shame and fear of coming forward to report misconduct and cannot bring themselves to be the ones who have the difficult and painful task of speaking up. here's what i want you to help me do. i want the fear and the difficulty and the pain to belong to the perpetrator. not the victim. so i want you to tell us as much about your fact pattern, your story, and i want you to stop and cite all those instances where something more could have been and should have been done. and do it on behalf of the women who maybe don't have the ability to speak up like you do. ms. martin: thank you, congressman, for this opportunity. it is a very painful and conflict conflicted position that i'm in right now. this happened, i was a victim of a peeping tom at grand canyon in

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

make this an issue. i just did not want to come forward and admitting a complaint like this, this early in my career and be labeled as a troublemaker. in the end, what i agreed to was a conference or a sit-down with the two supervisors that i reported this to along with the perpetrator. he apologized to me. she assured me this had never happened before, and that it will never happen again. and so, for me, this has been with me my entire career. and so when i think of zero tolerance, i think this is where

this was the hardest part for me, it is just did not feel like zero tolerance for me. i have had to live with this a long time, this particular individual continued to be moved through the park service and just recently retired. so for me, i believe that this was the tipping point for me to come forward and tell my story that this was why i could no longer remain silent. there's a lot of other women out there that i represent, but these very same things have happened or very similar things, and they just fear that management will not take action and then we become victims again for coming forward. >> so the perpetrator went on and finished his career with the park service and is now enjoying the perks of his retirement? ms. martin: that's my understanding. >> well, i'll just say this. you should never have to choose between your career and justice. ever. you should be able to pursue both of those with all the vigor in the world. so i'm sorry it happened to you, and i appreciate the courage it takes to come share your story. chair chaffetz: we're now recognize ms. vasquez.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for being here this afternoon and sharing this somewhat uncomfortable discussion with us here. we all know that there's an urgent need to stem sexual harassment, discrimination, by increasing female representation in the workforce, and particularly at senior leadership positions and individuals having a say in how these policies are done. ms. martin, you wrote in your prepared statement, i'm going to quote, the jewels of the park service heavily favor men in the most powerful positions of superintendents, deputy superintendssupern for intendants, fire. how many park superinteddant are women? mr. reynolds: we have 413 parks, and as you know, congresswoman, there's not a superintendent necessarily in every park. i believe, i'm going to find the actual number for you, but i

think it's around 258 superintendents. i believe about 127 are women. just give me a minute. i'll find the right number. >> that would be good. mr. reynolds: it's about a 60/40, slightly under 40%. >> so 60% are -- mr. reynolds: men. >> men. and then those positions below that at the deputy superin10ened level. mr. reynolds: deputy superintendents, 58% men, 42% female. i will clarify for you, 62% men, 38% female on superintendents. >> the parks that the women are superintendents over, are they the same size and scope in terms of geographic size as well as personnel as the men that are superintendents? there are different kinds of superintendents. mr. reynolds: correct. i think it's pretty evenly distributed.

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

leadership as well. in our regional director ranks, for example, and in our associate director ranks. we have some initiatives in general to diversify the park service. we also have strong majority numbers of our employee, so we're working across the board. we have set up a new recruitment office to focus the hr community on that very topic. >> ok, i know you have the women's employee resource group, the fire management leadership board. how are they bringing benefits to the park service? mr. reynolds: well, i think they're a start. i don't think they're fully achieving their goals, but they bring us some tools and awareness and requirements on our leadership to be considering these things in the recruitment. >> what are the goals of the initiatives? mr. reynolds: the employee research group, there's a number that we're trying to form to give people a safe place to have a cohort to bring forward, for example, if it's the women's -- we call them ergs, employee research groups, and they can bring forward issues important to women. they can represent a voice. that kind of thing.

>> i would be remiss, i know we're talking about sexual harassment against women, but how many people of color do you have as superintendents at the park? mr. reynolds: i don't know the answer to that. i can quickly get it to you. i will tell you that our workforce is generally 80% white. across the board. >> across the board? ok. but i would like to know how many men, women, of color are superintendents and deputies. mr. reynolds: i would be happy to get that to you. >> thank you. i yield back. chair chaffetz: we'll recognize the gentleman from alabama for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. reynolds, what steps has the national park service taken in response to the finding in the grand canyon oig report? mr. reynolds: thank you, congressman. we have about 18 steps that the oig asked us to endeavor on, and this included everything from some of the training and awareness kinds of programs that we talked about to disciplinary action.

