marshals to someone's office to degrade into million him and -- and humiliate him. we will do without consultation with this half of the committee. which tells you they are up to something they don't quite want us to know about. my friend from south carolina says there's a double standard. i supported their critique of the prosecutors that they overreached and it was wrong. in my home state of virginia, i don't applaud the acts -- actions but i support the supreme court ruling that it was prosecutorial overreach and there was too much ambiguity of what constitutes "quote -- print

quote -- we print also share a concern about a broader principle than a short-term political cheap shot. right of amendment u.s. citizen began to -- be damned. that is not right. over, thishis is election cycle, the sad legacy dispensingdiency of with a constitutional right of every american to protect himself or herself against legal a process thate protects them from testifying if they choose not to whether they like it or not.

this is not the first time we have cap on those rights. we subsequently has given up those rights even though she protested that was not true. even though her attorneys insisted that was not true. even though there are plenty of case law during the mccarthy era that clearly suggests that is not the standard. that the stop us. today we are going to vote on toty lines and we're going degrade the reputation of congress and this committee and it to make every american trouble just a little bit -- ter remble because if we can do this liono, we can do this to you. what other rights, not the

second amendment. that is sacred. that is not conditional in any way shape or form. but the first amendment, not so much. this amendment not at all. we will get to the rest if it is convenient or expedient or politically serves our interest. that's a can of for this job -- an oath for the stock, it was not so he would come from us is right at the table to be humiliated. it would be -- it was to protect the constitutional rights of every american the best of my ability. we are about to compromise those rights. that is wrong and that is a legacy on the bus be proud of. i yield back. >> any other member which to speak? ms. maloney. we have to get him his plaque at > missed by cap --

>> that everyone on the side of the aisle as a criminal defense attorney. some of us are prosecutors and could never see themselves as a criminal defense attorney. the scope of the law, i take this extremely seriously. i'm concerned about this being an unethical act on the part of this committee. my colleagues question that this is not about politics and not partisan come i'm wondering what it is about. i think it is about an abuse of power and a waste of time. it is a waste of this committee's time and it is destroying the committee. it is destroying the reputation of this committee because it is very clear he would do if he came here. many of my college believe they can break the man. and take away him asserting his

fifth amendment right when his attorneys have told us that should he be brought here, he will assert his fifth amendment right to every question. what is the point? what is the point of bringing them here having him in contempt of the camera except for the camera. something we could do in closed doors under deposition and it would be on the record. veryttorneys have been clear in writing that he came before this committee, he would andinue to exert his rights they offer to bring him to personally assert his rights in a closed-door session. that is not good enough for the committee. that does not serve the purpose of what this committee once. s. want i thought the colleagues were interested in coming to the truth and find information that we have not found out. that is the purpose of the oversight and government reform committee.

it seems that the name of the committee should be changed to the abuse committee. the abuse of power committee. the committee that likes to make sound bites. the committee that likes to be on cnn and msnbc and how political fodder for whatever they need. that is the problem. this also problem because we are not protecting the attorneys that are on the committee. it is very clear that under legal ethics rules set forth by the american bar association as well as the district of columbia that if we move forward on this, you are exposing the attorneys who practice or have decided that they want to keep their bar standing or the staff attorneys. i would like to ask the chair, are we going to protect the attorneys that are here? in a place with a can of criminal charges? --where they can have criminal

charges? our attempt to be in so important that the staff that works for us should be pushed out on a limb -- put out on a limb to meet our needs and expediency before november 8? or as i understand from some of the assertions, maybe after january 20 if does not go the way they wanted to go?. -- want it to go? i pose the question to the committee. are we going to expose speak committees -- expose the committees here because we want to skirt the edges a little bit for the political expediency that we need to move forward. >> i want to thank you for raising the issue with regard to ethical rules of the bar. i said that i said that i've been a member of the maryland 1976.nce

i worked hard to get the license. middle are not practicing come i to usehink -- use it because i do know anything to happen to the license. as for to uphold the ethical rules of my profession just as i know you have not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law. maryland has a legal and ethical role that says, in attorney shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass the third person. how the actions of this committee regarding this man would do anything other than that. that is why voting against this. the yield. >> the gentleman's time has expired. gentleman from texas. i will be brief.

i'm not concerned about voting for this. i'm a licensed attorney and i'm confident that any legislative action i take will be protected under the speech and debate clause of theconstitution that says i shall not be questioned in any or other form that it take as a legislator. i yield back. >> any member which to speak? -- wish to speak? ms. maloney. claimedave repeatedly on television and other places that this is one of the biggest security breaches in the history of the state department. false,aim is completely unsubstantiated

in any way, shape, or form. the fbi director has been on record and has said already and concluded, i'm quoting from the fbi director, we did not find evidence confirming that clinton's e-mail server system were compromised by ciber means. agency is an independent , apolitical, nonpartisan whose purpose is to find the truth, protect the american people and protect our system of government. they found that this was totally unfounded and outlandish and untrue. what are we doing? the only person that is being hurt by this is hillary rodham clinton. the fbi has artie said there is no case there.

there is no harm there. statetrast, the official department system was hacked in 2015 by reported russian hacker and it apparently was a terrible cyber intrusion against a federal agency in our country. to put this into perspective about what we are really talking about. some members of this committee may not remember that in the 1990's, this is exactly what the republican leadership did under former chairman dan burton who is chairman of this committee. they falsely accused and ,isputed -- undisputedly falsely closed -- accused the clinton white house of the story e-mail to hide them. they launched hearings. massive investigations and their

claims turned out to be completely false. completely unsubstantiated. just like these claims that they are putting forth now. today, theyust like wildly exaggerated the claims. i want to read from the actual report that this committee put out under former republican chairman dan burton in october 20, 2000.-- they claimed that scandal was bigger than watergate. may i quote from the report, the e-mail matter can fairly be called the most significant obstruction of congressional investigation united states history. what the white house section of watergate related only to the watergate reagan -- break in the

potential, structuring of justice -- obstruction of justice reaches further. night a report in the ask unanimous consent to place it in the record by the democratic minority at that time called unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing involving the clinton administration. i urge everyone to read it. what we have today is another deja vu. a repeat of the same false obligations -- allegations. i would say they are political and politically motivated. our independent fbi said there is not a problem. they are trying to create one with false allegations.

are and in the same republican hysteria is now being thrown at another clinton, the same unsubstantiated allegations , the same completely exaggerated paul's claims. to readhose in public the report of the fbi on the current e-mails and to read the report of the prior hysterical hearings that proved to have no base interest. my time has expired. >> i would like everybody to read the fbi report, unfortunately has not been released in its totality. the gentleman from north carolina. appreciate your recognition. i would like to ask a

gentlewoman from new york to remind her of the rules. devised to not address other members. they can address the chair. >> i would make a point of order is getting toere bring in personalities. we have rules on this committee were attacking members come into their motives or anything else is not to be done. i would kindly ask that the chair remind members and if they're going to make personal attacks that they need to keep those in a generic and nonspecific form. i yield back. >> point of personal privilege. claims, notg about a member. >> no. ok?

the gentleman yielded to me that members are advised, i will read what it was said. members are devised unless -- observe the decorum. use onespect we, may not parliamentary language. is, you can be disgusted by it, he could be frustrated by it, there is a seminal question, i don't think it is a partisan question when there is a duly issued subpoena, that person must appear. it is not an optional exercise. it is not my will to dial it in by sending a letter from my attorney. the latter which side of the aisle are on, if you believe in the role of block, -- rule of law, if you believe in the reality of the constitution,

non-attendance is not an option. i feel strongly about that. mr. cummings talked about in a statement about secret this and secret that, i believe it should be as open and transparent. i don't think it should be done behind closed doors. i do think it should be open and transparent. that is the way the judiciary branch operates. i think it is the way the committee should operate to the maximum extent possible. i would like it to be as open and transparent as possible. a subpoena inued the right way. it is not an optional exercise. that is the question today. twice, i was generous. twice we gave him an opportunity to show up. i wish you were not here today. we should not be here today.

