[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE TO FINDINGS OF UNETHICAL AND CRIMINAL
CONDUCT AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, June 23, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-47
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-546 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Louie Gohmert, TX Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Doug Lamborn, CO Jim Costa, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
John Fleming, LA CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA
Glenn Thompson, PA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Jared Huffman, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Duncan, SC Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Matt Cartwright, PA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Norma J. Torres, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Debbie Dingell, MI
Paul Cook, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Bruce Westerman, AR Lois Capps, CA
Garret Graves, LA Jared Polis, CO
Dan Newhouse, WA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Ryan K. Zinke, MT
Jody B. Hice, GA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Thomas MacArthur, NJ
Alexander X. Mooney, WV
Cresent Hardy, NV
Darin LaHood, IL
Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
LOUIE GOHMERT, TX, Chairman
DEBBIE DINGELL, MI, Ranking Democratic Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Jared Huffman, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Ruben Gallego, AZ
Bruce Westerman, AR Jared Polis, CO
Jody B. Hice, GA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Vacancy
Alexander X. Mooney, WV Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Darin LaHood, IL
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Day, Thursday, June 23, 2016..................... 1
Statement of Members:
Dingell, Hon. Debbie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, Prepared statement of................... 4
Gohmert, Hon. Louie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Guertin, Steve, Deputy Director of Policy, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.......... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Questions submitted for the record....................... 14
Kendall, Mary, Deputy Inspector General, Office of the
Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior......... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Questions submitted for the record....................... 9
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Hice, Hon. Jody, June 16, 2016 Letter to President Obama..... 17
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 30
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE TO FINDINGS OF
UNETHICAL AND CRIMINAL CONDUCT AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
----------
Thursday, June 23, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Louie Gohmert,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gohmert, Westerman, Hice, Mooney,
LaHood, and Bishop (ex officio).
Mr. Gohmert. The Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
Administration's response to findings of unethical and criminal
conduct at the Department of the Interior.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
the hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all
other Members' opening statements made be made part of the
hearing record if they are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk
by 5:00 p.m. today.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
We were notified that Ranking Member Dingell would not be
able to be here. You may be aware we had an interesting evening
and finished votes, I think, sometime after 3:00 a.m.
I will also say that it is a pleasure to work with
Congresswoman Debbie Dingell. She is, I have found, one of the
more honorable, decent people of integrity like her husband,
and it is a pleasure to work with her. I think a great deal of
her and I am proud to consider her a friend.
Now, I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Gohmert. A month ago this committee examined unethical
conduct on the part of officials at the Department of the
Interior, including Jonathan Jarvis, the Director of the
National Park Service, who openly lied to the Secretary and
attempted to mislead the OIG.
I mentioned then that the Department's failure to hold its
employees accountable facilitates unethical and illegal
behavior. The Department witness repeatedly testified that
Interior has ``a culture of compliance.'' Despite this,
Secretary Jewell recently issued a warning to 70,000 agency
employees to ``comply with the ethical responsibilities
expected of all Federal employees.''
Since that hearing, more reports of unethical and illegal
acts have been released.
The OIG reported that former BLM Director Bob Abbey
personally arranged to sell Bureau of Land Management land in
Nevada, so that his company could benefit to the tune of
$528,000. The Department of Justice chose not to prosecute Mr.
Abbey, despite OIG presenting the case to two separate U.S.
Attorneys.
OIG also investigated Stephen Barton, Chief of
Administration and Information Management for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Mr. Barton failed to disclose that he was
earning income, totaling nearly $400,000, from serving as
treasurer of an association that receives grants from and is
audited by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
While lying about his employment conflict of interest, OIG
also found that Mr. Barton lived in Idaho while being paid a
substantially higher amount by claiming Washington, DC as his
residence. To top it off, Mr. Barton billed taxpayers over
$96,000 for travel between the two locations.
DOJ declined to prosecute the case.
OIG also revealed that a U.S. Geological Survey lab in
Colorado consistently manipulated lab results that are used by
the Energy Resources Program and countless other entities from
2008 to 2014 and, possibly, as far back as 1996. The full
impact and scope of this falsified data is unknown, but it is
sure to be far reaching and serious.
At our last hearing, it was disclosed that OIG had
confirmed a long-term pattern of sexual harassment at Grand
Canyon National Park, where over 80 people were victimized.
Leadership who allowed this practice to continue for years were
not disciplined, and DOJ again refused to prosecute. I say
``were not disciplined'' because what was done was actually a
favor to the culprit rather than a punishment.
We now have learned that the problem extends to other
locations in our national park system, including the Canaveral
National Seashore, where the manager sexually harassed
employees over a period of 5 years. To make matters even worse,
the OIG has made us aware that additional, unrelated cases of
sexual harassment are currently under investigation.
Perhaps these serious issues should not be a surprise when
such matters have been referred to a National Park Service
Director who has shown a clear disinterest in following the
ethics guidelines himself.
And, yesterday, we were informed that Fay Iudicello, an SES
employee in the Secretary's office, egregiously violated hiring
regulations on multiple occasions in order to secure a job for
her family member. Not only that, but in the process, she also
instructed her subordinates to eliminate qualified veterans
from the pool of candidates because she did not want to have a
disabled veteran on staff. Her discriminatory and illegal
actions resulted not in her dismissal but, instead, in the
employment of her relative and the rejection of more qualified
veteran candidates.
Failure of accountability extends beyond the Department of
the Interior. Of 29 criminal cases that the OIG referred to the
Department of Justice over the course of 6 months, 17 were
declined for prosecution. This number is troubling, especially
when DOJ participates alongside the OIG in some of these
investigations it ultimately declines to prosecute.
While Justice's involvement in OIG investigations can be
beneficial, it can also slow the pace of an investigation, and
it can limit what OIG is able to report to Interior for
accountability purposes.
We invited DOJ to testify today to help us understand how
it works with the OIG, and how it decides whether to prosecute
cases involving clear criminal violations. Rather than send a
witness, DOJ instead put off the committee for days, questioned
committee staff as to whether our committee has the right to
request their presence at the witness table, and ultimately
suggested that we read the ``Principles of Federal
Prosecution'' online instead.
So, let me be clear. It is completely appropriate for this
committee to request the presence of the Department of Justice
at the witness table. We have a valid interest in its
involvement in these OIG investigations and in learning from
DOJ itself about its processes for handling OIG referrals.
The DOJ's refusal to be here today casts their record of
non-prosecution of Administration misconduct into a light of
accommodating such misconduct.
I thank the witnesses for coming here today and I look
forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gohmert follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Louie Gohmert, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations
A month ago this committee examined unethical conduct on the part
of Department of the Interior officials, including the Director of the
National Park Service, Jonathan Jarvis, who openly lied to the
Secretary and attempted to mislead the OIG.
I mentioned then that the Department's failure to hold its
employees accountable facilitates unethical and illegal behavior. The
Department witness repeatedly testified that Interior has ``a culture
of compliance.'' Despite this, Secretary Jewell recently issued a
warning to 70,000 agency employees to ``comply with the ethical
responsibilities expected of all Federal employees.''
Since that hearing, more reports of unethical and illegal acts have
been released.
The OIG reported that former BLM Director Bob Abbey personally
arranged a sale of BLM land in Nevada so that his company could benefit
to the tune of $528,000. The Department of Justice chose not to
prosecute Mr. Abbey, despite OIG presenting the case to two separate
U.S. Attorneys.
OIG also investigated Stephen Barton, Chief of Administration and
Information Management for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. OIG
found that Mr. Barton failed to disclose that he was earning income--
totaling nearly $400,000--while he served as treasurer of an
association that receives grants from and is audited by the Fish and
Wild Service. While lying about his employment conflict of interest,
OIG found that Mr. Barton also lived in Idaho while being paid a
substantially higher amount by claiming he resided in Washington, D.C.
To top it off, Mr. Barton billed taxpayers over $96,000 for travel
between the two locations.
DOJ declined to prosecute this case.
OIG also revealed that a U.S. Geological Survey lab in Colorado
consistently manipulated lab results that are used by the Energy
Resources Program and countless other entities from at least 2008 to
2014, and possibly as far back as 1996. The full impact and scope of
this falsified data is unknown, but it is sure to be far reaching and
serious.
At our last hearing, we mentioned that OIG had confirmed a long-
term pattern of sexual harassment at Grand Canyon National Park, where
over 80 people were victimized. Leadership who allowed this practice to
continue for years were not disciplined and DOJ again refused to
prosecute.
We now have learned that the problem extends to other locations in
our National Park System, including the Canaveral National Seashore
where the manager sexually harassed employees over a period of 5 years.
To make matters even worse, the OIG has made us aware that additional,
unrelated cases of sexual harassment are currently under investigation.
Perhaps these serious issues should not be a surprise when such
matters have been referred to a National Park Service Director who is
incapable of following ethics guidelines himself.
And yesterday, we were informed that Fay Iudicello, an SES employee
in the Secretary's office, egregiously violated hiring regulations on
multiple occasions in order to secure a job for her family member. And
not only that, but in the process, she also instructed her subordinates
to eliminate qualified veterans from the pool of candidates because she
did not want to have a disabled veteran on staff. Her discriminatory
and illegal actions resulted not in her dismissal, but instead in the
employment of her relative, and the rejection of more qualified veteran
candidates.
Failure of accountability extends beyond the Department of the
Interior. Of 29 criminal cases that the OIG referred to the Department
of Justice over the course of 6 months, 17 were declined for
prosecution. This number is troubling, especially when DOJ participates
alongside OIG in some of these investigations that it ultimately
declines to prosecute.
While Justice's involvement in OIG investigations can be
beneficial, it can also slow the pace of an investigation, and it can
limit what OIG is able to report to Interior for accountability
purposes.