>> one of the action items out outlined by the park service in response to the oig report is managers who fail to properly report all allegations of sexual harassment would be held responsible and that appropriate disciplinary action would be taken by may of 2016. to date, what if any disciplinary action has the park service taken against these managers? mr. reynolds: i believe everybody in the canyon, and mr. healy can back me up on this, has been removed from the job that they had. the boatmen have been removed from the park. and is undergoing a disciplinary process as we speak. >> as i was listening to testimony earlier, it seemed to me that mr. healy felt like some of the action that was taken was more in the context of a promotion than disciplinary

action. did i misunderstoodand that or hear that correctly? mr. healy. mr. healy: thank you. yeah, the supervisor of the river, former river district was given a temporary promotion to another park. >> you think that was appropriate? mr. healy: 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. mr. reynolds: sorry. i believe what you're reading from, sir, is the yosemite expedited inquiry? >> i mean, it seems that there's a pattern across here that women were intimidated. other people were intimidated, they were traumatized. mr. reynolds: yeah. >> you gave one guy a temporary promotion. has anyone been fired? has that question been asked? has anyone been fired? anyone terminated? mr. reynolds: no one has been fired yet, no. disciplinary actions are under way. and the one thing -- >> let me go on and ask a couple more questions. november 2015, the oig found that the deputy superintendents and other managers of the grand canyon shared personal information of the women who wrote reporting the egregious

sexual harassment in the gran canyon river district. one former grand canyon employee who submitted a statement for the record stated that given the culture of retaliation and hostility towards the victims in the grand canyon river district, i along with the other victim ss am rightfully terrified that the alleged perpetrators will contact us directly to retaliate against us. i would like to enter that statement into the record. chair chaffetz: without objection, so ordered. >> what action has the park service taken in response to this personal information? mr. reynolds: the actions that we have taken to date is to recognize that there was inappropriate actions or -- >> that's great. that you recognize it, but i want to know, has anyone been fired? has anyone been demoted? i mean -- mr. reynolds: no, what i can do under the interest of the privacy act for these kinds of things is to personally debrief

with you on what we're doing with disciplinary actions. i can assure you they're under way. >> all right. i just wonder, given all this, how any park service employees can trust the managers will keep their information confidential, that any park service employees can be confident if they're harassed in any way, that they'll be listened to, and that action will be taken to protect them. i find it -- it's disconcerning to me, mr. chairman, that we have had hearings with other agencies and it just seems that this goes on and on and on, and no real punitive action is taken, and as long as we have that stance, as long as no real punitive action is taken, these type of things are going to continue to happen. my time has expired. i yield back. chair chaffetz: i thank the gentleman. i'll now recognize myself here. let me go back to the expedited investigation at yosemite. it's our understand of the 21 people the investigators

interviewed, every single one of them with one exception described yosemite as a hostile work environment as a result of the behavior and conduct of the park's superintendent. why isn't there immediate relief? mr. reynolds: i'm sorry, mr. chairman. that was to me? chair chaffetz: yes. mr. reynolds: we are actively engaged, the regional director who is in san francisco -- chair chaffetz: wait, wait. let's explore the relationship between yosemite and the region. is there a problem with that chain of command there? mr. reynolds: the regional office that oversees yosemite in san francisco. we have a regional director. chair chaffetz: what about the deputy? who is that person? mr. reynolds: we have three

deputy regional directors. and one is in seattle. and two are in san francisco. along with the regional director. chair chaffetz: come on, you know what i'm getting at. mr. reynolds: one of the deputies is the wife of the superintendent at yosemite. and if i may, mr. chairman, we have consciously stovepiped that by having a third party in the midwest region, our eeo manager, help run the investigative process. chair chaffetz: ok, so but here's the problem. you have these -- these things didn't just spring up overnight, right inthis has been a long-standing pattern. you have somebody who is essentially protected in power by his wife. i mean, people are afraid of actually coming forward and filing a complaint. i mean, one of the complaints is that the complaints get back to the superintendent. so when your chain of command and your ability to tell supervisors is impeded by the fact that they're husband and wife, how do you -- how do you let that happen? mr. reynolds: it's even more important why this investigation is important to me to