that was the choice made. you're left with this. we will hold him in contempt. he violated the subpoena. the back to the judgment from a killing. . -- gentleman from north carolina. -->> i would hope that mr. maloney, she was trying to take a minute to explain what to try to do. i would ask that should be allowed to do that. >> reclaiming my time. >> not supposed to. >> i did not mention anybody's name. i've mentioned the gentlewoman from new york. as a relates to -- the ranking member will note this is something that is very personal to me because i came to his defense when someone on my side attacked him. it is important that we had debate, it is important that we do that without personalities involved.

we must rise to the occasion to have differences without making personal attacks. i yield back. >> point of personal progress. -- privilege. >> no. i want to give members the opportunity. any other member wishes to? mr. desantis. >> when i hear these things, i sat and listened to the fbi heector, i read the reports, did say that the fbi did not find evidence that secretary clinton's e-mail system was hacked by foreign agents. the application made by the gentlelady from new york is that because i did not happen, that is not what he said. what he said was we would not have been able to determine if they had done it because they are sophisticated. if you look at somebody like

former director of the cia was supporting secretary clinton, he said any good intelligence service would have anything on ,ny unclassified system particularly something like secretary clinton's e-mails. the issue that the subpoenas he had a lot of classified information on unclassified service. involvedpeople who are and we have a fact pattern in which those e-mails were deleted after not only being revealed publicly, not only after being subpoenaed by congress, but after she had a conversation with people affiliated with secretary clinton. then these transcripts have been found by people online that strongly suggest someone with a similar profile talking about piguring out how to strip a vi

e-mail address from a bunch of e-mails. when that became public it was deleted. there are a lot of questions about how the i.t. side of this investigation was handled. whether the fbi pursued a case involved -- involving obstruction of documents. they are central to that. an is inappropriate -- appropriate use of oversight authority. people who know and have been involved in the system, if the fbi cannot get you on a offense -- there did not seem to be from the reports that concerted effort to do that. i'm supportive of what the chairman is doing. i yield back. >> any other members wish to speak? the gentleman from alabama. >> thank you.

have been reluctant to speak on this. i feel compelled because i think this is bigger than the e-mail issue. it is bigger than the politics that our colleagues keep bringing up. it is about the role of law and constitutional separation of powers. nothing will not feel that way. preeminentgnized as liberal law professors have for the back of the constitution is in great danger. it is essential that we as a committee exercise the authority and responsibility invested in us by the constitution to protect the nation from abuse of power. abuse of power by the executive branch and justice department and clearly, it is against the law to destroy evidence. evidence was destroyed. it is against the law to alter documents and all documents -- and documents were altered.

it is our responsibility to protect the constitution and the nation against people who violate the law. it should not matter what party is in power. it should not matter who did it. that is a responsibility. when you have law professors who a that we are watching a fundamental change in our constitution system and is changing in a way that they warned us. this is bigger than politics and the issues. it is about preserving the separation of powers and this committee upholding the constitutional law. i yield back. any amendment to the amendment? speak?er member was to

-- wish to speak? those in favor signify by saying aye. opposed? ayes have it. amendment is agreed to. the question is on adoption of the contempt report and as amended and transmitting the report as adopted and privately and temperament report. all of those in favor signify by saying aye,. opposed. the aye's have it. roll call. >> certificates. mr. turner.

mr. duncan. aye. mr. jordan, aye. .r. wahlberg, y mr. thomas, yes. mr. gosar. yesterday chevrolet -- mr. desjarlais yes. mr. dowdy, yes. yes. mrs. lummis. mr. massey, yes. mr. meadows, yes. mr. desantis, yes, mr. mulvaney. mr. buck. mr. walker, yes. mr. blum, yes.

eiss, yes. mr. russell. mr. carter. mr. grothman, yes. mr. heard, yes. mr. palmer. , yes. mr. cummings, no. no.maloney, ms. norton. mr. kwai, no. mr. lynch, no. mr. cooper. mr. connolly, no. no way. this duckworth, no. miss kelly, no.

miss lawrence, no. .r. lou, ms. watson coleman, no. ms. plaskett, no. mr. desaulnier, no. mr. boyle, no. welch, no. ms. lujan grisham, no. >> how is the member from the district of london recorded? -- columbia recorded? >> not recorded. >> have all members been recorded? >> miss lummis is not recorded.

she votes yes. >> all members opportunity to vote? the member from michigan? he votes yes. we good? -- clark will report the tally. ayes, 15 nay.

motion to reconsider is laid on the table. members will have today to submit their views on the report considered. i asking anna's consent that the staff bailout to make necessary technical changes to the report subject to the approval of the minority. here no objections, no further business without objection. the committee stands adjourned.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span's washington journal,

live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. morning, northy carolina republican congressman mark walker talks about the upcoming government funding deadline. his support of donald trump in the presidential campaign, and north carolina's role as a key battleground in november. the center for american legal progress vice president on the recent police involved shootings in north carolina. the debate that's the debate over police tactics. washington journal, beginning live at seven eastern -- 7:00 eastern. national museum of african american history and culture opens its doors to the public for the first time saturday, and c-span will be live at the national mall starting at 10:00 eastern for the dedications or money. speakers include president obama and the founding director of the

museum. watch for the opening ceremony of african american history and culture live saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on science -- on c-span. several national park service employees were questioned by members of the house oversight committee today about allegations of sexual harassment and other misconduct. one of them shared her personal account of being personally harassed. this hearing is about two hours and 15 minutes. >> the committee on oversight and reform will come to order. the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. we have an important hearing today. it's entitled "examining misconduct and mismanagement at the national park service." in june national park service director jarvis testified before this committee about the problems in sexual harassment

throughout the park service. he suggested that things could potentially get worse before they got better and boy was he right. things have gotten a lot worse. we have certainly been able to illuminate and find more problems that unfortunately have been festering and in part of the system for far, far too long. since director jarvis's testimony, numerous park employees from multiple parks have contacted the committee to describe patterns of misconduct at the park service. and today, we're here to determine what the park service is doing to stop the harassment and find out why it keeps happening. there seems to be some patterns here that are just not anything that we should come close to tolerating. these incidents are happening at our country's most beloved parks. from yellowstone to yosemite and the grand canyon, these are some of the most visited and famous parks literally in the world. unfortunately, they also face serious management challenges and allegations of disturbing misbehavior. it's difficult to have these

discussions in an open setting and i warn the parents of young people who may be watching this, some of this is going to be probably a little touchy and a little inappropriate. but it is what we do on this committee. we illuminate things. we shine the light on them. we are different in the united states of america as i've said time and time again in that we are self-critical. we'd better come to a reality grip of what's happening because far too often the people that are accused of this hideous behavior are simply promoted, maybe they get a bonus and just move on. there doesn't seem to be a consequence. in yosemite, at least 18 employees, 18, have come forward with allegations of harassment, bullying and a hostile work environment. these employees lay the blame on