We invited DOJ to testify today to help us understand how it works
with the OIG, and how it decides whether to prosecute cases involving
clear criminal violations. Rather than send a witness, DOJ instead put
off the committee for days, questioned committee staff as to whether
this committee has the right to request their presence at the witness
table, and ultimately suggested that we read the ``Principles of
Federal Prosecution'' online instead.
Let me make this clear--it is completely appropriate for this
committee to request the presence of the Department of Justice at the
witness table. We have a valid interest in its involvement in these OIG
investigations, and in learning, from DOJ itself, about its processes
for handling OIG referrals. The Department of Justice's refusal to be
here today makes me wonder what their motivations for failing to
prosecute these cases really are.
I thank our witnesses for coming here today and I look forward to
your testimony.
______
Mr. Gohmert. The Chairman would normally recognize Mrs.
Dingell; but, like I said, due to the unusual nature of the
evening and the hardships it has placed on travel plans today,
my friend, the Ranking Member, Mrs. Dingell, is not able to be
here.
I would ask unanimous consent that any opening statement
she has would be made a part of the record.
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Dingell follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Debbie Dingell, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is our second hearing in this subcommittee that looks at
reports from the Department of the Interior's Inspector General. In the
hearing on unethical conduct last month my colleague, Congressman Clay,
sat in the Ranking Member chair because I was unable to attend and I am
grateful for his commitment and effectiveness. He convincingly argued
that instead of simply attacking the Administration for unethical
conduct at the Department of the Interior, ``We need to hear about the
changes the Department is making to ensure the . . . cases before us
aren't repeated.'' Thank you for responding to that request, Mr.
Chairman.
I am deeply concerned about the recent findings by the Inspector
General. Undoubtedly, the individuals we will discuss today acted
unethically. In the case of the inorganics lab at the U.S. Geological
Survey, the issue was so bad that it spanned three administrations with
the most recent incident alone spanning two. This is unacceptable.
Ensuring ethical conduct in the workplace is particularly critical
for those who serve the public. The public must have faith that
agencies serve their needs and tax dollars do not go to waste. During
this time of low public trust in government, now more than ever we need
to confirm that the Department responds to its ethical issues
adequately.
Let's be frank. In any organization with over 70,000 employees,
undoubtedly there will be bad decisions. In order to effectively manage
those incidents, I believe three questions must be answered.
First, has the Department taken the necessary steps to learn from
the incidents? Did they take the time and effort to fully understand
the problem, including the lessons the IG has to offer?
Second, did the agency act to prevent these issues from re-
occurring? Only by correcting past mistakes can the Department create a
stronger and more ethical agency going forward. This administration has
made multiple changes to try to correct the culture of corruption at
key parts of the Department of the Interior that existed in the
previous administration. It's our job to make sure the Department
responds to the most recent ethical lapses now.
Third, are the cases at issue today isolated incidents or do they
point to a more systemic problem? The authoritative voice on this
question, Mary Kendall, has said that under this Administration there
is now ``a culture at Interior that, for the most part, is one
populated by individuals who are committed to the mission and doing the
right thing.''
The Office of Inspector General's Semiannual Reports to Congress
support that statement. From October 2014 to March 2016, 56 employees
of the Department of the Interior were suspended, reprimanded, and
removed, transferred, resigned, or retired due to investigations by the
Office of Inspector General. That's a rate of 0.08 percent for the
agency as a whole. For comparison, that's less than one-eighth the rate
of corruption among members of the House of Representatives for that
same time period.
I also want to explore a statistic that speaks to a claim that
seems to underpin this hearing. The Majority states that the DOI IG
referred 29 cases to Justice, and Justice only took up 17 of those
cases over a recent 6-month time period. The implication is that the
DOJ is improperly turning down referrals from the IG.
If we want to determine whether the Department of Justice in this
Administration is treating offenders any differently than they should,
we need a benchmark--some kind of point of comparison. So let's look at
how the DOJ has responded to serious offenses in the past.
There is one case in particular that was mentioned in the previous
hearing and provides a good reference point for what we are talking
about today. I'm going to quote from the IG report.
At the former Minerals Management Service under the previous
administration, nearly one-third of the employees in one of the
agency's programs were receiving gifts and gratuities from the oil and
gas industry.
Employees were ``effectively opting themselves out of the Ethics in
Government Act, both in practice, and, at one point, even explored
doing so by policy or regulation.''
Employees ``manipulated the contracting process from start'' to
enrich themselves.
One employee pled guilty to a criminal charge. Two more were
referred to the Department of Justice. And ``others have escaped
potential administrative action by departing from Federal service.''
Employees ``engaged in illegal drug use and illicit sexual
encounters'' with the very industry they were charged with regulating.
That includes a supervisor who had sexual relations with subordinates
and in consort with the oil and gas industry. As the report dryly says,
``sexual relationships with prohibited sources cannot, by definition,
be arms-length.''
``When confronted by our investigators, none of the employees
involved displayed remorse.''
This is a case that was so depraved that it makes the perpetrators
of today's case studies look like the Dalai Lama. On the surface, it
seems that if ever there was a case that should have been prosecuted,
it was this one.
Still, that's just one case. So I dug a little deeper and went all
the way back to 2001--the beginning of the previous administration--to
look at the rate that cases were referred by the Interior IG to the DOJ
but declined by DOJ. I used the same data source as the majority--
semiannual OIG reports. It turns out that the previous administration's
Department of Justice declined to prosecute 67.1 percent of the
referrals from the DOI IG. Under this administration, it was 53.7
percent. So this administration prosecutes more of the Interior OIG
cases than the previous administration.
I think we need to take a good hard look at the cases we have
before us today and make sure we are continuing to improve all the
agencies at DOI. But let's also make sure that we are being fair about
the implications of these individual cases and examining all the
evidence before we draw larger conclusions. Let's make sure the
Department of the Interior's record of improvement has continued into
this year. Let's make sure the Department has learned from its
mistakes. And let's make sure the Department has the resources and the
support it needs to guarantee employees continue to seek ethical
consult going forward.
I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Mr. Gohmert. I will now introduce our witnesses. Ms. Mary
Kendall is the Deputy Inspector General for the Office of the
Inspector General at the U.S. Department of the Interior, and
has testified here before.
Ms. Kendall, welcome back. Thank you for being here.
Then, Mr. Steve Guertin is the Deputy Director of Policy at
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Guertin, thank you for being here.
Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules,
oral statements must be limited to 5 minutes, but the entire
written statement will appear in the hearing record regardless
of your testimony.
When you begin, the lights on the witness table will turn
green. When you have 1 minute remaining the yellow light will
come on. Your time will have expired when the red light comes
on, and I will ask you to please conclude your statement.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Kendall for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARY KENDALL, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Kendall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today regarding the work of the Office
of the Inspector General.
This hearing highlights the importance of bringing into the
public view the role of the OIG as an independent, objective
body to investigate matters that ultimately violate the public
trust.
I must emphasize the dedication and hard work of OIG staff
and give credit to those who produce the results that are the
subject of today's hearing.
These recent hearings have also reinforced our focus on
analyzing patterns of misconduct, examples of retaliation or
intimidation, and systemic failures in management and internal
oversight of critical processes within the Department, such as
human resources, and contract and grant management.
With fewer than 80 investigators, we work with constrained
resources to address the ever-increasing complaints and
allegations we receive throughout the year from multiple
sources. With limited time and resources, we tend to move from
case to case without considering cross-cutting impacts or
patterns that our investigations uncover.
Recently, however, we have begun to look for investigative
trends that may eliminate more systemic issues within the
Department and its bureaus. The OIG has established a
reputation for fair and thorough investigative and audit work.
While we produce a significant volume of both investigative and
audit work, in light of our work size we are not always able to
transmit and make public our work products as quickly as I
would like.
Our effort at transparency, something that I believe is
unparalleled in the OIG community, has its own challenges. In
preparing public versions of these investigative and audit
results, we must address grand jury secrecy rules, privacy
issues, confidential business and proprietary information
protections, and protection of confidential sources. This
effort can be quite time consuming, but I believe that the
benefit of the resulting transparency is well worth the effort.
By reducing the time we provide to the Department for
consideration from 90 to no more than 30 days before publishing
investigative reports or summaries on our Web site, we provide
all of our stakeholders with clear expectations about the
public availability of our reports.
Much of our investigative work includes working with
Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) and other officials in the
Department of Justice. We have strong working relationships
with many U.S. Attorney's Offices, which has resulted in the
prosecution of cases throughout the country.
A couple of examples of these effective working
relationships with DOJ are our considerable involvement with
the Deepwater Horizon Task Force, both criminal and civil,
which were led by DOJ and resulted in record-setting fines and
penalties.
We also had great success in the Guardians Task Force,
which was led by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
Montana, to address public corruption involving tribal leaders.
This model has become a standard for task forces in Indian
Country.
We consult with DOJ on all allegations that involve
potential criminal violations. A considerable number of these
cases do not get prosecuted for any number of appropriate
reasons.
Other times, a matter may be accepted for consideration for
prosecution, but gets delayed due to higher priority cases or
other resource limitations. The process of prosecutorial
consideration is very deliberate, very detailed, and at times,
completely out of our hands.
I reiterate my thanks to the subcommittee for holding this
hearing today, for giving these issues the attention they
deserve, and for recognizing the need for transparency and
accountability in this important area.
This concludes my prepared testimony, and I am happy to
answer any questions committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kendall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary L. Kendall, Deputy Inspector General, U.S.
Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the work of
the Office of Inspector General (OIG). This hearing, along with the
previous hearing before this subcommittee and another recent hearing
held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, helps
to highlight the importance of bringing into the public view the role
of the OIG as an independent, objective body to investigate matters
that ultimately violate public trust. I must emphasize the dedication
and hard work of the OIG staff, and give credit to those who produce
the results that are the subject of today's hearing.
