[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MISSING WEAPONS AT THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE: MISMANAGEMENT AND LACK OF
ACCOUNTABILITY
=======================================================================
JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
AUGUST 2, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-54
(Committee on Oversight and Government Reform)
__________
Serial No. 113-39
(Committee on Natural Resources)
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-717 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
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
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
DOC HASTINGS, Washington TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee Ranking Minority Member
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina JACKIE SPEIER, California
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming PETER WELCH, Vermont
ROB WOODALL, Georgia MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Louie Gohmert, TX Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rob Bishop, UT Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Robert J. Wittman, VA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Glenn Thompson, PA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Niki Tsongas, MA
Dan Benishek, MI Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Tony Cardenas, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Steven A. Horsford, NV
Raul R. Labrador, ID Jared Huffman, CA
Steve Southerland, II, FL Raul Ruiz, CA
Bill Flores, TX Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Jon Runyan, NJ Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Mark E. Amodei, NV Joe Garcia, FL
Markwayne Mullin, OK Matt Cartwright, PA
Chris Stewart, UT Vacancy
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Niki Tsongas, MA
Louie Gohmert, TX Rush Holt, NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Paul C. Broun, GA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Raul R. Labrador, ID Steven A. Horsford, NV
Mark E. Amodei, NV Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Steve Daines, MT Joe Garcia, FL
Kevin Cramer, ND Matt Cartwright, PA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Vacancy
Jason T. Smith, MO Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on August 2, 2013................................... 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Robert A. Knox, Assistant Inspector General for
Investigations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of
the Interior
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 7
The Hon. Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director, National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Ms. Kim A. Thorsen, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Public Safety, Resource Protection, and
Emergency Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, and Ms.
Teresa Chambers, Chief of the United States Park Police Force,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Oral Statement............................................... 10
APPENDIX
The Honorable Jason Chaffetz, a Member of Congress from the State
of Utah, Opening Statement..................................... 40
The Honorable John F. Tierney, a Member of Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, Opening Statement...................... 43
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Letter to
Representatives Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz.................. 45
MISSING WEAPONS AT THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: MISMANAGEMENT AND LACK OF
ACCOUNTABILITY
----------
Friday, August 2, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, joint with
the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental
Regulation, Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
[chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security] presiding.
Present from the Subcommittee on National Security:
Representatives Chaffetz, Duncan, Bentivolio, and Tierney.
Present from the Subcommittee on Public Lands and
Environmental Regulation: Representatives Bishop, Tipton,
Smith, Southerland, Grijalva, Tsongas, and Shea-Porter.
Also Present: Representative Norton.
Staff Present from the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform: Brian Blase, Senior Professional Staff
Member; Molly Boyl, Parliamentarian; Daniel Bucheli, Assistant
Clerk; Caitlin Carroll, Deputy Press Secretary; Linda Good,
Chief Clerk; Mitchell S. Kominsky, Counsel; Mark D. Marin,
Director of Oversight; Ashok M. Pinto, Chief Counsel,
Investigations; Sang H. Yi, Professional Staff Member; Devon
Hill, Minority Research Assistant; Julia Krieger, Minority New
Media Press Secretary; Elisa LaNier, Minority Deputy Clerk; and
Brian Quinn, Minority Counsel.
Mr. Chaffetz. The committee will come to order.
I would like to begin this hearing by stating the Oversight
and Government Reform Committee's mission statement.
We exist to secure two fundamental principles: First,
Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes
from them is well-spent. Second, Americans deserve an
efficient, effective government that works for them. Our duty
on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect
these rights.
Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable
to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they
get from their government. We will work tirelessly, in
partnership with citizen watchdogs, to deliver the facts to the
American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal
bureaucracy.
This is the mission of the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee.
We appreciate you being here in a joint effort with the
Natural Resources Committee to conduct a very important
oversight hearing today entitled, ``Missing Weapons at the
National Park Service: Mismanagement and Lack of
Accountability.''
I would also like to welcome Mr. Grijalva, who is here and
joining us on the dais. I know that Mr. Tierney and Mr. Bishop
of Utah, my colleague also involved in these two committees,
will be joining us here shortly.
I am pleased to hold today's hearing jointly with my friend
and gentleman from Utah, Representative Bishop. He is the
chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation. And
I look forward to working with him on an ongoing basis on these
issues.
Today's proceedings result from a need to further address
questions and concerns raised in a June 27th report from this
year issued by the U.S. Department of Interior's Office of
Inspector General entitled, ``Review of U.S. Park Police
Weapons Accountability Program.''
In the report, the OIG made some very serious charges,
including finding insufficient: ``accountability, accuracy, and
oversight'' of the U.S. Park Police's firearms program. During
the course of the OIG's investigation, the OIG found:
``credible evidence of conditions that would allow for theft
and misuse of firearms and the ability to conceal the fact if
weapons were missing.''.