the superintendent of yosemite. park service law enforcement official who investigated the allegation in yosemite concluded this "the number of employees interviewed that described horrific working conditions lead us to believe that the environment is indeed toxic, hostile, repressive and harassing." i don't know that it could get any worse than that, but that is his conclusion. these are the words of the park service's own internal investigators, not the committee staff, not the office of the inspector general. currently, the superintendent is still running yosemite. he's still there. if this was the only park suffering from these problems, it would be enough of a serious concern. yet, recent allegations from america's first national park yellowstone are truly beyond pale. they include sexual exploitation, intimidation, retaliation and sexual

harassment so depraved that it is disturbing even to discuss. with accusations so alarming you would expect the washington office to step in immediately and ensure that employees in yellowstone are safe. while i appreciate the decision to call on the inspector general for assistance the park service , must be more aggressive in protecting public service. we see this time and time again. it's not good enough to just say, we're going to ask the inspector general to do it. the park service and the other agencies need to do their job in providing immediate relief, not punt it to somebody else to start doing it. it's not good enough to just say we're going to do a survey. i'm tired of hearing about surveys. there's a problem. in our june hearing, we heard about the serious problems at canyon and canaveral national park. canyon and canaveral

national park. since then, it was reported that the supervisors were not just left unpunished some were even , promoted. what in the world does it take to get fired from the park service? in most of these cases that i've seen, it's not just one he said, she said. here's a case where we're going to talk about today, we've got 18 people. 18. who are talking about this. leaders who fail in their obligations to protect the public or employees, they need to be fired. if they're not going to take action and protect the employees of the united states of america, then they should leave. we had hoped our hearing with director jarvis would have prompted some change. instead, it seems to have been treated merely as a speed bump. based on what we've seen, the response to the crisis has been to require additional training for managers and to realign the -- equalpportunity opportunity employment office so

that he it reports to director jarvis. of course, this is the same director who of the removed from overseeing the park service's ethics program because his own integrity fallures including -- failures included lying to the secretary of the interior. i'm glad to see that director jarvis has announced his retirement. i think that should have happened quite some time ago, but it is kind of stunning that the director of the park service is admitted from administering an ethics program because of his own ethical problems. and then we wonder why we have a hard time implementing ethical reforms or just implementing things at the park service. how are you employees supposed to trust the eeo process when the person in charge hasn't followed the rules themselves? something needs to change and it needs to change fast. i'd like to acknowledge we are joined today by two park service employees testifying in a whistleblower capacity. these brave employees have come

forward despite the fear of possible retaliation. i got to tell you, we will have nothing of that. mr. cummings and i, democrats, republicans, we are united in the idea that we will go to the ends of the earth to protect and support people who step up as whistleblowers. it takes a great deal of guts to come testify before this committee in a volunteer situation and explain what you've seen and heard firsthand. for that, we're exceptionally grateful. it's a difficult thing to do. i'm not sure it's -- i can't imagine you ever imagined in your life that you would be in this situation testifying before congress. but as i said before, we take this responsibility very seriously. we can't fix it if we don't know precisely what it is. we have a pretty good indication of what it is, but to hear from the frontlines what's really happening is a pivotal concern to us.

we want to thank you for your courage, your willingness to step forward. and we expect candid answers. and we will do all we can to protect you from any sort of reprisals. so now i'd like to recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i do indeed thank you for calling this hearing. no employee in the federal civil service should ever feel afraid to come to work. it's a simple statement. but it's very, very important. and no employee should ever feel retaliation if she steps forward or he steps forward to report misconduct that makes him or her feel afraid or uncomfortable.

i thank kelly martin, the chief of fire and aviation management at yosemite national park, and ryan healy, fisheries program manager at the grand canyon, for being here today. i thank them for their courage and their willingness to come forward and share with this committee their experiences over decades of work for the federal government. i also thank you for your service. it should not have been necessary for them to be here today to testify. a task force convened some 16 years ago commissioned a study to examine women in law enforcement occupations in the park service. here is what that study found. some individuals in positions of

authority appear to condone either by their action or inaction sexual harassment and discrimination. the system used for handling complaints is not trusted by the employees. nor timely in its ability to bring resolution to complaints. that's a major, major problem. it went on to say that employees fear retaliation if complaints are voiced. that was 16 years ago. the task force concluded, and i quote, it is critical for the national park service to show a sense of urgency in insuring -- ensuring that all employees are working in an environment free from unlawful harassment.

the task force developed a five-year action plan with nearly 30 recommendations to correct deficiencies with handling complaints, recruitment and retention efforts. and sexual harassment prevention. however, the park service, by their own admission, few of these recommendations were ever implemented. obviously, there were folk that did not consider it to be that important. they did not feel the sense of urgency. so that task force report was filed away, put on a shelf, gathering dust, ignored. 16 years later, the inspector general has issued a report finding, and i quote, the evidence of a long-term pattern of sexual harassment and hostile

workforce environment in the grand canyon river district. 16 years later, the inspector general has issued a report finding, and i quote, a pattern of harassment involving a law enforcement supervisor at the canaveral national seashore. and 16 years later, members of the committee, allegations have been made at yosemite and yellowstone national parks about possible harassment, possible hostile work environments, and even sexual exploitation. today's hearing will enable us to hear from the park service in regard to specific measures it has implemented to ensure that all employees work in facilities where sexual harassment is not tolerated and the agency's

culture, welcome and supports a workforce that is reflects the that -- a workforce that reflects the diversity of our nation. i want to hear about the specific reforms that the park service has implemented to ensure that all complaints are handled in a fair, timely and thorough and consistent manner. i want to hear about the reforms that have been implemented to ensure that this preliminary process yields consistent and fair discipline across all park service facilities and cannot be abused to retaliate against employees who file complaints. and i want to hear about the reforms that have been implemented to bring the park service's equal employment opportunity program into compliance with the standards of a model program. in miss martin's prepared testimony she wrote, and i quote, with steadfast resolve to

work together and confront the serious and subtle misconduct issues we currently face, we will set a north star for a culture change for the next generation of the national park service employees. the commitment of employees like miss martin and mr. healy, i'm confident that we are on the right course to correct long-standing patterns of harassment and retaliation in the park service. i thanked them before, but i want to thank them again because they're not only here about themselves and things that they've seen, but they are trying to make sure that the park service is a place welcoming to generations yet unborn. however, to make the changes that clearly need to be made, we have to hold a park services feet to the fire. 16 years ago, there were those

that sat in these same chairs and tried to hold feet to the fire. but apparently, the fire was not hot enough. well, we're going to have to do it again. there's been 99 days since our last hearing. our committee should continue to hold hearings on the park service every 99 days. until all employees feel safe coming to work and reporting misconduct whenever and wherever it occurs. as i've often said from this committee, during committee hearings, when i see things that are not right, i often say we're better than that. and we are better than that. and i want to thank our witnesses for coming forward to help us get to where we have to go. with that, i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. i will hold the record open for five legislative days for members who would like to submit a written statement. we'll now recognize our panel of

witnesses, mr. michael reynolds, deputy director for operations at the national park service of the united states department of the interior. ms. kelly martin is the chief of fire and aviation management at yosemite national park of the national park service, the united states department of interior, and mr. brian healey, fisheries program manager at the grand canyon national park, the national park service in the united states department of the interior. we thank you all for being here. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. so if you'll please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. you may be seated. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate you limiting your verbal comments to five minutes but we're going to be pretty lenient

on that if you go over, you'll be just fine. your entire written record will be submitted as part of the record. mr. reynolds, you are now recognized. and you got to make sure you turn it on but bring that microphone uncomfortably close to your mouth. there you go. thank you. >> thank you chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings, committee members, thank you for the opportunity to update the committee on steps the national park service has taken to address sexual harassment cases at the grand canyon national park and canaveral national seashore as well as the broader issue of harassment in the workplace. the cases at the grand canyon and canaveral were more than a wake up call for the national park service. they presented us with clear and undeniable evidence that we as we begin our second century of service, must extend the same commitment to the employees of the park service as a make to