understand. >> how long has it been going on? -- chair chaffetz: how long has it been going on? mr. reynolds: i am not sure, mr. chairman. chair chaffetz: what do you mean you're not sure inyou're the head of the work force and then you got a promotion. mr. reynolds: i don't know in terms of what the time scale has been. but that's what i'm asking the investigative teams to look into. chair chaffetz: who -- you mean the inspector general? mr. reynolds: inspector general now is involved. chair chaffetz: ms. martin, can you shine some light on this ongoing problem? ms. martin: the expedited inquiry took place about the first part of august, so i can appreciate the fact that the investigation is now turned over to the i.g. but with substantial credible evidence of a hostile work environment, there was a number of us that did fear that the superintendent did release or did have a list of names when

the regional director came out with the expedited inquiry looking for individuals that would be willing to make statements, either in person or written, about their perception of the hostile work environment at yosemite. so there was a number of us that feared that the superintendent probably got our names. we don't know how, maybe it was through the regional office. we don't know. but there are people that felt that they were not going to come forward and provide a statement based upon this expedited inquiry because the superintendent had a list of names. chair chaffetz: were there any repercussions for that? are you aware of anybody who had any sort of retaliation against them because they had stepped forward and made a statement about the reality of what was going on? ms. martin: not at this point. because it still is under investigation, we don't have -- we're not hearing about any -- no names have been shared.

we only have an informal network of individuals that have come forward, but this is the first time i'm actually hearing what some of the additional allegations are in the statements that have been made. chair chaffetz: can you share with us any of your other personal experience. you mentioned you had been the victim three times. you were very candid in what happened in the 1980s. but when you came back to the park service, what was your experience? ms. martin: i came back to the park service after working for the forest service for 16 years. when i came back in 2006, i was

very excited that my career was coming back to the park service. i really enjoy working for the park service. but i experienced the culture that's very, very closed in terms of being able to talk about these difficult issues. and when i came back to the park service, my fear was that the first individual that was the perpetrator for my first sexual harassment was still working for the park service. and indeed, he was. and it was up until just recently that i -- this is why i made the decision to come forward, is that i really felt

that it was important to shine light on the fact that this was the tipping point for me. and so for so many other women that needed to have this heard. chair chaffetz: this is a person who was arrested in 2000 -- in the year 2000. high ranking national park official accused of peeping at naked women at a ymca, and then there's another incident report in 2001. they were having voyeurism issues. police officer was sent. this person was found to be behind a home or a building in a highly suspicious behavior in that situation. and again, nothing happened. seems to be a little bit of a pattern. these are just the ones that they caught. so what were, if you don't mind me asking, i hope you don't, what were the other two incidents that happened to you? and then also, maybe if you could contrast the difference between forest service and park service. ms. martin: the other two

incidents, one while i was still working at grand canyon, i don't remember the exact year, there was an individual that between the park service and the forest service, we worked very closely together on wild and fire snenlts. so this particular gentleman worked for the forest service, took pictures of me and put my pictures up above his visor in his government vehicle, was quite bold about it and showed other people that he had pictures of me in his government vehicle. one day alone at my office, the south rim at grand canyon, he was bold enough to enter my office and try to kiss me. and i pushed him away, very, very visibly shaken and upset, told a friend of mine about what had happened. went to his office, the forest service office, and proceeded to confront the individual. i never had any problems after that, but i did not feel safe at grand canyon, this particular gentleman had applied for the

chief of fire and aviation job at grand canyon, and at that point, i proceeded to notify the deputy superintendent at grand canyon at that time that this individual was sexually harassing me. i do believe that my conversation with the deputy superintendent most likely prevented that individual from getting a job at grand canyon. chair chaffetz: and the other incident? ms. martin: the other incident was after i left the national park service, i was working for the u.s. forest service. and there was a private -- it was a work sponsored meeting at a private house. and i was sitting next to a superior of mine in my fire chain of command, was sitting on a crowded couch, proceeded to run his fingers through my hair. i immediately got up from the couch to remove myself from the situation. i talked to my immediate supervisor about it the following day. again, these are very embarrassing situations. it seems so ubiquitous in our culture, in the wildland culture and i didn't feel i could expose that as part of preserving my career.