Moreover, despite requirements to maintain an accurate
firearms inventory, the OIG found that U.S. Park Police
firearms inventory records were inaccurate and failed to
account for hundreds of firearms. If these findings are
accurate, the lack of accountability is completely
unacceptable.
Given the OIG's glaring findings about the U.S. Park
Police's lack of accountability for their weapons program, I am
also interested to learn whether the ammunition used by the
U.S. Park Police is properly accounted for.
The Subcommittee on National Security previously conducted
an oversight hearing on April 25th of this year entitled,
``Oversight of the Federal Government's Procurement of
Ammunition,'' in which we found that the Federal Government, in
some cases, has not procured ammunition efficiently or
effectively.
Based on the seriousness of the charges in the OIG report,
the findings warrant further examination where the report fell
short. There are a number of questions that would be helpful to
explain the findings. Are there examples where U.S. Park Police
weapons were actually stolen or misused? How did the OIG arrive
at the ``hundreds of weapons used'' number? Were simple
typographical errors or poor data entry the main cause of the
unaccounted firearms? These are all legitimate questions.
As a result, today's hearing provides an opportunity to
discuss the findings by the OIG and to assess the extent of
accountability issues within the United States Park Police.
It is also important to further examine the weapons
procurement process. The OIG site reviews of U.S. Park Police's
field office armories discovered approximately 1,400:
``extra,'' weapons, with a force of only 640 officers. These
extra weapons consisted of 477 military-style automatic and
semiautomatic weapons.
According to the OIG: ``We also discovered a number of
weapons that, according to USPP officials, fulfilled no
operational need.'' It is my understanding that the
undetermined number were awaiting destruction. We need to
discuss that.
I am also concerned about OIG's finding regarding senior
management's supervision of the weapons program, specifically
that; ``staff at all levels, from the firearms program managers
to their employees, had no clear idea of how many weapons they
maintained due to their incomplete and poorly managed inventory
controls.''
Moreover, the OIG reported that firearms managers:
``accepted verbal assurances that firearms inventories were
completed correctly rather than taking personal responsibility
for accuracy.'' Unverified verbal assurances about the accuracy
of the Park Police firearms inventory is simply not tolerable.
The reported lack of accountability over the U.S. Park
Police weapons program has been documented as a longstanding
issue, I believe starting in 2003. But certainly in 2008 and
2009, the OIG found a lack of oversight of the weapons
accountability program, but the problems persist still today.
One of the main reasons that we are gathered here today and
that I called this hearing, in conjunction with these other
Members, is that this continues to evidently be an ongoing
problem. Unfortunately, after the reports issued in 2008 and
2009, it does not appear, at least from the surface, that these
problems were resolved. And we are talking about firearms. It
is very important, and that is why we are here again today.
I want to take a moment to emphasize that the hard work and
dedication of the Park Police officers is greatly appreciated.
We have great men and women who dedicate their lives, put
themselves on the line in support of a very patriotic duty in
serving their Nation and protecting some of our Nation's
greatest assets. We need to ensure that our law enforcement
officers are properly trained and equipped to efficiently and
effectively do their jobs.
That said, the vandalism that recently occurred at the
Lincoln Memorial, the National Cathedral, and the Smithsonian
Castle all raise concerns about whether taxpayer dollars are
being spent effectively in light of these shortcomings. I find
it hard to believe that, given the prominence of the Lincoln
Memorial, that we don't have somebody 24/7 watching, guarding,
taking care of the Lincoln Memorial, that somebody could come
and do that and then simply be able to walk away.
I am particularly interested to learn what the U.S. Park
Police is doing to ensure that our national monuments will not
be defaced, vandalized, or become prime targets of terrorism.
I look forward to hearing from all the witnesses today. And
today's hearing will focus on the need for proper inventory
procedures, improved oversight of firearms management, and we
will be touching on the recent defacing of some of our Nation's
best assets.
The committee seeks to ensure that the U.S. Park Police
appropriately addresses the OIG recommendations outlined in the
June 27th, 2013, report.
Again, I thank you all for being here.
And I greatly appreciate the work I do with my ranking
member, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney. And I
now recognize him for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the interest of time this morning, I just ask unanimous
consent that my opening remarks be placed upon the record.
Mr. Chaffetz. Without objection, absolutely. We appreciate
that.
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Grijalva, we appreciate you being----
Mr. Tierney. Hopefully, we set a trend.
Mr. Chaffetz. Hopefully, we set a trend, yes.
We appreciate your being here today.
Mr. Grijalva from Arizona is the ranking member, Public
Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee in the Natural
Resources Committee.
We appreciate you being here today. I now recognize you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I think the problems identified in the Interior
Department's Office of Inspector General require serious
consideration. We should try to understand the allegations in
the report and not overstate or politicize them.
I would like to acknowledge that the Fraternal Order of
Park Police has serious concerns with the methodology used by
the Inspector General and the allegations made in the report.