the protection of the nation's most extraordinary places. on behalf after the senior leadership of the national park service and the majority of our 20,000 plus employees who are outstanding, honorable public servants, i share your disgust with the behavior that the inspector general outlined in these reports. in response to those situations, the leadership team at the national park service has committed to making substantial and long-term culture changes at the agency to prevent sexual harassment and to ensure that every employee has a safe and respectful work environment. this kind of change is neither easy nor fast. we will need to develop trust and support among our employees, visitors and congress to make the changes that are undeniably necessary. this hearing today is one step in that journey. prior to becoming deputy director in august, i worked in many parks and regional offices throughout my 30 years with the park service. as a regional director for the midwest and more recently as the associate for workforce and inclusion, my focus has been

accountability and performance management and change. as the new deputy director, i am personally committed to providing a culture of transparency, inclusion, respect and accountability and making this a safe place for employees to work. we want to become a model agency. we will become a model agency. i will start by outlining the specific actions we have taken at the grand canyon and canaveral since we last testified here in june. since the june 14th hearing at the grand canyonon we have appointed a new superintendent, closed the river district within the canyon for now in terms of rangers running the program, taken actions to hold employees accountable for misconduct and acted on an 18 action item recommendation in response to the oig report. at canaveral, we have removed the chief ranger accused of sexual harassment from his duties at the park. moved the superintendent into a detail assignment with the regional office, and initiated

the process of moving forward with actions to hold employees accountable for misconduct. employees and supervisors at both parks have received mandatory sexual harassment response training sessions. nationally we're working with the department of the interior to take steps to eradicate sexual harassment and to change the nps culture. some of these include mandated online training for all managers and employees and distributing new nps specific guides servicewide, additional focused training for eeo, human resources and employee relations staff to support the workforce, the professionals that would support workforce. new reporting options including a hot line and om buds office to be as an independent and confidential resource for employees. a servicewide workforce harassment survey to be conducted later this year, and an eeo office that now reports directly to the director and will receive additional support for their critical work, updated

policy that provides guidance to employees on harassment, equal employment opportunities, discrimination and diversity and a mandatory 14-day deadline for completing anti-harassment inquiries. these efforts will be insufficient without a long-term plan to fundamentally change the culture of the national park service. culture change begins with leadership commitment and accountability. and is sustained through on going training, education and please engagement. -- and employee engagement. in our centennial year, leadership has refocused what we want the service to look like in its second century and a process focused on accountability to make the improvements our employees wants and deserve. this needs to be done very urgently. thank you again for inviting me to testify before you today. i am happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. >> thank you. ms. martin, you're now recognized. >> chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings and members of the committee, i was requested before you today to discuss my personal experience with employee misconduct with the

national park service. my name is kelly martin. i am the chief of fire and aviation management at yosemite national park. i've been in my current position over ten years. prior to yosemite, i worked for the forest service for 16 years. between the two agencies, i have 32 years of distinguished service to the american people. i am here before you today as a citizen and on behalf of many of our public land management women leaders. my testimony provided for this hearing focuses on management diligence to address misconduct over the course of my career. my motivation for this statement is for greater focus and scrutiny on the culture created when leaders of our organization fail to take disciplinary action and to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. it is not without note the vast majority of individuals who have devoted their life work find working for the national park service is an honorable and noble profession, myself included. i am here before you today to

tell you my story, but more importantly to provide testimony regarding the dark clouds of misconduct that remains elusive from public view. when i began working for the park service as a college student in 1984, i was sure i found my dream job living and working in the outdoors with those who share the value and importance of public lands and improving resources for the american public. imagine for one minute being 20 something again. we have an idealistic view of the world that is equitable and just. my idealist view was soon shattered when i became victim of sexual harassment not once but three times. one of my perpetrators was repeatedly caught engaging in voyeuristic behavior all the while receiving promotions within the park service till his recent retirement as deputy superintendent. this is very difficult to sit before you today. i'm not boastful of the history of my sexual harassment experiences. as a matter of fact, this is the first time have i come out publicly to describe the scars

of my past in an effort to eliminate these kinds of experiences from happening to young women entering our workforce today. i did find my own way to push past these experiences and decided to preserve my opportunity for career advancement. my experiences would go unreported until now. this is highly personal decision a woman must make and it is almost always an embarrassing arduous situation to endure. what brings me to testify today is due to a hostile work environment situation in yosemite national park where dozens of individuals have come forward with personal statements of demoralizing behaviors to include acts of bullying, gender bias and favoritism. while not rising to the notoriety of sexual harassment, equally damaging behavior patterns that create a hostile work environment are more pervasive than one might thing and is not confined to one park. the time has come to recognize hostile work environments affect our employees on a day to day

basis. all members of a team that allow the toxic environment to persist are complicit in the negative effects that decrease employee morale and productivity. the subtle nuances of a hostile work environment erodes human dignity and diminishes the potential of our most valued resource -- the people who care so deeply in the mission of the park service and their desire to reach their personal and professional aspirations. we owe this to our future generation of women and men leaders who our agency needs to guide us through our challenges. as i walk through my 32 years of service, i want to leave here today with a strong conviction of hope for the future generation of the park service conservation leaders that will not know what it is like to experience sexual harassment, gender and racial discrimination, sexism and hostile work environments. hope for national direction to encourage engagement of women and men at the smallest work

unit to recognize and thwart negative behavior patterns. hope we can identify misconduct and take swift and appropriate action against perpetrators. i also recognize our agency has many great men who come forward to be courageous mentors and champions of women's contributions and encourage and support an equitable work environment. as the chief of fire and aviation, i aim to bring courage and inspiration to many women i'm here representing today who are hopeful my full written testimony will be the catalyst needed for change in our culture that is accepting of everyone. thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences and concerns as the current situation in the national park service is dire and needs immediate attention to ensure future generations of employees have access to a workplace free from harassment and hostile work environments. i will be happy to answer any questions you have of me at this time. >> mr. healy, you're now recognized.

>> good afternoon chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. i hope the information that i share will provide additional insight into the full scope of the sexual harassment and hostile work environment issues at grand canyon and the efforts of the park service to address the misconduct at the park. the vast majority of grand canyon employees believe in the be hard working, selfless and willing to cooperate to meet goals. nevertheless, as this committee has seen in the office of inspector general's report on a previous pervasive misconduct within the river district, there are exceptions. my testimony today may anger some of my co-workers and managers. based on my experiences, i feel as if my career, my safety, and the safety of other employees at the park may be at some risk even though there are numerous legal protections in place for whistleblowers.

thus i am using caution in how i characterize these experiences to protect the privacy of individual victims and witnesses. i know this committee is particularly interested in the response to the findings of misconduct by the oig. first, and august, a boat operator that was implicated in many of the incidents has been removed from his position. in addition, training sessions were held to address reporting and confidentiality, and the training also provided recommendations on responding to reference checks for employees and the agency is making progress on a hotline or reporting harassment. however, some actions did not have the desired impact. by shutting down grand canyon, and contracting, we learned we have very limited ability to prohibit problem boat operators from returning to work as contractors on trips.