at one point, i did mention it to upper management in the forest serveice, and the appalling reply when i told him about it, well, it's his word against yours. i think at that point i really began to believe that there is a culture of tolerance and acceptance of this kind of behavior in our workforce. and i have been powerless, although maybe i could is come forward with more formal complaints. i did not. i honestly felt that the preservation of my career and my career status with my peers was more important than filing a complaint. chair chaffetz: indulge us here, one more question. mr. reynolds, during your time heading the workforce, how many people were fired for sexual harassment, sexual misconduct,

or anything in that genre? how many? mr. reynolds: i would have to look up a number and get it to you today. but i am not aware that there were that many fired, to be honest with you. for those actions that you state. chair chaffetz: were there any? mr. reynolds: i'll confirm with you. i don't have any recollection of any at this point. chair chaffetz: i guess i would like to know how many complaints came, were filed during that time. mr. reynolds: yep. chair chaffetz: let's take the end of 2013. to present day. mr. reynolds: got it. chair chaffetz: how many were complaints happened at any level? and how many people were fired?

mr. reynolds: thank you. chair chaffetz: thank you. now recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. collins. >> mr. chairman thank you for , having this hearing. mr. reynolds, you're the deputy director of operations? mr. reynolds: yes, sir. >> so you in that responsibility oversee all of the national parks in some fashion. >> through their regional directors, yes. >> yeah. how long have you been on the mr. reynolds: -- on-the-job? mr. reynolds: since august 1st. >> and why did you get placed in that job on august 1st? mr. reynolds: we had a retirement of my previous boss, peggy o'dell. and the director asked if i would be willing to be reassigned into that job. >> so it wasn't because of some policy shift or shoring up enforcement or making a statement that now we're taking

it seriously? mr. reynolds: in this case, my understanding is they needed a replacement for a retirement. >> ok, so you were filling -- nothing wrong with that. just want to make sure we weren't making a statement, trying to deal with what's in front of us here. mr. reynolds: no. >> how long have you been with the park service? mr. reynolds: 30 years. >> ok, so it's fair to ask you this question, i think. i'm looking at the fact that we got problems in the last few years at the grand canyon, cape canaveral, yosemite, yellowstone. i mean, you know, why shouldn't the public be led to believe that behind the redstones, i mean, behind the redwoods, shenanigans are going on? people are being harassed or worse. and nothing is being done about it because the culture is so what kind of culture, frankly. it doesn't take this seriously, which has lots of ramifications for would-be employees in terms of desirability of service, in terms of the integrity of the national park service itself. the public wouldn't think this was a good idea or tolerate it and it would be distressed and is distressed to hear these stories repeatedly. so help me understand, is this a systemic culture that has to be weeded out in the national park service? and secondly, would you -- aware of self-criticism, agree with

ms. martin that up until now it has frankly not gotten the serious attention it deserves? mr. reynolds: i would first like to say that i think the majority of our employees are some of the best serving employees i have ever seen in the federal workplace, including folks like these. and they deserve a much, much better culture than we have. i hope it's not a systemic -- >> wait. wait. they deserve a better culture than they have. that seems to be saying there is something -- mr. reynolds: we have a problem. >> systemically wrong with our culture. mr. reynolds: i believe we have a problem and i believe we should make very urgent change to that culture. >> is there training or orientation before i put on that uniform as an employee of the national park service? mr. reynolds: there is.

>> on this subject? mr. reynolds: there is a little on this subject. it needs to be more. >> all right. tell us what -- what is the sop, standard operating procedure when you get our report, whether it's anonymous, i assume you have a hotline so if i want to protect my identity, i'm ms. martin but i don't want to be fingered because i'm on the job surrounded by the people perpetrating the harassment. do i have an anonymous hotline i can call and have it followed up on? mr. reynolds: to clarify, there's a hotline if you will, a reporting mechanism in each region for the eeo operation. we're establishing a new hotline as well. a third-party. >> does that mean each region has its own sop? mr. reynolds: in general, each region has its own offices. they should operate from one park service wide sop. that's something we're shoring up as we speak. >> so there is a manual if i'm a regional director and i'm doing the job, where do i go to get guidance on how to handle the things? mr. reynolds: right to your eeo officer in the region. some parks have eeo collateral duty, which is a fancy way of saying other duties assigned and they're often in hr.