These recent hearings have also reinforced our focus on analyzing
patterns of misconduct, examples of retaliation or intimidation, and
systemic failures in management and internal oversight of critical
processes within the Department, such as human resources and contract
and grant management.
With fewer than 80 investigators, we work with constrained
resources to address the ever-increasing complaints and allegations we
receive throughout the year from multiple sources. We do so, in part,
by capitalizing on a culture at Interior that, for the most part, is
populated by individuals who are committed to the mission and doing the
right thing. In fact, they are quick to report wrongdoing to the OIG.
Just short of 50 percent of our complaints are generated by DOI
employees and management. Another 15 percent of our complaints come
from anonymous sources, many of which include information known only to
DOI employees, so the total percentage is likely higher.
With limited time and resources, our tendency has been to move from
case to case without considering cross-cutting impacts or patterns that
our investigations uncover. Recently, however, we have begun to look
for investigative trends that may illuminate more systemic issues
within the Department and its bureaus.
The OIG has established a reputation for fair and thorough
investigative and audit work. We are routinely called upon by the
Department to conduct independent reviews of suspicious activity or
allegations of misconduct. Several of the recent cases giving rise to
congressional and media attention were generated by information
reported to us by senior Departmental officials. As our reports
reflect, however, the source of allegations does not influence the way
in which we conduct our work, or report our investigative or audit
findings.
While we produce a significant volume of investigative and audit
work, in light of our workforce size, we are not always able to
transmit and make public our work products as quickly as I would like.
We have implemented several internal processes to improve our
timeliness without compromising the quality of our work and work
products. As you know, we have also implemented a policy of making
public essentially all of our investigative reports whether allegations
are substantiated or not, as well as some additional audit reports that
had not been published previously. This effort at transparency--
something that is unparalleled in the OIG community--has its own
challenges. In preparing public versions of these investigative and
audit results, we must address grand jury secrecy rules, privacy
issues, confidential business and proprietary information protections,
and protection of confidential sources. This effort can be quite time
consuming, but I believe that the benefit of the resulting transparency
is well worth the effort.
As I explained in my testimony for the May 24, 2016 hearing before
this subcommittee, we have recently streamlined our process for
publishing investigative reports, reducing the time we provide to the
Department for review and action from 90 to 30 days, before we provide
investigative reports to Congress and publish those reports or
summaries on our Web site. This change provides all of our stakeholders
with clear expectations about the public availability of our reports.
Since the improved publishing process was implemented, only one report
has been delayed to allow the Department of Justice additional time for
prosecutorial consideration.
Much of our investigative work includes working with Assistant U.S.
Attorneys and other officials from the Department of Justice (DOJ). We
have strong working relationships with many U.S. Attorney's offices,
which have resulted in the prosecution of cases throughout the country.
An example of this effective working relationship with DOJ is our
considerable involvement in the Deepwater Horizon task forces--both
criminal and civil--which were led by DOJ and resulted in record-
setting fines and penalties. We also had great success in the Guardians
task force, which was led by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
District of Montana, addressing public corruption involving tribal
leaders. This model has become a standard for task forces in Indian
Country.
We consult with DOJ on all allegations that involve potential
criminal violations. A considerable number of these cases do not get
prosecuted for any number of appropriate reasons. Other times, a matter
may be accepted for consideration for prosecution, but gets delayed due
to higher priority cases or other resource limitations. The process of
prosecutorial consideration is very deliberate, very detailed, and, at
times, completely out of our hands.
OIGs face significant hurdles to get their cases prosecuted. In
certain areas of the country, we are presenting white collar crimes
that simply do not meet the guidelines of the particular U.S.
Attorney's office. We also compete against more notorious crimes, such
as human trafficking, murder, drug conspiracies, and other violent
crimes. These are among the reasons why some of our cases that we wish
would be prosecuted are declined.
I reiterate my thanks to the subcommittee for holding this hearing,
for giving these issues the attention they deserve, and for recognizing
the need for transparency and accountability in this important area.
This concludes my prepared testimony. I am happy to answer any
questions that the members of the subcommittee may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Gohmert to Mary Kendall,
Deputy Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department
of the Interior
Question 1. Please verify whether or not Mr. Abbey and his business
partner are still doing business with either BLM or the Department of
the Interior.
Answer. We have not found any contracts or financial assistance
awards for Mr. Abbey; his business partner; Robcyn, LLC; or Abbey,
Stubbs and Ford, LLC.
Question 2. What has your office and the Office of Suspension and
Debarment done to ensure Mr. Abbey will no longer be able to do
business with either DOI or its subsequent agencies?
Answer. The Administrative Remedies Division of the Office of
Inspector General reviews business entities that lack business
integrity or have a history of poor performance of contractors,
participants, or financial assistance recipients and makes
recommendations to the U.S. Department of the Interior's (DOI)
Suspending and Debarring Official for administrative actions. Our
Administrative Remedies Division is currently reviewing the information
available regarding Mr. Abbey, his business partner, and their firm to
make an appropriate recommendation about suspension and debarment.
Question 3. Your investigation also concluded that a realty
specialist in the Nevada State Office provided non-public information
to Mr. Ford during the presale process. According to the DOI Table of
Penalties, each of the two regulations violated [5 CFR 2635.703 (2015)
and 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(8) (2015)] carries potential penalties ranging
from reprimand to removal. During the hearing, you mentioned that you
``[had] not received any final information [. . .]'' regarding actions
DOI has taken to hold the specialist accountable.
Please provide the committee an update on whether or not DOI has
made progress on this issue.
Answer. On July 27, 2016, BLM requested an additional 90 days to
prepare their response to our report. We only granted a 30-day
extension, however, and we expect a response from Deputy Director Dan
Fowler, BLM Office of Law Enforcement and Security, on or before
September 4, 2016.
Question 4. During the hearing, you received questions regarding a
DOI report analyzing incidents of scientific integrity, namely data
manipulation, at the USGS Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood,
Colorado.
When asked who the specific agencies and organizations
(universities, private companies, etc.) were contracting with the lab
or requesting studies from them, you stated ``I know that USGS itself
used the lab; I could not tell you, sitting here today, what other
agencies used this lab. We may or may not have that information. If we
have it, I would be glad to give it to you.''
Please provide the committee a list of agencies and outside
organizations that either contracted with the USGS Geochemistry
Laboratory in Lakewood or requested studies from them.
Answer.
Customers who submitted samples to the lab:
1. USGS Scientists/Researchers stationed at the USGS Eastern Energy
Resources Science Center in Reston, VA
2. USGS Scientists/Researchers stationed at the USGS Central Energy
Resources Science Center in Lakewood, CO
3. Scientist at Southern Illinois University
4. Scientist at State Geological Survey office in Pennsylvania
5. Scientist at State Geological Survey office in Wyoming
6. Scientist at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Customers and collaborators external to USGS:
1. Southern Illinois University
2. State Geological Survey office in Pennsylvania
3. State Geological Survey office in Wyoming
4. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
5. S.S. Papadopulos & Associates--Bethesda, MD
6. Civil & Environmental Engineering, Stanford University--
Stanford, CA
7. Department of Environmental Science, Xi'an Jiaotong--Liverpool
University, Jangsu Province, People's Republic of China
8. Center for Geomicrobiology, Aarhus University--Aarhus, Denmark
9. Afghan Geological Survey, sponsored by U.S. Agency for
International Development
10. United Nations Environment Programme
11. ESKOM (a South African electric power generation/distribution
utility company)
12. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc.
13. IEA Clean Coal Centre
14. University of Texas at Dallas--Richardson, TX
15. Craton Resources (Pty) Ltd.--Lobatse, Botswana
16. Department of Geological Survey, Economic Geology Division--
Lobatse, Botswana
17. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul--Porto Alegre, Brazil
18. Kiwira Coal Mines--Mbeya, Tanzania
19. University of Zambia--Lusaka, Zambia
20. Minufiya University--Sadat City, Egypt
21. Ministry of Energy and Minerals--Dodoma, Tanzania
22. University of Botswana--Gaborone, Botswana
23. Afghan Geological Survey
24. Colorado School of Mines--Golden, CO
25. Genesis Gas & Oil LLC--Kansas City, MO
26. Hess Corp.
27. Denbury Resources
Question 5. Please provide information about the process by which
OIG worked with the Department of Justice in the Abbey, Barton, and
Grand Canyon investigations.
Answer. The U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) for the District of
Nevada requested that the FBI investigate the circumstances surrounding
the Henderson, NV land deal. We later joined that investigation after
then-Secretary Ken Salazar asked us to investigate as well. Once we
joined with the FBI, we coordinated regularly with the USAO and
provided frequent updates on the status of the investigation. The USAO
worked closely with our office and issued grand jury subpoenas in
support of the investigation, but it ultimately declined to prosecute.
OIG policy is to coordinate with a USAO within approximately 60
days of initiating a criminal investigation, which we did in both the
Grand Canyon and Barton investigations. In most cases, the USAO does
not accept a case that early in the investigation. We simply want to
ensure that the appropriate USAO(s) is/are aware of our investigation
and willing to assist should the need arise for grand jury subpoenas or
warrants.
In the initial stages of our investigative work in the Barton case,
we referred our findings to the USAO for the Eastern District of
Virginia, which declined to prosecute. We subsequently referred our
findings to the USAO for the District of Idaho, which also declined.
After learning of our investigation, the Public Integrity Section of
the Department of Justice asked to review our report. We are currently
working with them on this case and a related investigation.
After completing our investigative work in the Grand Canyon case,
we referred our findings to the USAO for the District of Arizona, which
declined to prosecute.
Question 6. What types of subpoenas were used in those
investigations?
Answer. We used grand jury subpoenas in the Henderson land sale
investigation. In the Barton investigation, we issued an IG subpoena to
the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for email
correspondence. We did not issue any subpoenas in the Grand Canyon
investigation.