in addition, some employees who worked at the river district may be negatively impacted, and were in the case of temporary employees, lost work. he could've imported the situation altogether if employees and supervisors were held accountable. accountability is crucial for managers. the deputy remains in a position of command, and the river supervisor was assigned to another part. while only a temporary position, the severe to be a promotion. they found that the superintendent had distributed information confidential to the perpetrators, to the violation of regulations and safety at risk. in addition, despite reasonable and cost-effective alternatives, the deputy superintendent forced him to work in the hostile work environment 2015. the culture of bullying and

harassment is not limited to the river district, nor have all the river issues been addressed. getting a 2013, i reported multiple instances of bullying to the superintendent majority superintendent, and human resources staff. the examples included retaliation by some members of the crew directed to the assault victim reported or assault to law enforcement. the assault victim's confidentiality was breached and she was unable to be part of the trail crew. use of misogynistic slur in reference to a senior manager, which was reported by the witness, the witness was allegedly threatened by violence on two occasions. according to those involved him it appeared they did not follow through with the appropriate investigations, and in some cases made excuses for this behavior. an investigation into these incidents involving a group which occurred in 2013 and 2014 was finally initiated in april

2016 byut the findings have been you to rebe review. the termination of two employees reported sexual harassment has had a severe impact on workplace safety and morale. intnesses and victims rema fearful. i have heard i was afraid to report. reporting is also discouraged.i was told the deputy superintendent and my own supervisor was pressured to lower my performance rating due to brian's problems with the river district and trail crew, including the work environment for all employees. she indicated we have much work to do. the office received almost 100 complaints or concerns related to workplace into the grand canyon. change is difficult and will take time, and the retention and

promotion of managers and located in wrongdoing may continue, which will discourage future reporting and challenge morale and confidence in leadership. i sincerely hope that this testimony will lead to continue positive change in the agency. thank you. chair. chaffetz: thank you. we will now recognize the gentlewoman from wyoming, one of the most beautiful states, perhaps second only to utah, but one of the more beautiful ones, and the home of one of our most treasured national parks. i would like to recognize for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are primarily focused year on grand canyon and yosemite national park, but it seems like more problems are cropping up in the system. mr. reynolds, are you aware of allegations by bob tester of misconduct among employees at yellowstone national park?

mr. reynolds: yes. >> in an article the list in the montana pioneered before labor allegesend, mr. tester there was exploitation as well as retaliation by supervisors at yellowstone. the article mentions allegations, also financial misconduct. now, who is currently investigating these allegations? mr. reynolds: the inspector general. >> have a begun interviewing witnesses? mr. reynolds: the last information as i understand is that they have an arrival date of september 27 in the park. >> when was the outside investigator scheduled to begin interviewing? mr. reynolds: i had a first phone call around september 3, and i believe the following week, the week of the 5th, the superintendent began to put together the right mechanisms to bring an independent investigative team.

>> one of the things that concerns me, mr. chairman, is that in instances where the superintendent of a park is not implicated in the charges or the allegations of sexual misconduct, and event attempts to investigate it, and initiate the investigation quickly, that ig stops thehe investigation that is going on. i think this is the case in yellowstone, where superintendent link was beginning an investigation and bringing in outside investigators to do an independent inquiry. and then, was prevented from doing so, because the ig was brought in, thereby delaying the opportunity to obtain

statements, while people's memories were fresh, and potentially providing for the opportunity for certain of the alleged perpetrators to retire. and so, trying to balance how do we protect employees, how can we protect the people who, like mr. healy and miss martin, who are bringing this information forward. and at the same time, make sure that these investigations are conducted in a timely manner. mr. reynolds: i agree, completely, with your concerns. one of our new policy shifts that i alluded to in my testimony that we are doing with our program is to establish these third-party investigation units, that would be able to swiftly go in. i am going to recommend a 24-48

hour turnaround, once we have a report. superintendent link have begun that process. i like have further conversations with the ig. i think they're doing their job to come in and do this. i am not sure they want to have a clean investigation, and so, they did ask us to stand down a third-party investigator, but i know the superintendent has expressed his dismay to me about how he is worried about the time for that. so, we agree. > in the case of mr.> wink, there were no allegations against them, no allegations to my knowledge that he knew and looked the other way. but what about the case where that is not true? what about the case where the superintendent of a national park is implicated? how do you deal with that situation? mr. reynolds: it is very important we have someone from the outside managing the process, so that you do not have any problems if you will taking

an investigation, right? policyone example, our director from a different office of the park the work of the original office. seven.chain, we have to bring in some party that way is our current plan and our current policy. well, before my time is gone, i want you to know we are going to be watching the national park service and the way that ms. martin and ms. healy are treated, in the way other whistleblowers are treated as a consequence of their bringing these allegations forward. and we are going to be watching the national park service. beause this should nonot tolerated. it should not be unaddressed. and it has been in adequately

addressed. and thank you, mr. german. i yield back. recognizeffetz: now the gentleman from the district of columbia. >> appreciate this hearing, mr. chairman. mr. reynolds, we are very grateful for how the national park service runs most of our neighborhood parks. and i did the mall, they are owned by the park service. i want to know if these two parts, where these allegations, these issues have come from, are the people quarter together? or are these nationwide problems? congresswoman, could you clarify, are these unique problems? >> to the western parts of the united states, where these parks have cabins.

i don't understand whether or not the staff are quartered there, instead of going home, the way my own park service rangers do. mr. reynolds: right. 413 units nationwide. very diverse. >> i'm talking about nationwide. mr. reynolds: i would be happy to let ms. martin and mr. healy communicate, things can be exacerbated living together. >> let me ask you both, do you live in the park where you are located? women, howmen and do you operate? those are the only parts i know of, the urban parks. mr. healy: many employees are housed on the south rim, but there are times when they are working out of bunk canyons in the backcountry. myself, i work in flagstaff, about an hour and a half drive

away. >> ms. martin? ms. martin: thank you, congresswoman. i do live in yosemite valley in a cabin. and a lot of our seasonal staff on our fire crew will be housed in say one house, or one quarters. there are certainly opportunities there that could potentially lead to a hostile type of work environment, especially with our young folks. quarters have close that men and women do live and work in on a regular basis. >> we should caution the national park service to take such matters into account. .sther healy i wa mr. healy, i was reading your testimony on page eight, this is not going to the testimony, but

alcohol and drug abuse, i'm interested in how this works. when i was chairman, i was not aware the contractors were treated any differently, but i do know that you said in your testimony you informed your concerns about misconduct were not consider when the contract was awarded. i suppose i should ask mr. why alcohol, drug abuse, sexless out, are not assault, are not considered. mr. reynolds: i would be happy to investigate. >> i wish you would. mr. healy said he was concerned that his was not even considered, not even considered, that is what caught my eye. when the contract was awarded -- mr. reynolds: i would be happy

to get to the bottom of that. >> whether they are considered generally, could you let the chairman no? knopw. mr. reynolds: for any on-duty period of contract performance, that should be standard language in any contract. to your point, when you are living 24 hours a day if you will on the river, that may be where we have some -- there was a, similar report 16 years ago about the systemic harassment of women. and there was specific recommendation made.are you aware of that report ? arey are 16 years later, you aware of -- >> the women in law enforcement report? yes, i am. >> when did you first become aware? and were any recommended and limited? mr. reynolds: no, they were not.

as far as i can never figure out, is the chairman actually mentioned, 30 different recommendations. i think things were worked on during that timeframe. i was not involved at the time. but -- >> how can you be a short that with the recommendations either of this recommendation committee or the task force, working on full intimidation apparently did not occur, so we are back here 16 years later. mr. reynolds: it is a very regrettable action that did occur. >> finally, mr. chairman, if i can ask, apparently in that report, 16.3% of the park service women in law enforcement, park ran gers, what is the percentage of women in those positions today? mr. reynolds: i believe we have about 247 women in law enforcement, out of about the force of 664.