depending on the size of the park -- >> sticking with sop for a minute because i'm trying to understand what's going on at the national park service. so i'm so-and-so, and i have been harassed. and i go to my supervisor. i don't do it anonymously, and i report that, you know, fire ranger x has put the hit on me, and i'm very uncomfortable. i shouldn't have to put up with that. it's degrading, humiliating. i didn't sign up for this and i want action. what happens? mr. reynolds: they're referred immediately, if the supervisor does their job right, to an eeo specialist. or to somebody at the hotline, at the place that we were referring to. >> but your heard ms. martin's testimony. her testimony is when that happened, i think to her, the answer was that it's your word against his. right?

is that right, ms. martin? ms. martin: that's correct. >> so mr. reynolds, going to the eeo person didn't work. mr. reynolds: yeah. we've got problems that i have to urgently. >> mr. healy, a lot of the complaints focused on the grand canyon, which shocked me. i mean, the grand canyon is so spectacularly beautiful i can't believe that you are focused on anything other than duty, but apparently our park service rangers are. what's going on in the grand canyon by way of trying to address this issue? so that it does not recur and that we've actually shifted the culture at one of the great icons of the world, the grand canyon? >> we do have the park service response to oig, 18 action items, but i think very positive step was the assignment of our new superintendent, chris leonards. i think people at the park feel comfortable with her and she's -- she called me on her second

day on the job. she is definitely someone that will listen to us and i think has been approaching our issues directly instead of pretending they aren't there. she's there to make change and i think that's the big positive step for us. >> just final question because i know my time is up, i thank my classmate and friend from wyoming in indulging me. mr. healy, would you agree with mr. reynolds that we have a lot of reform that has to happen in the culture? healy: absolutely. >> thank you. thank you, madam chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. rothman is recognized. >> thank you. first of all, there was an incident referred to by chairman before.-- the chairman and i'm going to ask mr. reynolds about it, a situation where at first blush the wife was over the husband, is that true? >> in that -- in that situation she does not directly supervise her husband. she's in the regional office which is the next level up, sir.

>> ok. how long did that situation exist? >> i would have to confirm, but i think it's been many, many years that they've been in service. >> i mean, was she -- >> long serving deputy. maybe more than 10 years. >> ok. i will give you another general question and this to me is just more evidence why no matter how tempting it may seem to my colleagues you never ever, ever want the government to do anything more than they have to. mr. healy -- one more question for mr. reynolds. you said that you never knew since you were the head of hr anybody being fired for sexual harassment, right? you couldn't remember that? mr. reynolds: yeah, i'm going to follow up with the chairman on the date of it. it didn't hit -- i was managing systems and processes. >> how long were you the head of hr? mr. reynolds: two years.

>> two years. how many people do you have under you? mr. reynolds: there is about 18,000 permanents, upwards of 20,000 by the time the seasons come in. >> you were the hr head of over 18,000 people, right? mr. reynolds: in general. the way our system works is our regions actually run their own hr programs, we have sort of the overarching system and process oversight. >> do you know in those two years how many people were let go, period, for anything? mr. reynolds: we fire quite a few -- upwards of at least 100 people a year for various infractions. >> ok. what do they usually do? mr. reynolds: >> there are often conduct issues. they might be caught stealing or they might be -- the normal range of things that you might have happen. >> ok. mr. healy, thanks for coming by. we have to ask you some questions. how pervasive is retaliation at the park service? mr. healy: i'm sorry, can you

repeat that? >> how pervasive do you think retaliation is at the park service? mr. healy: you know, my experience is limited to grand canyon and it's -- with a couple of the individuals that are still at the park i think there's a pretty extensive pattern of that and that was all described by the oig during their investigation. >> are you afraid of retaliation for showing up and talking to us today. mr. healy: yeah, i am. i am somewhat. yeah. yes. >> ok. i guess this question is kind of obvious but do you feel the park service adequately has held managers accountable for their part in allowing harassment in the grand canyon? mr. healy: i don't at this time. i'm optimistic for the future, but it's been quite a while since the oig investigation came out and the park service response to that and we're in september and we still haven't