Question 7. Please provide insight you may have into why DOJ
declined to prosecute those referrals.
Answer. The Department of Justice provides guidelines to its
Federal prosecutors in its U.S. Attorneys Manual, 9-27.220-27.260,
available at https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-27000-principles-
federal-prosecution. This manual instructs prosecutors that, ``no
prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the
government believes that the person probably will be found guilty by an
unbiased trier of fact'' (9-27.220). The manual also states that a
prosecution should be declined if one of the following factors is
present: ``(1) No substantial Federal interest would be served by
prosecution; (2) The person is subject to effective prosecution in
another jurisdiction; or (3) There exists an adequate non-criminal
alternative to prosecution'' (Id.). Section 9-27.230 provides a list of
factors (that it deems not ``all-inclusive'') that a prosecutor should
use in determining whether there is a substantial Federal interest
served by a prosecution. Although these guidelines apply to all DOJ
prosecutors, individual U.S. Attorneys and DOJ Criminal Division
offices vary widely on the types of cases they accept for prosecution.
With respect to the three OIG investigations you referenced, the
Barton matter is still under review by DOJ. In the Abbey matter, it is
our understanding that it was declined because the U.S. Attorney's
Office concluded that the evidence was insufficient to sustain its
burden of proof at trial. In the Grand Canyon matter, we discussed
three individual subjects with the U.S. Attorney's Office and were
advised that prosecution was declined due to insufficiency of evidence.
In some situations, obtaining a declination allows us to complete
our investigations. Pursuant to our Office of Investigations manual and
consistent with DOJ guidance, when we conduct a non-custodial interview
of a current Department employee about matters that could result in
criminal prosecution, our investigators are required to give one of two
types of legal warnings. The first is the Garrity warning (named for a
Supreme Court decision), which advises the employee that the interview
is voluntary and that the employee will not be disciplined for refusing
to answer questions. As part of this warning, the employee is
specifically advised that he or she does not have to answer questions.
After we receive a declination from a Federal prosecutor, our
investigators can provide a Kalkines warning (named for a Federal court
case) to the employee if he or she previously declined to answer
interview questions. This warning compels the employee to answer
questions and advises that failure to do so can result in disciplinary
action. In effect, this legal warning provides the employee immunity
from criminal prosecution through use of the information provided
during the interview. Because immunity from prosecution can only be
conferred by DOJ, it is only given after the appropriate U.S.
Attorney's Office or DOJ component has declined prosecution.
______
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you very much, Ms. Kendall. We
appreciate your testimony.
At this time the Chair now recognizes Mr. Guertin for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVE GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY, U.S.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Guertin. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today on behalf of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I am Steve Guertin, Deputy Director. My remarks will focus
on a recent report of the Office of the Inspector General at
the Department of the Interior on the activities of former
employee, Stephen M. Barton.
First, I would like to emphasize that the Service greatly
values the work of the OIG. OIG investigations and reports help
educate and remind all Department of the Interior employees of
the rules governing our work. The OIG's work helps to maintain
the professional integrity and ethical foundation that
underpins public service, and the OIG aids our continuous
efforts to improve management operations.
Speaking for myself and everyone I talked with at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service about the Barton report, we were all
outraged and concerned about the actions undertaken by Mr.
Barton. Mr. Barton was Chief for Administration and Information
Management in the all-important Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration, or WSFR Program.
His Federal career began in September 2007 and ended last
month. During part of that time, he simultaneously served as
treasurer for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, WAFWA. His position at WAFWA ended in early 2014.
The findings of the OIG report are deeply troubling to all
of us. The evidence suggests that Mr. Barton systematically and
intentionally lied on his financial disclosure reports and lied
on his ethics forms. Barton deceived, misled, and lied to his
supervisor. He failed to disclose income he had received from
WAFWA while he was also working as a Federal employee.
He concealed the extent of his involvement with WAFWA. He
violated a 2010 request for ethics approval to engage in
outside work on which he had certified that he received no
compensation from WAFWA, and that his work from WAFWA would be
limited to less than 10 hours a week.
In addition, the OIG report provides evidence that Barton
received nearly $100,000 in travel reimbursements over a period
of 5 years for questionable travel. We believe he carefully and
deliberately manipulated our systems and our personnel to
engineer this travel for personal reasons. He concealed these
actions.
Upon initial review of the OIG report, the Service acted
quickly to address problems that were identified in the report.
We immediately moved Barton out of his position and curtailed
his access to all travel and financial systems. The Service
Director asked Barton's supervisor to step aside and move to a
new position outside of the program he previously led. We
detailed our Chief Financial Officer to act as the Assistant
Director for WSFR to ensure objective review, control, and
management of the situation.
Mr. Barton is no longer employed with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. We have also served Mr. Barton with a
collection notice to recoup the nearly $100,000 of travel funds
he manipulated for personal benefit.
We have a strong system of internal controls designed to
effectively mitigate risk and prevent these types of issues
from occurring, but no system is perfect. Unfortunately, this
is a situation where a senior employee lied to officials,
intentionally subverted policies and procedures, and exploited
the trust of his supervisor.
In addition to the quick and decisive actions we took to
address Barton's misconduct, the Service has also undertaken a
comprehensive review to ensure that our internal controls are
sufficient to detect and prevent similar occurrences from
taking place in the future.
Like my colleagues in the rest of the Fish and Wildlife
Service family, we are all outraged by his behavior. We believe
the vast majority of the Service's 9,000 employees are
dedicated, hard-working, ethical, have great professional
integrity, and take the mission of the Service and their
individual responsibilities very seriously. Situations like
these with Barton threaten to reflect poorly on all Service
employees.
That is one reason why, when we became aware of this
unethical behavior, we took immediate and strong action. Such
misconduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
We appreciate the OIG's thorough work on this
investigation, and we appreciate the subcommittee holding this
hearing to examine this issue.
Thank you, and we are happy to answer any questions that
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guertin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director for Policy, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member Dingell, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to testify on the Inspector General's report on the actions of a former
employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). My name is
Stephen Guertin. I am the Deputy Director for Policy for the Service.
The Service recognizes and greatly values the important work that
the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) performs to ensure that all
individuals throughout the Department of the Interior are aware of, and
adhering to, the laws, rules and regulations governing the work of
Federal employees. The OIG's work helps maintain the professional
integrity and ethical foundation that underpins our public service. The
OIG provides valuable assistance to our bureau as we continuously work
on improving management operations.
The OIG Report of Investigation titled: WAFWA Employment of USFWS
Chief (Case No. OI-VA-15-0379-I) (June 7, 2016) concerns former Service
employee Stephen M. Barton, who was Chief for Administration and
Information Management in the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration
(WSFR) program. The Service took prompt and appropriate action in
response to this report and Mr. Barton is no longer employed with the
Service. According to the OIG report, during part of that time, Mr.
Barton also served as treasurer for the Western Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). His position at WAFWA spanned sometime in
2004 through early 2014.
The findings outlined in the OIG report are deeply troubling, and
the Service took immediate action to address the specific situation and
is working to ensure it will not be replicated in the future. The
evidence presented in the OIG report suggests that Mr. Barton
systematically and intentionally lied on his financial disclosure
reports and ethics forms; that he deceived his supervisor; that he
failed to disclose income he received from WAFWA while he was also
working as a Federal employee; and that he concealed the extent of his
involvement with WAFWA. His nondisclosure was highlighted by his
submission of a signed 2010 ``Request for Ethics Approval to Engage in
Outside Work'' form, on which he certified that he received no salary
or compensation from WAFWA and that his work for WAFWA would be limited
to approximately 10 hours per week. In addition, the OIG report
provides evidence that Mr. Barton received nearly $100,000 in travel
reimbursements over a period of 5 years for questionable travel. It
appears that he manipulated the Service's systems and personnel to
engineer this travel for personal reasons.
Given the gravity of the issues raised in the OIG report, the
Service acted quickly to appropriately address problems identified in
the report. Upon receipt of the OIG report, Mr. Barton was immediately
moved out of his position and barred access to all travel and financial
systems. The Service Director asked Mr. Barton's supervisor to step
aside and move to a new position and the Service's Chief Financial
Officer was asked to step in as the Acting Assistant Director for WSFR.
As noted in the OIG's report, the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the
Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Idaho declined the
case for prosecution.
At present, the Service is undertaking a separate, comprehensive
review to ensure that internal controls related to Mr. Barton's
actions--controls that may apply to other Service employees--are
sufficient to detect and avoid similar occurrences from taking place in
the future. The Service's corrective actions will include increased
oversight related to outside employment, travel management, use of
government property, and time and attendance. The Service has issued a
reminder to qualifying employees that all external income needs to be
reported on the annual financial disclosure form, and we are adding an
additional level of review for this information and developing a
verification process. In addition, the Service is issuing guidance to
employees regarding what they can and cannot do when they have
relationships with outside organizations and what may create a conflict
of interest. We will be issuing a reminder to employees regarding
prohibitions of the use of Federal property or information systems to
conduct outside business. The Service is developing additional
processes for oversight of travel, including a certification and audit
process.
We are also using this incident as an opportunity to underscore
training and ethical responsibilities required by all Service
employees.
The vast majority of the Service's over 9,000 employees are
dedicated, hard-working, and ethical; have great professional
integrity; and take the mission of the Service and their individual
responsibilities very seriously. When we become aware of unethical
behavior like that identified in this report, we take appropriate and
immediate action.
The Service appreciates the OIG's thorough work on this
investigation. We also appreciate the subcommittee holding this hearing
to examine this issue. Thank you and I am happy to answer any questions
you might have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Gohmert to Steve Guertin,
Deputy Director of Policy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Question 1. Please provide information about the specific amount
Mr. Barton would have been paid had he been stationed in Boise, and the
amount he was paid in Washington, DC.