>> so, do the math. mr. reynolds: the best in math, 50%. >> going down, not up. one of the first things that agencies and private sector does with this problem occurs is of course increase in number of women in law enforcement or in the applicable mission. thank you, mr. german. chairman. chair. chaffetz: now recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, we hope this is worthwhile for yourself, and the people that have spent many weeks in national parks, north, west, with my family doing the same thing, being out a glacier national park is august, impressive territories we have. impressive treasures we have, and every case, my experience

has been one of great respect and professionalism by the staff. so, it is concerning to hear some of the behind-the-scenes. and though we deal with humans, yet these things have to be addressed. thank you for being here. kelly, can you describe some of the superintendent's behavior which prompted the investigation. ms. martin: thank you, congressman for the question. myself personally, i have been chief at yosemite for the last 10 years. and the marker point for me was when we had the rim fire of 2013, and i happen to be off unit on another fire, and returning. my duties have been to act as the agency administrator

representative for the superintendent when we have large incidents in the park. i returned and told my supervisor i would be returning and i can assume his duties, and for whatever unknown reason, i was not allowed to perform those duties, that is part of my official duty as my job within the park. it was for myself personally discrediting my professionalism, and it was humiliating for me to not be able to perform that job and that function in front of my peers for inter-agency wildfire cooperators. staff,r park internal that i was not able to provide that leadership. >> any rational reason given to you for that? ms. martin: no sir. >> any reason at all? ms. martin: no sir. >> is an arbitrary decision-making of the superintendent do not allow you to function? ms. martin: i requested to be up

to split the duty between myself, and i have a very competent deputy fire chief. roles, both the agency administrator and the role of incident commander trainee. i am confounded as to why i was not able to truly perform in that role. >> your testimony, you mentioned the fear of retaliation for speaking about what is happening at the park. can you describe for us this concern, and where it stems ferorom, and are you aware of or lo employees that share the same concern? ms. martin: the fear of retaliation, fear of coming forward is not in our culture to come forward and to describe possible types of situation or toxic environments.

ours is certainly dealing more with a hostile work environment, not dealing with sexual harassment, so that is not at issue right here. but people do not fear -- they do fear that they are not safe in bringing issues to management. and in one of the concerns i have heard is that within yosemite national park, we have a superintendent and our deputy superintendent position has been vacant for three years. there is anately, concentration of decision-making within one person, not necessarily shared within the deputy superintendent. >> has that been done for a purpose? there? the vacancy atam unaware of why the would remain vacant. >> do you believe the superintendent's actions

are reflective of a larger national problem in the national park service? ms. martin: it is hard for me to address the larger cultural -- i have reason to believe that it probably is a larger cultural type of issue. i do believe it is important for the image to be in-house, and for us the kind of take things in-house, and obvious to share these types of issues publicly, but i think it is very important for the women that have left, the women that are currently at yosemite to really understand in daylight what it is, what the behavior that is exhibited, that truly costs people's integrity and reduction in morale. >> thank you for your testimony. and i yield back. chair. chaffetz: i have just a follow-up to that. tworeynolds there are,

things. you have been unable to give us the expert that inquiry. is that something you will provide? mr. reynolds: is your chairman, we did give your staff the on camera -- chair. chaffetz: in camera. mr. reynolds: yes, i will continue to work with our folks on it. it is an active investigation. that is a short answer i can give you. i am not unwilling to share with you data when i can, i just don't want to infringe -- chair. chaffetz: something in your possession, congress would like to see it, can you name anything classified? >> no, and i do not disagree with your ability to get that, i am just hampered -- chair. chaffetz: wait, don't disagree, you are not giving it to us. mr. reynolds: we are having conversation. chair. chaffetz: what is the

hesitation? mr. reynolds: to be candid with you sir, to keep the investigation -- chair. chaffetz: don't trust congress, keep it dirty? mr. reynolds: not what i said. chair. chaffetz: you want to keep it clean? mr. reynolds: for the purposes of the investigation, i pledge to continue to work -- chair. chaffetz: i want you to pledge to give it to congress. do you need a subpoena? who makes this decision? mr. reynolds: it will be a decision that i will talk over with our solicitors, predominantly. chair. chaffetz: i would also anybody who has been retiredismissed, or from yellowstone since 2013. is that something you can get to us? mr. reynolds: yes i can. mr. reynolds:chair. chaffetz: when? mr. reynolds: 24 hours.

chair. chaffetz: thank you. now recognize the dillman from maryland -- the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. rep cummings: this whole thing a retaliation, as i was listening artin, i cannot help but think about the question of how do you tackle a culture? it is not easy. in the baltimore city police department, i had some practice investigating. and the reason why i asked for is because we had people in the department, good policeman, who knew things were going bad, and wrong, but they did not feel comfortable talking about it because they were worried that they would be retaliated against. their comrades would do some

things that might be harmful to them. and when we got that patterns of practice report, it was 10 times worse, 10 times, probably 20, than i ever imagined with regard to african-american men and the way they were being treated by police. healy, that really kind of struck me, i feel as if my career and possibly my safety, and the safety of other grand canyon employees, may be at some risk. that is a hell of a statement. i feel paine that that you even have to think it, let alone say it. havehe mere fact that you forum, ptus public

assume,even, i would even more jeopardy. one thing to think it, say it, another to say it in a forum publicly. what can we do to help? cultureas i see it, the that i talked about before, and i think that ms. martin is alluding to, you, too, is one that -- i mean you almost have to dig deep and pry out probably a lot of folks. and almost start over again. and so, i'm trying to figure out what is your hope? i'm sure you have thought about ere hasaid yourself, theer

to be a better way. let me go you something. the reason why i am raising this, in my opening, i talked about 16 years ago. guess what? most of these people were not even here. none of them, none of these people were here 16 years ago, except me. they were not even here. so, another group of congress people were addressing this supposedly, and yet, it has not been corrected. andhe culture rose metastasized, gets wrose. orse. i want you all to be effective and efficient. i mean, not only do you have concerns about retaliation, about your comrades being upset, but it would be a damn shame if

you came here, you gave your testimony, and this is my great fear. and then it was not effective, and efficient. se-lose, all the way around. why did you do that? then, it gets worse. me,, looking at what norton talkn, ms,. about having more women in key positions, law enforcement, supervisory positions, but what do you see? how would you like to see us try to break this culture? and do you have confidence, you make some covenant restatements about mr. healy, the things being done, but when you came right back and talk about the negative impacts of some of the positive things that were

supposedly being handled that were happening. so, help us. help us, help you. mr. healy: thank you. is if wehat would help could demonstrate the people that have come forward to me to ask for assistance and reporting are protected to the same extent i am. in preparing for this testimony, i went back to some of these individuals that have had that expensive at the park. and i ask them to help you e, and ithe message her heard a lot of fear for most people. there are individuals at the park, as i mentioned in my testimony, threatening people with violent. they are still there. and holding them accountable is really a good step. i am not really sure how congress can assist park service in doing that, but that would be a good first step. and the other thing you mentioned was, you alluded to

shutting the river district and river contracting. i'me decisions were made, not sure who made the decisions, that there is typically no consultation with folks in the ground that are doing the work, like myself, or my coworkers. that have experience and understand the risks and making some of those decisions, and i think if the park service leadership were to more effectively engage its employees in developing solutions for these problems, we would go a long way. ms. martin: thank you, mr. cummings. i believe we have to start with the awareness of the culture that has been created over the years, and we have to really, like you said, really understand what is at the root of this type of culture and this type of behavior, that then supports sexual harassment and hostile work environment's. i think it is truly our first step, is awareness of the issue of how those behaviors actually