seen some of the individuals that were implicated by the oig leave. >> slow moving. maybe i'll switch back to mr. reynolds. are any of these managers under any jeopardy of losing their job for their slow moving here? mr. reynolds: again, as i offered earlier, i'd be happy to talk to you in person or the chairman -- >> are they in jeopardy for poking around here? mr. reynolds: for many of these actions as they are found true, yes, they are in jeopardy. >> ok. mr. healy, according to your testimony a former supervisor at the grand canyon district breached confidentiality of victims and was given a temporary promotion to chief ranger. is that true? what affect does that have on the morale of the employees when they see this sort of thing going on? mr. healy: i think it has a severe impact. i think it really does. i think that was probably a setback for employee morale and moving forward after this thing. you know, this is a really --

really big deal for employees. >> what was his position before and what was he promoted to? mr. healy: he was supervisory park ranger, i believe, and his temporary promotion was chief ranger at a park. so the highest ranger position at another park from what i understand. >> ok. but you feel comfortable saying what park? i won't have you do that. mr. healy: it's curaconti. it's in colorado. gunnison. >> ok. interesting. i will go back to miss martin. i will ask you the same question. how common do you think retaliation is at nps? ms. martin: thank you, congressman, for that. i -- i'm fearful more of the repercussions, the retaliation i have not been a victim of and i think everybody knows that by coming forward we're trying to really truly have a stronger

conversation about what sexual harassment is and a hostile work environment is. so i actually feel somewhat confident that retaliation will not happen, but there are people that do fear that and will not come forward with honest statements. >> retaliation feels they are less likely to be promoted themselves in the future? ms. martin: i think people just don't really want to rock the boat. they won't want to come forward for what they really see as going on. so there is a handful of us that believe that this is an extremely important topic to bring forward and so i -- i'm cautiously optimistic, i guess, that we will not be retaliated against. >> ok. mr. reynolds, in your past statements you said you were doing what you can to increase the number of women in management positions at the park service. could you elaborate? mr. reynolds: we -- we are

beginning to venture into a much more aggressive recruitment. we've opened a recruitment office that will -- we really have not had -- recruitment has been done at the superviseory -- -- supervisory management level so we are beginning to focus on diversity in all of its forms. >> ok. well over my time. thanks for being patient with me. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. micah is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman and ranking member. i haven't been able to participate. i got waylaid on a host of other things, but i did stay up last night and read some of the testimony and the staff report. it was absolutely appalling to see what took place in some of these instances.

it also to me is disgraceful that the federal government could be a partner into the abuse of women and employees and others and let them be subject to this type of activity. i just was stunned at what's going on. when we came into the majority in 1995, i was the first republican chairman of civil service in 40 years and i got to look at the civil service system and you want a civil service system, and it was created to protect employees from political interference, but it wasn't created to protect them when they abused their fellow employees, violate laws, protocols, rules, and that's what i read page after page.

it's just stunning. and then i saw the movement of people from -- within the agency from department to department. one case -- and i'm sure it's been relayed here -- where you get promoted after you commit sexual acts. no one would tolerate in any other form of employment. ok. sat here, i've sat through irs, i've sat -- i've sat through -- i never remember -- or never forget the head of secret service, she came to me after she was brought in. julia, she went to the university of central florida, was a police officer, eminently qualified. first female secret service director and after she was there for a while she came in and she says, this is almost impossible

to control. i need assistance to determine -- well, to be able to hire and fire. hire and fire poor performers. and that's -- whether it's secret service, whether it's irs, whether it's gsa, fbi, other agencies -- and some -- actually, some of them are exempt, there's exempt and non-exempt. mr. reynolds, are your hands tied? mr. reynolds: congressman, thank you for bringing this up. it is a complex system. >> it's very complex. and it's very difficult for you to navigate. mr. reynolds: yes. >> and it can take a long time to get rid of these people. mr. reynolds: i don't want to cop out by saying it's the process. we have to be accountable. >> i'm not copping out, either, but i'm telling you it's a process. we've set up a system where nobody gets fired and when you do egregious things you don't get fired.