Answer. Mr. Barton's former position as Chief of the Division of
Administration and Information Management in the Wildlife and Sport
Fish Restoration program is located in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's headquarters office. During Mr. Barton's tenure in that
position he maintained a residence in Virginia, as well as a residence
in Boise, Idaho where his family resided.
In 2015, the salary for a GS-15, Step 10 with locality pay included
for the Washington, DC-metropolitan area was $158,700. During the same
year, a GS-15, Step 10 employee stationed in Boise, Idaho earned a
salary of $150,830. This is a difference of $7,870. The salary
differential in previous years was similar.
Question 2. Please provide a detailed description of the approval
process for Mr. Barton's travel, including information about which
expenses had to be approved, how often it had to be approved, and which
individuals were responsible for approving and processing his travel.
Answer. Mr. Barton utilized the Service's standard process for
approving his travel, which is as follows.
When traveling, an employee requests a management assistant to
prepare his or her travel authorization documents. The employee
provides that staff person with the information related to travel
locations, airlines, and times of departure. At times, an employee
directly enters travel information into the travel system (Concur) used
by the Department of the Interior. In other instances, the employee
requests a management assistant to enter the information. Through
Concur, the employee or the management assistant selects flights and
inputs any other associated costs with the trip (e.g. rental car, per
diem, lodging, taxi, etc.).
Once a travel authorization is complete, the employee and the
management assistant electronically approve it. It is then routed to
the employee's supervisor, or the supervisor's back-up (an acting GS-15
supervisor in the case of Mr. Barton), for electronic review and
approval. Once the authorization is approved, the airfare, lodging, and
rental car are booked.
Upon returning from travel, an employee either enters the actual
costs into a travel voucher or provides all the receipts from the trip
to a management assistant to enter into the system. The system
automatically identifies which per diem amounts the traveler is
eligible for (based primarily on location). The management assistant
adjusts this information in the voucher if needed.
Once a trip voucher is complete and all supporting receipts are
uploaded into the system, the voucher is signed by the management
assistant. Then the employee reviews the voucher and if deemed
appropriate, electronically signs it. Once signed by the employee, the
program's Administrative Officer reviews for accounting accuracy and
appropriateness. If the Administrative Officer notes mistakes, the
voucher is sent back to the employee and/or the management assistant
for correction. Once the mistakes are corrected, the Administrative
Officer approves the voucher electronically and forwards it to the
final approver, the employee's supervisor or the supervisor's back-up.
The Service has a strong system of internal controls designed to
effectively mitigate risk and prevent these types of issues from
occurring. In the specific case of Mr. Barton, he manipulated the
Service's procedures, protocol, and personnel to engineer his travel
for personal reasons and exploited the trust of his supervisor.
Question 3. Please provide the amount of per diem received by Mr.
Barton while he was in Idaho between 2011 and 2015.
Answer. Mr. Barton received $6,163.93 for per diem while he was in
Idaho during the period between 2011-2015.
______
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Guertin. I appreciate your
testimony and appreciate your forthrightness.
At this time, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for
questions.
Ms. Kendall, you were very helpful in your testimony in our
last hearing. You seemed very forthright, and I was curious;
after your testimony here, was there anybody at the Department
of the Interior that made any comment at all to you about your
written or oral testimony here?
Ms. Kendall. We met with the Chief of Staff, the Deputy
Secretary, and a member from the Solicitor's Office to talk
about how the Office of Inspector General might improve on what
I referred to in my testimony, which is identify patterns and
repeat offenses of retaliation and intimidation, people who are
repeat offenders in terms of misconduct, and bring that to the
attention of, essentially, the Secretary's Office.
What we have done in the past is usually work at the bureau
level, work with the bureau directors, or sometimes even lower
than that.
Mr. Gohmert. I was just curious if anybody commented at all
to you about your testimony in the last hearing we had here.
Ms. Kendall. Not really, sir, no.
Mr. Gohmert. Does the Department of Justice work closely
with you and the Inspector General's Office on most of your
investigations?
Ms. Kendall. I would not say most of them. The ones where
we actually do identify potential criminal violations early, we
might engage the Department of Justice early. Many of the cases
may have criminal implications, and we will not bring them
until we have really come to the end of the case.
Mr. Gohmert. And it only makes sense that sometimes you
will not find out criminal implications until you get deeper
into the evidence that is there; correct?
Ms. Kendall. Exactly.
Mr. Gohmert. When the Department of Justice does get
involved in OIG investigations, does that slow the progress of
the investigation?
Ms. Kendall. It can slow the progress, yes, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. Does it limit your ability at OIG to use
subpoenas?
Ms. Kendall. No, sir, it does not.
Mr. Gohmert. It does not limit your ability to gather
evidence that you can then submit to the Justice Department at
all?
Ms. Kendall. When we work with U.S. Attorneys, we actually
have an additional authority usually through the grand jury
system. We maintain our Inspector General subpoena authority
regardless; but, when a U.S. Attorney is involved, they usually
decide whether to use a grand jury subpoena or an IG subpoena.
Mr. Gohmert. Is it unusual for the Department of Justice,
in cases in which they are investigating with you, where you
have identified early on that there appears to be potential
criminal conduct--is it unusual for them to decline to
prosecute the case?
Ms. Kendall. I would not say it is unusual.
Mr. Gohmert. Do you have any kind of feel for approximately
how often DOJ declines to prosecute cases that you have
submitted to them?
Ms. Kendall. I don't have a percentage or even a raw
number. I could get that for you, sir.
In the cases where we engage with the U.S. Attorney's
Office early, we usually have a sense of how things are going.
We are usually hopeful that there will be a prosecution.
Mr. Gohmert. If you could get that number for us, that
would be very helpful.
Ms. Kendall. We will do that.
Mr. Gohmert. Did the DOJ participate in the investigation
of Bob Abbey in the Henderson land deal?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir, they did.
Mr. Gohmert. Did you find evidence you believed indicated
criminal violations in that Abbey land deal?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. Apparently you referred that case to two
different U.S. Attorney's Offices; correct?
Ms. Kendall. We may have. My recollection on that one is
that we worked with one U.S. Attorney's Office. We may have had
a couple AUSAs working on it, but I may be mistaken there.
Mr. Gohmert. Did you believe there was sufficient evidence
to go forward with the prosecution in that case?
Ms. Kendall. That is a difficult question to answer. We
believe that there was enough evidence to present it to the
U.S. Attorney to consider it for prosecution. I cannot speak
for what the Department of Justice considers.
Mr. Gohmert. And I would not ask you to speak for them. It
would be hard enough for them to explain themselves.
Ms. Kendall. Yes.
Mr. Gohmert. My time has expired, and I have to go testify
before a committee myself now. So, at this time, Mr. LaHood
will be taking over as Chairman of the Committee. Hopefully, I
will be able to finish and get back.
At this time, I yield to Mr. Hice for 5 minutes.
Dr. Hice. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
you calling this hearing.
This is now actually the third hearing on this issue that I
have participated in, and after the two previous hearings,
quite frankly, I have been shocked at the culture of corruption
and misconduct that has been allowed to persist at the National
Park Service.
In fact, last Wednesday, Director Jarvis was at the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee to answer some
questions pertaining to allegations of sexual harassment,
unethical behavior, misconduct, and on and on and on; and,
unfortunately, for the members of that committee and for the
citizens of the United States of America, Director Jarvis was
not able to answer the questions, not even the simplest
questions.
And, Mr. Chairman, that is why this past Thursday, I
actually sent a letter to President Obama, where I asked him to
have Director Jarvis resign from his position, and I fully
stand by that letter today.
In fact, I would ask unanimous consent to include a copy of
the letter in the record.
Mr. LaHood [presiding]. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC
June 16, 2016
Hon. Barack Obama, President of the United States,
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500.
Dear Mr. President:
As a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
and House Natural Resources Committee, I am deeply troubled by the
pattern of misconduct and unethical behavior by employees of the
National Park Service, and specifically, Director Jonathan Jarvis. Over
the past month, I have had the opportunity now to participate in two
separate hearings where the problems at this agency have become more
publicly known.
Unfortunately, this pattern of misconduct starts at the very top of
the National Park Service with Director Jarvis. Last year, the
Department of Interior's Office of Inspector General (OIG) began an
investigation associated with a book deal on the National Park System
that Director Jarvis negotiated without consulting the Department's
Ethics Office. To make matters worse, the OIG noted in its report on
Director Jarvis that he chose to avoid consultation with the Ethics
Office because it would essentially delay his book from being
published.
Furthermore, this misconduct does not stop with Director Jarvis. In
the hearings held in these two House Committees, we learned of two
additional investigations conducted by the OIG on allegations of sexual
harassment at the Grand Canyon National Park's River District and Cape
Canaveral National Seashore. In both locations, the OIG found that
individuals chose not to come forward out of a fear of professional
retaliation or that complaints were not properly sent up the chain of
command.
Regrettably, in these cases--and others--the proper form of
discipline was not pursued. In the case of Director Jarvis' book deal,
the only punishment he faced was that he was stripped of his authority
to implement the Park Service's Ethics Program and is required to
attend monthly ethics training courses for the remainder of his tenure.
Others have either been transferred out of their positions or have been
allowed to retire without facing the punishment that fits the
misconduct.
These are just some of the examples of the ethical failures and
misconduct committed by employees of the National Park Service and the
lack of discipline they have faced. Ultimately, Director Jarvis must be
held accountable for these actions. Therefore Mr. President, I believe
that the time has come for you to call on Director Jarvis to tender his
resignation as the Director of the National Park Service. Should he
choose not to resign, I believe that you must relieve him of his duties
effective immediately.
Sincerely,
Jody Hice,
Member of Congress.
cc: The Hon. Sally Jewell, Secretary, Department of the Interior
______
Dr. Hice. Thank you.