ascend to the type of situations. representative cummings: i have been on the board of visitors for about 10 years now, and one of the things that we had a major sexual-harassment problem. what we found is that a lot of the midshipmen, i want to make sure i'm clear, a lot of the midshipmen were doing things that were harassment. and they claim, some of them i believe, i'm not sure about, they said they don't even know it was a restaurant. i mean, can you comment on that? you just talk about awareness. go ahead. ms. martin: at some point, we have to create an environment that is open and transparent with our leadership to really be in the top of these hard issues. and until we get these, we will

have misunderstanding between management and employees, as the he said, she said. if we can provide this transparency, and really expose it for what it is, we really need to talk about the behaviors and be a will to communicate that. right now, there is so much fear and being able to communicate what that is. and so, i see that as number one, the awareness of culture that we have created. and being able to duplicate what it is that creates these types of situations. how we thenpoint, best educate our employees? so that we do not have these kinds of scenarios, 16 years from now, five years from now. we have to think about things differently, in terms of how we can be more communicative with our senior leaders. right now, that is not happening. representative cummings: as you

heard what they do said, mr. reynolds, can you tell us how -- you know, i get frustrated. because i know we're going to hear you say a lot of nice things about what you are going to do. you know, convince us that you get it. and that your folks get it. because i'm telling you, after these lights go out, and they have to go back. they have to go back. i mean, how do you are sure them m, thatple -- assure the they don't have to go through the scrap? is crap. this is crazy. and unacceptable. mr. reynolds:, first off i will join you, in protecting my colleagues. >> how are you going to do that?

mr. reynolds: we really need to dive into the cultural issues, and the fundamentals -- >> what the person watching us right now, laughing, i can wait until they get back? i have something for them? i want to hurt them, do something to them, how do you deal with those people? apparently, quite a few. mr. reynolds: we cannot let those lights go off. we have to not have any darkness, right? it has to be very transparent, from here forward. the rest of the account ability everyone can see and touch. and with our culture, we are trying to pull together parts of our organization. for example, we've never really had affinity groups in the park service, women groups, or other employee groups that might do that, in order for there to be a cohort, another protective kind of place that people have a safe place, if you will and for

management. to then be required to listen to those groups and employees about what the concerns might be. representative cummings: thank you very much. chair. chaffetz: now recognized the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you mr. chairman. you know, based on the actions of director jarvis, i think further oversight of the national park service is desperately needed. this is actually my third hearing on this matter, as a part of oversight. june,course were here in but also natural resources subcommittee. we were with director jarvis in may. and i want to thank ms. martin and mr. healy for your testimony this afternoon and what you have endured. director reynolds, let me start with you. based on your testimony, i know

you are aware of the sexual harassment cases, specifically cape canaveral, the operation there. can you tell me just how many complaints, total complaints came from there? even those that are ongoing result cases? congressman, yes, i believe there are about three complaints, but there might be a few more ig report. i will follow-up with you on that. >> ok, actually there have been four. the washington post reported in early july that four investigations since 2012 is an unusually high number they said, for such a small operation, a national park service. and if you just mentioned, these are just the ones we know about. as it has been testified today, people are scared. who knows how many other cases have been swept under the rug

because of the culture of fear? during the time of these investigations, 2012, who was the superintendent in charge? mr. reynolds: and 2012, i believe it was superintendent palfrey. >> that is correct. i don't represent the people of florida, but just yesterday i can across an article in florida today, they reported, like i said just yesterday, that that superintendent was promoted to special assistant position to the southeast regional director. are you aware of that? mr. reynolds: yes sir. >> ok, as she has been promoted, she does the work from home, $116,000 salary, and you mention in your testimony a few moments

ago that the chief ranger at cape canaveral was no longer at the location there, but you failed to mention the superintendent has received a promotion to the southeast regional director. do you know where the southeast regional director office is located? mr. reynolds: it is in atlanta. and if i can offer, sir -- >> let me go on. it is in atlanta. that is in my backyard. and that raises a great deal of concern for me personally. you are also aware that director jarvis testified here in congress over a book deal, where he failed to secure proper permission for that book. you are aware that? mr. reynolds: yes. know, mr. chairman, you my point in all of this is the pattern that is clearly unfolding before us, obviously

under the direction of director ability,s on account for management, unsafe work environment, that has permeated throughout the national park service. and what is the consequence from director jarvis, i mean he gets has toslap on the wrist, go through some silly monthly ethics training, watch a video or something for the duration of his time. and so, here is what people are service,t the parks these types of slaps on the wrist and/or promotion. it is insane. it is absolute insanity. mr. chairman, on june 16, i wrote a letter to the president, president obama, asking for the resignation of director jarvis. i actually have a copy of the

letter that i would like to go on the record. chair. chaffetz: without objection, so ordered/ >> while i understand director jarvis is going to retire in january, what we have heard yet again here today, what continues to be prevalent in national park service, i just wanted on record positionand by my phys and directing the immediate resignation of director jarvis. chair. chaffetz: we now recognize the dome and from vermont -- the gentleman from vermont. >> you know, the national park service is a great treasure. unbelievable. we evolve into the national parks. i go to one every year. it is pretty sad to hear about this. my fear is as a visitor, as a hiker is one of just enormous appreciation for the staff that i meet, from the bottom on up. it is really quite wonderful.

and my sense is that in general, this just a norm us appreciation for the work people do. i sense, too, the people that work there is a way of life. they love outdoors, nature, history, tradition. it is very sad that also part of his is the situation that you all have been describing. i think all three of you, for coming forward, i will start with you, mr. reynolds. you know, the culture on this has to be one of zero-tolerance. and the culture and how employees are inspected to work does come from the top, and that has to be imbued from the top down, and then reinforced in every way. so, what concrete steps can you take to do that, if the leadership does not take this deadly seriously, th no one else

willen? mr. reynolds: we have to get this right. has to be our top priority. one of the first things i would like to do, i am in day 52 in this new job, so i just found the bathroom. now, we need to get going on some very big focus through the chain of command. we are meeting next week with some of the field leadership, and i would like to be able to tell them at that point what we plan to do with the diversity and inclusion outfit, that would be tied to my office. that can start working on the cultural issues. because you are right, we have some and most outstanding public employees. and we have to get them that kind of management. >> yeah, but i don't quite know what that means, what you just said. i do not think it takes a big meeting. , any like look, folks

unwanted advances just are not allowed. how come with it is that? mr. reynolds: we have put up quite a bit of extensive refreshers, reminder of our zero-tolerance policy. but i agree with you. i think it needs be a step further. which is actions, actions are louder than words and account ability. think, theon is, i people in management have to meet with the staff and have a discussion, basically say it.is not complicated. have to say it and mean it. and on the other end, we also want to get more women into leadership positions, as well. right? chair. chaffetz: will the gentleman yield? mr. reynolds, what was your job before? mr. reynolds: i was the associate director for workforce. chair. chaffetz: you're in charge of hr.r.

you have been running h.r. simply 14. your words are little bit hollow. with the newer refresher? can you give me a single instance -- you said you had zero tolerance? are you kidding me? show me an example. mr. reynolds: first off, i have been dealing with the whole systems and process. have not gotten there yet. we have a zero-tolerance policy. and i guess my point is -- chair. chaffetz: it is mr. welch's time. you have a job. would you first take that job in human resources? mr. reynolds: two years ago. chair. chaffetz: give me a month. mr. reynolds: april, 2014. >> appreciate your questions. here is my view on this. we can have personal policy, we can write down this 500 pages,