it's easier to transfer them around and we've seen examples and examples. i read it last night and it didn't let me sleep well last night. mr. reynolds: there is a gao report that says it takes us six months to a year to terminate people at times. >> and that would be a speedy termination. and the alternative is actually that they're moving people into other positions. and then what kind of message does it send when they actually get elevated? one of the most troublesome cases was getting elevated to one of the highest positions and everybody knew what was going on. it's disgraceful. well, i think that the way to cure this is, again, you want to protect -- we want to protect people -- we have thousands and thousands of wonderful employees in the federal government. you've got them in the park service. i've seen them. they stay there late, they work extra time, they neglect

sometimes their family but they serve the public. they're public servants. a few rotten apples in the barrel and they're staying in the barrel and to me it's disgraceful that -- that we haven't fixed the system that allows you to do your duty to clear the deck of people who need to be fired, removed and held accountable. would you agree with that? mr. reynolds: i agree. we need to move as fast as we can. >> well, again, madam chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. this is an important hearing. this is to the core of the problem we have across the spectrum of the federal government. i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman from florida. i have seven statements that i would like to include in the record without objection so ordered.

mr. healy, have you ever seen someone, let's say a problem person, a sexual predator, within the national park service either transferred laterally or promoted? mr. reynolds: i don't -- i don't believe so. >> ms. martin, have you ever seen someone who was known to be a problem employee for the reasons we're meeting today, either transferred laterally to a different nps property or promoted? : if martin: -- ms. martin you refer to my testimony regarding my first sexual harassment incident at grand canyon that is an example of how an individual was laterally moved and promoted. >> well, what we've heard today are terms like "toxic work culture," a "closed culture."

we've heard go along to get along culture. and we know that within the national park service there are plum assignments, people will stay regardless of how long it takes or what they have to put up with to get to some of those crown jewel properties because they love their jobs so much. in some respects that's rewarding loyalty. in other respects it can create a toxic work culture. and it appears at the national park service, especially since we have had reports of this for 16 years and that these matters are not being adequately addressed, that perhaps promotion from within has actually hurt the national park service from addressing cultural systemic problems in this area.

so i will be asking the chairman and ranking member of this committee to prepare memos to the transition teams for both the democratic and republican presidential candidates to inform them of what is in the record here about what is going on at the national park service in terms of a toxic work culture. and how maybe it's time to get, as mr. mica said, some of the rotten apples that are still in the barrel out of the barrel. and maybe that's going to require people who have made this their career and have been looking forward to being considered for some of the very highest positions within the national park service to not attain those goals, because this

has been tolerated. it has not been swept under the rug and now some of the people in leadership positions are just finding out about it. it has been tolerated and it appears that people have tolerated this in order to advance their careers into the highest positions in the national park service. it is time to ferret out that kind of toxic culture and either new president is going to be in a position to do that. so i will ask the chairman of this committee and the ranking member to prepare memos to the transition teams of the democratic and republican nominees for president and present them to them so when they are going through transition and preparing people to go before senate committees for confirmation, that they know exactly what's going on in the national park service and they are prepared to address these

problems. i thank you for your testimony today. it builds on testimony that we have in writing. it builds on reports that we have had for 16 years that have gone inadequately addressed. it informs the next president that they better start lawyering up these agencies with people who are experts in personnel rules and disciplinary rules because they're going to take a whole bunch of people through processes that have not been used enough within the national park service. i now recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> i want to thank the chairman -- chair lady and for your words and i agree that it would be a good idea to get those letters out to the two transition teams,

and i think hopefully it will have some impact. to you, ms. martin, to you, mr. healy, i thank you for coming forward forward. this is not easy. it can't be. what i think about you, ms. martin, having left and come back, and i was just reading the file of the person who was the peeping tom. you should not have had to go through that. and, you know, i often think about how people come to work every day. sometimes they have things that

they have to struggle with at home, all of us do, and -- but no matter what they get up, they come to work and when you've got a job like the ones that you all have, dealing with the public, you have to put on a good face and you've got to be the best that you can be. but the idea that you come to work and you've got people who place you in a position of discomfort, knowing that they could have not only an impact on your career, but on your way of life and then to be able to function at your maximum with all of that over your head, that's quite a bit.