I also have had a little bit of time to review Director
Jarvis' book, which, incredibly to me, is entitled, ``A
Guidebook to American Values and our National Parks.'' It is
just amazing to me, this whole thing.
Based on the OIG report on Director Jarvis, he obviously
lied to Secretary Jewell. The report mentions that he
deliberately avoided consulting the Ethics Office before
writing this book.
It is more than ironic, beyond ironic, to think that
Director Jarvis has anything to offer us in terms of a guide on
American values, when he, himself, is evidently so steeped in
corruption.
But with all of that in mind, Ms. Kendall, I want to thank
you again for appearing before us. I would like to ask you a
couple of questions.
Following the subcommittee's hearing on ethics last month,
Director Jarvis decided to send an email to employees
apologizing for his failure to have this book approved by
proper officials. Are you aware of that email?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir, I am.
Dr. Hice. Your report on Director Jarvis lays out evidence
that he misled your office in the course of the investigation.
Has Director Jarvis apologized to you?
Ms. Kendall. No, sir.
Dr. Hice. Referring back to the email that he sent to the
National Park Service employees, did he apologize for lying to
the Secretary of the Interior?
Ms. Kendall. I don't recall that was in his email.
Dr. Hice. Do you recall whether or not he apologized for
conspiring to create a fraudulent narrative basically where he
claims that Eastern National asked him to write a book when, in
fact, it was his idea to write the book, or was he simply
apologizing in the email for his failure to submit the book for
review?
Ms. Kendall. I would say his apology was much more the
latter. I thought it was terribly qualified and not as sincere
as I would have liked to have seen.
Dr. Hice. Is it possible, Ms. Kendall, that Director Jarvis
still does not understand what he did wrong?
I mean, if he is not able to apologize to your office for
withholding relevant information during the investigation, if
he is not willing or able to apologize for lying to the
Secretary or acknowledging the fact of conspiring about the
true origin of this book, does he not get it, or is he trying
to avoid the real issue right now?
Ms. Kendall. I would say it is the latter.
Dr. Hice. And what makes you say that?
Ms. Kendall. I would look at his letter to his employees. I
think it suggested that he was sorry that it happened, but when
he spoke to our investigators, as you know, sir, he said he
would do it again if it came to that.
Dr. Hice. Thank you very much. My time has expired, and I
appreciate your testimony here today, Ms. Kendall.
I yield back.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
At this time we will yield 5 minutes to the Full Committee
Chairman, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
I apologize for coming in late. I will make up for it by
leaving right after I am done.
Ms. Kendall, I appreciate you being here. You publicly, I
believe, released a report yesterday.
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. The report details an incidence involving
improper hiring and discrimination against veterans in the
Office of the Secretary. Am I right in that assumption?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. The report discussed how an individual at the
office repeatedly violated hiring practices or procedures to
secure a job for a relative. Is that also correct?
Ms. Kendall. It was a relative of her ex-husband, yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. I guess that is enough of a nexus. OK.
How many times was the job posting rewritten or canceled to
benefit this particular individual?
Ms. Kendall. I don't remember precisely. It was more than
once.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Three, four, five, ten?
Ms. Thompson. I would say two or three, perhaps.
Mr. Bishop. I understand from the report that the veterans
who are more highly qualified and have veteran preference
status were asked to withdraw their application at the
direction of this individual.
Ms. Kendall. That is my understanding.
Mr. Bishop. I also understand that this individual
instructed her subordinates to find reasons to disqualify those
veterans who could not be convinced to withdraw their
application, because she did not want a potentially disabled
veteran on the staff. Am I reading that correctly from your
report?
Ms. Kendall. I believe so, sir, yes.
Mr. Bishop. I also understand that discrimination against
veterans and the continual rewriting of job postings did
ultimately result in the employment of her former nephew, by
marriage. Is that individual still employed at the DOI?
Ms. Kendall. I believe so.
Mr. Bishop. When did this individual retire from the
Interior Department, the one who hired?
Ms. Kendall. I believe she retired around the beginning of
this calendar year.
Mr. Bishop. And, have there been any disciplinary actions
taken against her, for what I say is an egregious hiring
practice?
Ms. Kendall. Once she is retired, the Department is very
limited in what they can do.
Mr. Bishop. Was it forced retirement?
Ms. Kendall. Not that I know of, sir.
Mr. Bishop. All right. How did you know about this? How did
the investigation on this particular issue begin?
Ms. Kendall. I would have to----
Mr. Bishop. Did someone inform you or is this kind of like
a routine investigation that you do?
Ms. Kendall. No, I believe we had a complaint come in
regarding this.
Mr. Bishop. And are there other cases in the pipeline of
which you know?
Ms. Kendall. We have many, many cases in the pipeline. I
don't know that we have any with this kind of egregious hiring
issues.
Mr. Bishop. Well, I admit it is egregious, and I thought we
were past that.
I appreciate the report. I appreciate your coming here and
testifying, and I appreciate your bringing this to light, not
only to the public in your report, but also to the committee.
So, thank you very much.
Ms. Kendall. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. I will yield back.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
At this time we will yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas, Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also would like to extend my thanks to the witnesses for
being here this morning.
Ms. Kendall, as I listen to the testimony and the
questions, it reminds me how important it is to have
transparency in our government and how important your job is as
an Inspector General in shining light on some of these issues.
It appears that you have quite a bit of job security with the
way some of these agencies have been operating.
My specific questions have to do with the OIG's
investigation of the Henderson, Nevada land sale. That is the
OIG's investigation into Bob Abbey, the former Director of the
Bureau of Land Management.
Who requested that the OIG investigate Mr. Abbey?
Ms. Kendall. The former Secretary, Ken Salazar.
Mr. Westerman. OK. And also I believe this committee.
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir, we got a letter from then-Chairman
Doc Hastings.
Mr. Westerman. And what did the OIG investigation
ultimately find?
Ms. Kendall. What we found is that there was unusual access
to the BLM by Bob Abbey's former partner, who was involved in
the land sale, and that Abbey had personal substantial
involvement in the approving of that land sale, which is a
violation of the ethics rules.
Mr. Westerman. What specific actions did Mr. Abbey take?
Ms. Kendall. Going by recollection, I believe that he met
specifically with the individual who was trying to accommodate
the sale, who was his former partner and would be his partner
again when he retired; and if I remember correctly, he was the
ultimate person who needed to approve the sale.
Mr. Westerman. So was he recused from his prior business
dealings before this time?
Ms. Kendall. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Westerman. Did he abide by the ethics pledge he took
and the recusal agreements he signed?
Ms. Kendall. I don't believe so.
Mr. Westerman. OK. Are Mr. Abbey and his business partner,
Mr. Ford, continuing to do business with BLM? Is that
appropriate given the allegations your office has
substantiated?
Ms. Kendall. In that regard, sir, I believe that my office
is working with the Department's Office of Suspension and
Debarment to ensure that they are not able to do business with
the Department of the Interior or, quite frankly, with other
departments in the Federal Government.
Mr. Westerman. But right now they are still doing business?
Ms. Kendall. I don't know one way or the other, sir.
Mr. Westerman. OK. So the Abbey investigation also
concluded that a realty specialist in the Nevada State Office
provided non-public information to Mr. Ford during the pre-sale
process. Did she violate any Federal regulations by doing so?
Ms. Kendall. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Westerman. Do you recall how many regulations she
violated?
Ms. Kendall. Well, I don't know--there are a number of
them. Certainly she gave preferential treatment, which is
something that a public service simply should not do; and she
also provided information that was not readily available to the
public to an individual.
Mr. Westerman. Kind of like a government form of insider
trading maybe?
Ms. Kendall. Perhaps.
Mr. Westerman. So, what penalties apply when a Federal
employee violates those regulations?
Ms. Kendall. There is usually a range of penalties. In this
case I don't know specifics, but it can be anything from a
written reprimand to removal.
Mr. Westerman. And finally, on this issue, has the
Department of the Interior taken any action to hold the realty
specialist accountable?
Ms. Kendall. We have received information that they intend
to, but I don't believe we have received any final information
as to what they have done.
Mr. Westerman. So, they intend to but they have not--and
how long ago?
Ms. Kendall. It has probably been within the last 4 weeks
that we received that response from the Department, but I can
get that information to you.
Mr. Westerman. OK. And, Mr. Chairman, will we have a second
round of questions?
Mr. LaHood. Yes.
Mr. Westerman. I will yield back at this time.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
At this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia, Mr. Mooney.
Mr. Mooney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Kendall, I have had a lot of dealings with the
Department of the Interior in West Virginia. We are dealing
with coal mining and other issues. I work with them and deal
with them on a lot of issues. I have a few questions for you.
In your semi-annual report to Congress from March, you
mentioned that, of the 29 cases you referred to the Department
of Justice for prosecution, 17 were declined. Is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. I believe so, yes, sir.
Mr. Mooney. So, they would not prosecute 17. And do you
refer all cases where laws are broken to the Department of
Justice? I mean, they declined 17. So, are you just referring
everything, or do you only refer those where the violations and
weight of evidence would likely result in a conviction?
Ms. Kendall. We refer cases where we believe we have
evidence of a criminal violation. We do not make the
distinction that we have enough for a conviction. That is
really for the Department of Justice to make that decision.
Mr. Mooney. OK, this was since March. Do you have any
updated information about how many have been referred and
declined since March?
Ms. Kendall. I don't have that today. We can certainly get
that to you, sir.
Mr. Mooney. I would appreciate that.
Are all the cases of criminal conduct that you refer to the
Department of Justice about employee wrongdoing or do some of
them involve non-government employees?
Ms. Kendall. Some certainly involve non-government
employees.
Mr. Mooney. OK. And of the 17 cases that were declined, how
many were employees of the Department of the Interior where
they violated the law?