10 pages, none of that means anything other than the culture, the people in the environment are expected to live by? much more tospond the reinforce culture because that is the way it is. that comes with the pride, mutual respect. so, you know, give me all policies in the world, but employees are not thinking of the time they may want to do something mission not be doing. whether this is a violation of subsection 4 of article 5 in chapter 2. we do not do that around here. and that i really do think is the top down response ability, just every single day in every way. the reason i got nervous about your answer is that it suggested to me, or this is the implication i have which may not be true, that if we wri the right policyt, that will take

care of it. don't write anything, by having management make it clear that any unwanted advance is totally out of line. chair. chaffetz: i'm sorry if i misled -- mr. reynolds: i agree with you. represented cummings: the dome gentlemen yields. one question. when you are running h.r., what does that mean? i hope it is not running a memo for a refresher course. the people watching this at the park service, when they hear you say that, oh, we are in great shape. nothing is going to happen. we will keep doing what we have been doing. i'm just telling you. us, soined for all of that other people may ask wereions, that you

zero-tolerance? mr. reynolds: we need to have a much better fundamental set of -- >> what is it me when you are doing the job? mr. reynolds: it should mean -- >> no, no, no. i am asking you. you were head of hr? mr. reynolds: workforce director.

me -- >> what did it mean, then tells me what it means now. mr. reynolds: admit that they would have the ability to report, that they would be protected. we have, so far. >> [indiscernible] chair. chaffetz: i recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy. mr. reynolds, you have managed to see something i have not seen, one of the more decent human beings that you will meet in public service, you have managed to even get him upset. getting mr. cummings and i upset is not much of a challenge. upset is.ter welch and i think what upsets him is that when you have a fact pattern of someone's buying on another person while they are

taking a shower, you do not need a policy change. you don't need a new memo, you need a handcuffs, in a trip to the sex offender registry. that is what you need. martin, you said a couple of things that resonated with me your statement. you said it is a deep, conflicted, risky decision for me to come forward and speak up today. feelou said many women shame and fear of coming forward to report misconduct, and cannot bring themselves to be the ones who have a difficult and painful task of speaking up. here is what i want to help you do. i want the fear, difficulty, pain to belong to the perpetrator. not the victim.

as muchou to tell us about your fact pattern,, your story and i want you to stop, cite all those instances where something more could have and should have been done. and do it on the half of the women who may be do not have the ability to speak up, like you do. you,artin: thank congressman, for the opportunity. it is a very painful and conflicted position that i am in right now. this happened. ng toma victim of a peepi at grand canyon in 1987. it was a very difficult and painful its various for me. i reported to two supervisors. medially that first day, i was able to positively identify a park ranger, in uniform, that was peering through my bathroom

window. i reported to the supervisors, visibly shaken, it was very difficult for me to do. it was very embarrassing. i did not think anybody would actually even believe me. that something like this could happen to me. given options. i could say nothing and move on. complaint oran eeo a criminal complaint. i had to think about that a couple of days, how i wanted to proceed. i was just starting my career in the federal service, in my early 20's, and i just did not want to issue.is an i just cannot want to come forward and admit a complaint, like this, this early in my career. be labeled a troublemaker. washe end, when i agreed to a conference or a sit down with the two supervisors are reported this to, along with the project.

he apologized to me. he assured me that this never happened before, and that it will never happen again. and so, for me, this has been with me my entire career. and when i think of zero-tolerance, i think this is the hardest part for me, it is it just inoculates zero-tolerance for me. i have had to live with us a long time, this particular individual continue to be moved through the park service. just recently retired. and i believe this was the tipping point for me to come forward and tell my story, that this is why i could no longer remain silent. there are a lot of other women that i represent, that these very same things have happened, very similar things, and they just fear that management will not take action. and then, we become victims again for coming forward. tive gowdy: the

perpetrator is now enjoying the perks of retirement? ms. martin: that is my understanding. you would just say this, should never have to choose between your career and justice. ever. you should be able to pursue both of them, with all of the vigor. i'm sorry it happened you. i appreciate the courage it takes to come and share your story. chair. chaffetz: we will now plasket. ms. >> thank you for sharing this somewhat uncomfortable discussion with us here. we all know there is an urgent harassment, sexual discrimination, by increasing female representation in the workforce, and particularly at

senior leadership positions, an individuals having a say in how these policies are done. ms martin, i'm going to quote, "the roles of the powerful favor men in superintendent, deputy , lawintendent, fire enforcement." mr. reynolds, how many superintendents are women? mr. reynolds: we have for 13 park. as you know, there is not a superintendent in every part, but i will believe i find the actual number, around 258. superintendents. about 127 are women. give me a minute, i will give you the right number. 60,40.bout a

>> 60% are men. the deputy superintendent level? mr. reynolds: i have 58% men, 42% female. and i will clarify for you. 62% men, 38% female on superintendent. >> and the parks superintendent's, are they the in terms, and scope, of geographic size as well as personnel, as the men that are superintendents? there are different kinds of superintendent. mr. reynolds: correct. i think it is evenly distributed. we can look at that more carefully. but i have not heard a concern on the level, of the that our demographic numbers. i know there are initiatives to expand women in the park service, so you have said that it seems to be evenly distributed. i mean, it is not exactly what the demographics of our country are, but it seems evenly

distributed, as much as -- it would not seem askew. what are the initiatives you are doing to increase the number of women in the workforce? so, we have the same number of leadership, 60/40, you have that in terms of middle management and then in terms of the workers in the park? mr. reynolds: i would have to pull out exactly numbers, but i think it tracks fairly close to that. we do have women now scattered through our senior leadership as well, our regional director ranks for example, and the associate director ranks. we have some initiatives in general to diversify the park service. we also have strong majority numbers of our employees, so we are working across the board. we set up a new agreement office to begin to focus the hr community on that very topic. >> i know you have the women's employee resource group, fire management leaderboard, how are they bringing benefits to the

park service? mr. reynolds: i think it is a start. i don't think they are fully achieving goals, but they bring us tools and awareness and some requirements on our leadership to be considering these things. >> what are the goals of the initiatives? mr. reynolds: the employee resource group, there are a number that we are trying to form to give people a safe place to have a cohort to bring forward, for example, we call them ergs's, employee research group. they can represent a voice. they can be defensive place, if they need it. i knowi would be remiss, we are talking about the harassment against women, but how many people of color do you have an superintendent? mr. reynolds: i do not have the attitude of. i can quickly get to you though. i will tell you our workforce is generally 80% white, across-the-board. >> across-the-board, ok, i would

like to know how many men, women of color are deputies. mr. reynolds: i will be happy to get back to you. >> i yield back. chair. chaffetz: we now recognize the tillman from alabama -- the gentleman from alabama. rep. palmer: what steps as the national parks taken regarding the grand canyon report? mr. reynolds: yes, we have about on,teps that we endeavor this includes everything from some of the training and awareness kinds of programs that we talked about, to disciplinary action. >> one of the action items outlined by the park service in response to the ig report is that managers who failed to properly report all allegations of sexual harassment will be held responsible and that appropriate this binary action will be taken my may of 2016.

reactionany display against these managers? mr. reynolds: i believe everybody in the canyon, and they can back me up on this, they have been removed from the job they had. they have been removed from the park, and they are undergoing a display very process, as we speak. l, as i was listening to testimony earlier, it seemed that mr. healy said it was more of a promotion. did i misunderstand that? mr. healy? mr. healy: thank you. the supervisor of the river, former river district was given a temporary promotion to another park. >> you think that was appropriate?

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