and then to seemingly have an administration at the park service that through neglect or just the shear sense of lack of urgency does not back you up, that's a problem. the other thing that i guess that goes through my head is what i said a little bit earlier. you've been bold enough to come here to give your testimony and the idea that you might not have the impact that you wanted to have have, and go back and get hurt because you've stepped forward is the worst thing that could happen. so i want to vow to you and i'm

sure our committee, everybody on this committee feels the same way, and let me send a message to all of those who are thinking about, thinking about, thinking about retaliating or bringing harm. that we will come after you with everything we've got. there's no way that we will correct this culture if you have to be in fear and if they have the position that they can do whatever they want and get away with it. and to those who feel that way, feel that they want to retaliate, i would invite them to leave the park service. go do something else. because we want our employees to be able to be content -- we want them -- we want them to have a normal employee/employer existence. normal.

this is not normal. it's not. it's got to be stressful. every day. watching your back. who is going to hurt you? who is going to block your path? what's going to happen when you come up for a promotion? who is going to be whispering things, oh, she is not this or he is not that and you never even know who did it. so all of that, that's got to be stressful. and then i go back to what you said, ms. martin, if you regard to the whole housing thing, -- that whole balancing thing. do i tell or do i believe quiet? do i say something, because if i say something my career may be ruined. and then what am i going to do? how am i going to feed my family? those are real decisions. so, you know, i know there is a survey coming out, mr. reynolds, but the thing that struck me is that 16 years ago a similar survey came out. is that right?

and when folks were asked about sexual harassment, they were asked this question, have you personally experienced sexual harassment? 52%. hello? 52% of the respondent females in law enforcement positions in the park service said yes. and an astounding 76% of the respondent females in the united states park service answered yes. what's that about? and did you see that? did you see those things when you were there? you know, we talked about these incidents. when you held the position that you held, head of hr, whatever you called it, did you see some of this? mr. reynolds: i did see instances come through in terms of cases. not -- we haven't had the data to understand it the way that

survey describes, which is why we want to do a second -- you know, this new survey and to do it right this time. >> but this was 16 years ago. mr. reynolds: yes. >> all right. we've got problems. mr. reynolds: yes, sir. >> and we've got to correct them. mr. reynolds: and i would like to say that i will personally ensure and you may hold me absolutely accountable that these people will be protected with their careers and their lives. >> and, see, they know the names. they know the names. they know the names. but do you know what, you can know the information and know the names, but when you've got this culture, even giving up -- just the mere giving up the names will cause them stress. right, ms. martin?

ms. martin: without a doubt. i know that i have -- i will be probably more -- i will be facing serious repercussions, but i just have to go on record to tell you that i have a tremendous amount of support of women behind me. they could not do this, but the other important thing is that there's men that want to see our culture change, too. >> well, that leads me to my last statement and i'm so glad you said that. i'm so glad you said that. i want to say this to all the people that you just talked about, the ones that back you up, the ones that care, the ones that support you. they are -- they've got to understand that they are the solution. they really are. they have to be that critical mass. they've got to stand up. they've got to back you up and then hopefully more and more will come forward. if changes need to be made at the top they need to be made, but they have to change it -- help us change it because they are there. you are on the ground. they are the witnesses.

ok? i've often said through our pain must come our passion to do our purpose. your pain has allowed you to come here with a passion and that passion has allowed you to do your purpose, and hopefully we will be able -- that purpose will be about bringing a new day to the park service by shining a bright light on its problems. with that, madam chair, i yeed -- i yield back. >> i thank the ranking member. the tone is set at the top. so the tone has to change going forward. i want to thank our witnesses. mr. healy, thank you for coming here and for your bold statements. ms. martin, thank you for your testimony today. and for representing other people within the national park service who are similarly situated, but your ability to speak on their behalf is deeply appreciated by this committee.

mr. reynolds, thank you for your testimony today. you've got your hands full. i hope you are up to the task. god bless you in your work there. with that, the committee on oversight and government reform is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]

in >> next on c-span, "washington journal" live. after that, we talk about health care costs. a 45 minutes, in order to let congressman on efforts to fund the government before the september 30 deadline enabled his home state in the 2016 election.

then, we talk about the recent police involved shootings in north carolina and oklahoma. and the debate over police tactics. ♪ host: good morning on this friday, september 23. lawmakers are not in session today, they have gone back to their home districts all a deal to continue funding the government passed this month deadline is hammered out. outside the capital, many eyes on the city of charlotte as protesters largely peaceful, unlike the first two nights, came to the streets last night to demonstrate against the fatal shooting by police of keith scott. in. , the police officer -- in. , the police officer who