Ms. Kendall. Again, I would have to get that information to
you, but I would be glad to do that.
Mr. Mooney. OK. And there is the statute of limitations. Is
there a statute of limitations on the crimes that Mr. Barton
committed?
Ms. Kendall. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Mooney. Do you know when that expires?
Ms. Kendall. There is a general statute of limitations,
about 5 years for most crimes.
Mr. Mooney. OK.
Ms. Kendall. I don't know precisely for this.
Mr. Mooney. OK. Is there also a statute of limitations for
the crimes that Bob Abbey committed?
Ms. Kendall. I believe so.
Mr. Mooney. When would that time out?
Ms. Kendall. Probably about the same time.
Mr. Mooney. How does your typical referral to the
Department of Justice work? For example, does your staff
develop relationships with specific U.S. Attorneys?
Ms. Kendall. We often do that, yes.
Mr. Mooney. Once the DOJ declines to prosecute a case, do
you know if they can prosecute at a later date?
Ms. Kendall. If the statute of limitations has not run out,
they probably would have the technical authority to do so.
Mr. Mooney. OK. Then would you be willing to refer cases to
the Department of Justice again for prosecution if the statute
of limitations has not lapsed?
Ms. Kendall. I don't know that we have done that. There may
have been some cases where we have gotten an initial
declination; but in discussions with, say, the U.S. Attorney or
Assistant U.S. Attorney, there is more work that we could do
where we would represent, but I don't come up with any examples
of that offhand.
Mr. Mooney. So, you have not done it. Why? I mean, is there
any reason you would not do it?
Ms. Kendall. There are reasons that we go to the U.S.
Attorney's Office to actually to get a declination. In some
cases, we know that there is a potential crime, but there are
problems with the case that it probably would not be
prosecuted. If we get a declination from a U.S. Attorney's
Office, we can then compel a government employee to speak to
us, whereas if the criminal actions were still outstanding,
they would be able to refuse to speak to our investigating
agents.
Mr. Mooney. OK. Thank you.
My time is almost up. I will go ahead and yield back.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
I will yield myself 5 minutes at this time.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today and for
your testimony.
Mr. Guertin, I know in your opening statement you talked
about the facts and circumstances involving Mr. Barton, which
are, I think by your own adjectives, very, very troubling.
And Mr. Barton, as I understand it, his title was Chief of
Administrative Information and Management; and clearly he found
a creative way to enrich himself illegally, but I guess the
part that is really revealing is that he did it out in the
open.
As I understand it, Mr. Barton was stationed in Washington,
DC; is that correct?
Mr. Guertin. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaHood. But where was he actually living, Mr. Guertin?
Mr. Guertin. My understanding is Mr. Barton maintained an
apartment in the DC Metro area, so he had residency established
in Virginia. The IG report revealed that he was making frequent
travel back to Boise, Idaho.
Mr. LaHood. And he was actually living in Boise. That is my
understanding; correct?
Mr. Guertin. It appears he was visiting there quite
frequently, yes, sir.
Mr. LaHood. Beyond that, he was being paid Boise locality
rates. Is that my understanding, or was it DC rates?
Mr. Guertin. He would have been paid based on where his
duty station was, which is the DC Metro area, sir.
Mr. LaHood. And that would have been a higher rate;
correct?
Mr. Guertin. Slightly higher than what employees receive in
Idaho, yes, sir.
Mr. LaHood. And related to that locality rate, do you know
how much additional income that deception provided him?
Mr. Guertin. Probably a couple of thousand dollars a year,
sir, in locality rate adjustment for a large metro area like DC
versus a smaller town like Boise, Idaho.
Mr. LaHood. If I told you that was about $15,000 that he
received because of the DC locality rates, would you dispute
that?
Mr. Guertin. On a yearly basis, that sounds a little high,
sir, but we can certainly verify for the record the specific
amount that would have been the difference.
Mr. LaHood. And, who paid for the travel, Mr. Guertin, for
Mr. Barton to travel back and forth between Boise and
Washington, DC?
Mr. Guertin. He billed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for that travel.
Mr. LaHood. How many flights did Mr. Barton take between
Boise and Washington, DC, between 2011 and 2015?
Mr. Guertin. It appears, on the evidence that was provided
to us by the OIG report, as well as our own forensics deep dive
into the travel records going back those several years, he made
a total of at least 50 round trip visits out there, which would
have meant a total of 100 flights.
The troubling thing about this former employee is that he
engineered a lot of his travel to guise it under a need for
meeting with constituent groups, partners, or others and routed
himself through Boise. I used to live and work in the West
myself and know there are regional airports like Boise, Salt
Lake, and others. It is very easy to route yourself through a
city like that.
Mr. LaHood. So, my understanding is that the 100 trips that
he took during this 3- or 4-year period cost about $96,000 to
taxpayers. You would not dispute that; correct?
Mr. Guertin. Just to clarify, sir, it would be a total of
50 round trips, 100 flights, and he did bill $96,000 and some
change to the Federal Government, yes, sir.
Mr. LaHood. Ms. Kendall, did your investigation also find
that he charged expenses to the Federal Government when he was
actually at home in Boise?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir, I believe so.
Mr. LaHood. In fact, he took per diem for weekends in
Boise.
Ms. Kendall. That is my understanding.
Mr. LaHood. And I guess, looking at the facts, Mr. Barton
was paid additional salary for reportedly living in DC, and
then financed the deception through this travel and was being
paid a salary of $155,000 per year. Is that accurate?
Mr. Guertin. The last year that he was employed by the
Federal Government, that would have been his annual salary
level, yes, sir.
Mr. LaHood. Just for a point of reference, the medium
household income in Idaho is less than $50,000 a year. Clearly,
Mr. Barton was making an exorbitant salary or living through
this deception or arrangement he had.
Ms. Kendall, there was another element to this, too, where
he supplemented his income even more beyond what I just went
through, and that was through his role with the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies from 2004 to 2014. As
I understand it that is a private organization, and he was the
treasurer of that organization; is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. That is my understanding, yes, sir.
Mr. LaHood. During this entire time, did you or your
Department question him being the treasurer of that department?
Ms. Kendall. Certainly my office did not. We did not know
about it, and I do not believe that we had any indication that
Fish and Wildlife did.
Mr. LaHood. I see my time has expired. I look forward to a
second round of questions.
At this time I will yield to Mr. Westerman another 5
minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Kendall, I want to come back to another investigation.
This one is based on an audit released dated June 16, and it
was a USGS laboratory. Your audit looked at scientific
misconduct and data manipulation at the Energy Geochemistry
Laboratory's Inorganic Section in Lakewood, Colorado. The
problems were so severe, in fact, that the USGS has already
closed the inorganic lab in question permanently; is that
correct?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Westerman. Your report states that there have been two
periods in which mass spectrometer operators in the lab's
Inorganic Section have violated established laboratory
practices without detection for many years. The first began in
1996 and continued to be undiscovered until 2008. A second
began in 2008 and continued undiscovered until late 2014.
So, there have been problems at this lab from 1996 until
2014, for a couple of decades; is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. That is my understanding, yes, sir.
Mr. Westerman. You also state in your audit that a review
revealed that the full extent of the impacts are not yet known,
but nevertheless, they will be serious and far ranging.
I am just astonished with this. According to your report,
the affected projects represented about $108 million in
taxpayer funding from Fiscal Year 2008 through 2014; is that
correct?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Westerman. And, is it correct that samples were used to
generate some of the analytical results that were then
manipulated, were not retained, and that the analyst kept poor
records for a substantial portion of his work and consequently
the work cannot be reproduced?
Ms. Kendall. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. Westerman. So, USGS officials have stated that lab
conditions, in particular heat, have virtually affected their
analysis, and that these adverse conditions stretch back to the
period of 1996 to 2008, during which there were also
significant problems with the lab work.
But in 2011, USGS installed the new $175,000 machine in the
lab. Do you have an explanation why USGS would put a new,
expensive machine in this lab that had these problems that
remained uncorrected?
Ms. Kendall. No, I do not.
Mr. Westerman. It defies logic.
During the course of an interview with one of your auditors
dated November 16, 2015, one former USGS employee alleged that,
apparently during the first period of problems at this lab, an
employee of the lab would say, ``Tell me what you want and I
will get it for you.''
Although it is not exactly clear from the interview record,
he would also say, ``What we do is like magic.''
Given the lab's history and that problems had already been
identified when this interview was being conducted, such a
statement seems potentially significant. Your office explained
that you don't know the context or veracity of this statement,
and that this issue was not part of the audit so it was not
pursued; is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Westerman. Do you know the status of the analyst
involved and his supervisor?
Ms. Kendall. I understand that the analyst involved, the
one who was manipulating the mass spectrometer, is no longer
employed with USGS. I don't know the status of the supervisor.
Mr. Westerman. So, USGS has advised committee staff that,
because scientists had already begun to distrust this lab so
significantly, they began relying upon analysis from other
labs, limiting the amount of work products that were comprised
or ruined.
I guess, maybe, because I come from an engineering and a
forestry background, a lot of the work that people do that is
based on scientific research is so important. If the base
research is flawed, then that affects work that goes out from
there. We spent $108 million for this research and I am not
even sure what the scientific research results were used in.
Do you have any idea what kind of different research papers
or where this data was used?
Ms. Kendall. That was precisely the scope of our review. We
conducted an inspection, which is a very narrow, focused
review, and our purpose was to identify those documents that
this scientific data was used in.
Mr. Westerman. Do you know ultimately who used this and
what decisions may have been made on this improper data?
Ms. Kendall. We did not go into the decisions. The actual
publications and other things that used this data are attached
to our report in, I think, Appendix B. We itemized the areas
where that data was used.
