has been at canaveral since 2010. was named a subject in our 2012 report to director jarvis." are you familiar with that report? >> yes, i am. >> did you read it when you got it in 2012? >> i don't remember. >> the employee that reported the allegations of misconduct in her 2012 report made additional

allegations of reprisal that were founded by the merit systems protection board and resulted in a settlement with the national park service. the merit system protection board noted the sunt was aware superintendent was aware of the employee's allegations of procurement misconduct and did nothing to address the issue and failed to process a whistleblower of the reprisal. additionally, the merit protection board noted that the superintendent showed, quote, a lack of candor, end quote, when responding to investigators and the highlighted action she took to obstruct the investigation. yet we have no indication that national park service has taken any disciplinary action against her. did you take any interdisciplinary action against her? >> i do not know. >> how do you not know that? mr. cummings is asking if you get it, if you're responding, if

you're paying attention, if you're learning. you've got an outside inspector general who comes in and says there's a problem here. there's a reprisreprisal. whistleblowers who step up and do the difficult thing of saying, hey, there's a problem here -- we'll getg to the mat for those people. that happened in this case. she's telling you they had a lack of candor. they weren't candid about this. so much so that it cost the american taxpayers -- i don't know how much we had to pay this person to get them right and whole. but that person works there still, right? >> yes, sir. >> you didn't do anything about it. why do we believe that you will do something right about it in the future? you purposely mislead the secretary, you have ig reports that you don't respond to. you have more than a dozen -- two dozen sexual harassment

cases. you say there's zero tolerance, but not one time did you recommend that somebody actually be fired. guess what, nobody was fired. you've done a lot of good things in your service, i'm sure. if you want a new direction, if you want there to be the type of park service that you claim that you want, it's going to require new leadership and it's not going to happen with you. you've had years to get this right. only later do we see things percolate up to the top. but i've got to tell you, if we're going to do right by federal employees, we're going to have to have a different -- we're going to have to have a change. in your written testimony, the thing you gave us last night, zero tolerance. and then you just told mr. cummings a few minutes ago, it's unbelievable to me we've tolerated this for so long. it has no tolerance.

recommend these people be fired. talk to the prosecutors so that there can be action. that's the kind of leadership i want to see. that's what the employees at national park wants to see. management is treated a whole lot different than that rank and file person. that cannot stand. i think it's been deception. i don't think it's been a mistake. yield back and recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> just one last thing. there were some ladies that were dancing and they got 14 days suspension. is that right? >> that's correct. >> can you tell us about that a little bit? >> so, the situation at the grand canyon, once the river district was made aware at the

management park level and his deputy, they instituted some specific policies about behavior. they eliminated alcohol use on the river trips. they met with the river rangers and staff before they went down the river. and said this kind of suggestive behavior, harassment will not be tolerated. then there was an incident on the river that involved a number of people including the two women. that's when the sflinry action was imposed on the women. frank ly, i think this was an enormous mistake. it was wrong. >> why do you say that? >> zero tolerance is zero tolerance. it's not to be reinterpreted by

the park superintendent in a way of setting new standards for behavior. he did not take action on -- when he was made aware this was going on inside the park. he instituted a new set of policies to prevent it. it them didn't prevent. then he took action on the two women. they have filed eo complaints that are being adjudicated. >> as i listen to you -- it goes back to some of the things the chairman has been saying. i'm sitting here, listening to you, and you -- you -- you told untrue statements to those above this. and you're sitting here, talking this strong talk. but when it comes to you, it's a whole different thing.

why is that? why should that be? >> i think i have been appropriately disciplined myself. and i have apologized for that. >> say that again. >> i said that -- if i understand your question about holding myself accountable? >> yeah. >> is that the question? >> yeah. >> i believe that for the ethics violation that i did in production of the book, i have been held accountable by the department of interior, by my superiors. i have been -- >> basically got a reprimand and told that you had to have some ethics training. >> that's right. >> and the interesting thing was that you were an ethics officer, you told us, but had to go back and get the ethics training? >> that's correct. >> oh, man. last thing -- let me tell you something. and, mr. chairman, i think this is part of the problem.

one of the most important things, one of -- and you said many. it goes back to what you were asking, mr. chairman. you said that the leadership tries to avoid taking disciplinary actions all together. i'm paraphrasing what you said. so, are you capable of doing what the chairman asks? of taking appropriate disciplinary actions? >> yes, i am. >> thank you. >> committee stands adjourned.

c-span's washington journal. coming up thursday morning, david brat will be on to discuss the fiscal challenges facing congress, current political climate in campaign 2016. also michigan democratic brenda lawrence will talk about the latest on the flint, michigan, water crisis. she'll also discuss a recent letter from the epa to michigan governor rick snyder and karen

weaver, calling on officials to provide stable, reliable, and quick support to a reliable drinking system. and whether britain will remain part of the european union. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern thursday morning. join the discussion. >> c-span's road to the white house takes you to the political conventions. july 18th, the republican national convention. >> we'll be going into the convention no matter what happens. and i think we're going to go in so strong. >> and watch the democratic national convention, starting july 25th with live coverage from philadelphia. >> let's go forward, let's win the nomination and, in july, let's return as a