Mr. Westerman. OK. I know I am going over a little bit, but
it is just astounding that we would spend $108 million on
manipulated research, and then the far-reaching effects that
that would have. We know how research multiplies and affects
different parts of our society and our economy, and we always
hope that is going to be in a good way, but if you are working
off of flawed data, it definitely could be in a bad way.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
At this time, I yield myself another 5 minutes for the
second round.
I am going to pick up on the same line of questioning I had
regarding Mr. Barton. I did want to clarify; I think I had
mentioned that the median household income in Boise, Idaho is
$50,000.
Getting back to the relationship that Mr. Barton had with
this association, it turns out that in 2013, he made $109,000
in that year alone in being paid as the treasurer for this
agency, along with working for the Federal Government.
Ms. Kendall, did you find that Mr. Barton went as far as
double billing for his work for the association, the private
organization, and the Fish and Wildlife Service?
Ms. Kendall. We did a comparison of the hours that he
billed for Fish and Wildlife versus the hours he billed to
WAFWA. I don't know that we did an analysis as to whether those
overlapped or were double billed.
Mr. LaHood. Were you familiar with a conference he attended
in Hawaii where he did double bill both?
Ms. Kendall. I am not aware of that.
Mr. LaHood. If I told you that occurred, would you disagree
with that?
Ms. Kendall. I would have no basis to disagree.
Mr. LaHood. And, Mr. Guertin, was your agency aware of Mr.
Barton's position as treasurer of WAFWA, the private
organization?
Mr. Guertin. Congressman, Mr. Barton came to the Fish and
Wildlife Service as a retired employee of the Idaho Fish and
Game Department; and, at that time, he had worked with WAFWA as
their treasurer.
When he was hired by the Fish and Wildlife Service, he
purported to his supervisor that this was a voluntary non-paid
position, and he likened it to, ``Well, I help them collect the
till at the end of the services kind of a thing.'' As a Federal
employee, he was required each year to fill out a detailed
ethics form stating crystal clear if there were any sources of
outside income, particularly his role as a grant administrator
for agencies that we partner with on conservation.
Each year he failed to comply with this requirement for all
Federal employees, lied on his ethics forms, and did not
disclose any of this outside income.
Mr. LaHood. And what sort of problems could be created by a
senior official at Fish and Wildlife Service serving as the
treasurer of a private association that receives Federal
grants?
Mr. Guertin. First of all, an appearance of conflict of
interest. It is inappropriate for Federal employees to be
involved in that type of role.
Second and most importantly, Federal employees are required
to comply with these ethics laws for a reason, and he did not
comply with them. That was the most unsettling and troubling
aspect of all. He failed to comply and meet his
responsibilities as a Federal employee.
Mr. LaHood. And why did the Fish and Wildlife Service allow
him to continue working for WAFWA or at least remove him from
his duties at the Service?
Mr. Guertin. He continued to purport that this was a part-
time, non-paying type of position. He was confronted with this
back in 2014, and, at that point, actually resigned from WAFWA
because he started getting nervous he was going to be caught
doing this.
So he was, in fact, confronted and did, in fact, move off
that position with WAFWA a couple of years ago.
Mr. LaHood. The part that is really concerning is Mr.
Barton was not a low-level official at Fish and Wildlife. He
was a top senior official, top 1 percent in terms of salary,
not including his six-figure moonlighting, doing all of these
other things.
How is it possible that a fraud like this went unnoticed
for so many years?
Mr. Guertin. Unfortunately, many of the systems we rely on
require individual employees to self-report. They fill out
these ethics forms and they self-report them. We do not have
the authority to independently contact any of these groups.
So, all I can say, Congressman, is that the 9,000 employees
that I work with are honest or ethical and comply with these
requirements. Mr. Barton did not. He misled and deceived all of
us, and for that reason we are here before you today.
Mr. LaHood. Yes, and obviously you believe and have formed
the opinion that what he did was wrong, unethical, and
inappropriate; correct?
Mr. Guertin. Absolutely, yes, sir.
Mr. LaHood. Have you recommended prosecution of Mr. Barton
for the activities he engaged in?
Mr. Guertin. Under the Privacy Act, I am not privy to share
with you in this public hearing what actions the Fish and
Wildlife Service did take. We did have the opportunity
yesterday afternoon to brief committee staff on the specific
actions we took in private session, and after the committee
wraps up today, I would be glad to provide to you the same
information in private session.
It is just the Privacy Act does not allow me to address
that in this public hearing, sir.
Mr. LaHood. Have you formed an opinion on whether he should
be prosecuted or held accountable?
Mr. Guertin. We took what actions we could under our
guidance. We also sent him a bill to collect the $96,000 in
fraudulent travel claims.
Mr. LaHood. What if he does not pay that?
Mr. Guertin. We, under the Antideficiency Act and the
authorizing legislation that enabled this program to begin
with, will pursue every avenue at our means to continue to
bird-dog him and collect those funds back.
Mr. LaHood. I know I am going over my time here, but how do
you give taxpayers some level of confidence that what occurred
here will no longer occur?
What mechanisms have you put in place, what safeguards?
I mean, clearly, what was done over this 10-year period did
not work. So, how do you give confidence to the American people
that you have changed the procedure?
Mr. Guertin. We are going back to every automated and self-
reporting system we have in the Fish and Wildlife Service. We
have some of our best folks working on ensuring that we have
the proper guidance, protocols, and internal controls.
We actually have a lot of belief in the current system of
internal controls. In this case, this unfortunate case, this
one employee, a clever guy, was able to manipulate both
personnel and systems to create this appearance that he was on
authorized travel when, in fact, he was not. We are
revitalizing all of our systems and personnel processes
concurrently going forward so that unfortunate incidents can
never happen again.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
I am over my time. At this time, I yield an additional 5
minutes to Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I regret we do not have more Members here, but at least we
are getting some of this on the record.
Ms. Kendall, I would like to go back to the last topic we
discussed on the USGS laboratory. I have a list here of some of
the project names, and this is really disturbing when I see
some of these project names and to know that data was
manipulated.
One of them is uranium in the environment. My understanding
is that a mass spectrometer looks at the different chemical and
ionic makeups of substances so it can tell you what kind of
heavy metals are there and what kind of chemicals are in the
sample. Just looking down this list, geological CO2
sequestration, health effects of energy resources, Alaska rural
energy, geochemistry of solid fuels, U.S. coal resources and
reserves assessment, produced waters, and the list goes on and
on about very important scientific issues.
And to think that the data may have been manipulated in the
base level in these mass spectrometer readings is, again,
really disturbing. I believe there was a project on Everglades'
toxics. Can you tell me some of the agencies or organizations
that the lab was contracting with?
Who was requesting these studies?
Ms. Kendall. I know that USGS itself used the lab. I could
not tell you sitting here today what other agencies used this
lab. We may or may not have that information. If we have it, we
would be glad to get it to you.
Mr. Westerman. Yes, I would like to see that.
And do you know if it was all government agencies? Was it
universities? Was it private companies?
Ms. Kendall. I simply don't know, sir.
Mr. Westerman. Do you know if any research papers had to be
recalled when it was found out this data had been manipulated?
Ms. Kendall. I believe some had to be recalled, yes.
Mr. Westerman. What about dissertations that college
students worked on?
Ms. Kendall. I don't know that for a fact, sir. Our goal in
this review was to identify those areas where the data had an
impact, and USGS is actually taking steps to make that extra
determination that you are talking about, that is,
dissertations, and other kinds of research that may have relied
on this bad data.
Mr. Westerman. Do you know if there are any other
investigations in the other USGS laboratories?
Ms. Kendall. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Westerman. So, you think this may have just been kind
of a lone wolf that, for two decades, was generating bad data
that was going into the research?
Ms. Kendall. It may have been. I do not have information to
say one way or the other.
Mr. Westerman. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
At this time I would like to thank our witnesses for being
here today.
Obviously there is an overwhelming amount of disturbing
information the Inspector General has delivered in the last
several weeks, and I can assure you that the Natural Resources
Committee and this subcommittee will continue to examine these
issues.
Unfortunately, it has become entirely clear that there is
no ``culture of compliance' at the Department of the Interior.
That may be a nice slogan, but the action and accountability
behind it fall terribly short of the responsibility that
taxpayers deserve.
These cases touch many sub-agencies of the Interior,
including the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological
Survey, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, and even the Office of the Secretariat.
We had hoped that the Department would work with us to
provide a witness that could have answered on their behalf, but
we were left with a solitary witness from the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and that is disappointing.
The members of the committee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
those in writing. Under Committee Rule 4(h), the hearing record
will be open for 10 business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
committee stands adjourned. Thank you for your testimony.
[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector
General--Investigative Report of Failure to
Disclose Employment at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Posted on June 7, 2016. Submitted by
Subcommittee Staff--Majority.
2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector
General--Investigative Report of BLM Land Sale,
Henderson, NV. Posted on May 31, 2016. Submitted by
Subcommittee Staff--Majority.
3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector
General--Scientific Integrity Incident at USGS
Energy Geochemistry Laboratory. Posted on June 15,
2016. Submitted by Subcommittee Staff--Majority.
4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector
General--Investigative Report of Alleged Contract
Steering by the National Park Service's Denver
Service Center. Posted on June 7, 2016. Submitted
by Subcommittee Staff--Majority.
5. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector
General--Investigative Report of Misconduct at the
Grand Canyon River District. Posted on January 12,
2016. Submitted by Subcommittee Staff--Majority.
6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector
General--Investigative Report of Sexual Misconduct
by Chief Ranger at Canaveral National Seashore.
Posted on June 13, 2016. Submitted by Subcommittee
Staff--Majority.
7. Kadzik, Peter J., Assistant Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Legislative
Affairs, June 20, 2016 Letter to Chairman Louie
Gohmert stating that the Department would not
participate in the hearing.