The title of this hearing, ``Missing Weapons at the
National Park Service,'' that is--there is no reason to believe
that weapons are missing or that weapons were ever in the hands
of unauthorized personnel. An Interior Department task force
was able to account for all weapons, with the exception of a
few weapons assigned to officers who are overseas or on
extended leave. The Department has determined that 98 percent
of its weapons were already in the official system.
And there is a whole litany of issues, but following the
trend set by Mr. Tierney----
Mr. Tierney. Almost.
Mr. Grijalva. Almost following the trend set by Mr.
Tierney, if I may, Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection,
enter the letter from the United States Park Police Fraternal
Order as part of the record for this hearing?
Mr. Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grijalva. The rest of my statements, which were
eloquent and well thought out, will be submitted for part of
the record. Thank you.
Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chaffetz. All Members will have 7 days to submit
opening statements for the record.
Mr. Chaffetz. We will now recognize our first and only
panel.
Ms. Kim Thorsen is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Public Safety Resource Protection and Emergency Services at the
United States Department of Interior. The Honorable Jonathan B.
Jarvis is the Director of the National Park Service. Ms. Teresa
Chambers is the Chief of the United States Park Police. And Mr.
Robert Knox is the Assistant Inspector General for
Investigations with the Office of Inspector General for the
United States Department of Interior.
We again appreciate all of you being here side by side to
have this discussion.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn
before they testify.
If you will please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Thank you. You may be seated.
Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
In order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate
you limit your testimony to 5 minutes. My understanding is we
have a consolidated opening statement, which we greatly
appreciate.
But we will now recognize Mr. Knox first for his opening
statement.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. KNOX
Mr. Knox. Good morning, Chairman Chaffetz and members of
the subcommittees. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today about a recent Office of Inspector General report on the
accountability and accuracy of the United States Park Police
firearms inventory.
In short, we found ample evidence that United States Park
Police's firearms management requires immediate attention to
address the multitude of problems we found, which range from
fundamental errors in recordkeeping to glaring nonfeasance by
senior command officers.
We initiated our review after receiving an anonymous
complaint. We initially set out to determine if the United
States Park Police could account for all military-style weapons
in its inventory, whether the United States Park Police had
failed to perform inventories due to missing weapons, and
whether officers may have used United States Park Police
weapons for their personal use.
Our efforts to definitively address the allegations were
hindered by the inability of the United States Park Police
property and firearms custodians to provide a reliable baseline
inventory and accounting of firearms. The conditions of the
United States Park Police inventory were such that would allow
for theft and misuse of firearms and the ability to conceal any
missing weapons.
Having found the firearms inventory program in disarray, we
discontinued our efforts to prove or disprove the complainant's
allegations and changed our approach to focus on the overall
management of the United States Park Police firearms inventory
program.
Following a consistent history of inaction and indifference
on the part of United States Park Police leadership and
management at all levels, we again found that the basic tenets
of property management and supervisory oversight were missing
in their most fundamental forms. Commanders, up to and
including the chief of police, have a lackadaisical attitude
toward firearms management. We found evidence which indicates
this indifference is a product of years of inattention to
administrative detail and management principles in their most
basic form.
In 2008 and in 2009, the Office of Inspector General
conducted reviews that included aspects of United States Park
Police operations, including firearms inventory controls. In
our 2008 report, we had a recommendation regarding property
management. In 2009, we focused on firearms inventory controls
for all law enforcement programs at the Department of the
Interior, which included the United States Park Police. At that
time, we found and reported on strikingly similar conditions as
we note in our current report: firearms custodians were unaware
of the number of guns in their inventory or of the origin of
these guns, and that guns physically present were not listed on
the inventory.
In the end, we have little confidence that the United
States Park Police has the managerial commitment to implement a
professionally responsible firearms management program without
direct and frequent oversight from the National Park Service,
the Office of Law Enforcement and Security, and the Office of
Inspector General.
Among the 10 recommendations we make in our report is a
recommendation to initiate quarterly firearms inventories and
provide the Office of Inspector General with the results. We
intend to conduct a series of future reviews and inspections to
ensure that the United States Park Police has implemented our
recommendations and that they maintain the level of
accountability expected of a law enforcement entity the size
and stature of the United States Park Police.
Chairman Chaffetz, this concludes my testimony today. I
would be happy to answer any questions you or other members of
the subcommittees may have.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. Appreciate that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knox follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82717.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82717.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82717.003
Mr. Chaffetz. My understanding is we have a consolidated
opening statement. Would that be you, Mr. Jarvis?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Mr. Chaffetz. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JONATHAN B. JARVIS
Mr. Jarvis. Okay.
Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Members Grijalva and Tierney,
and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to
appear today before you to discuss the findings of the
Inspector General's firearms accountability within the United
States Park Police.
My name is John Jarvis, and I am the Director of the
National Park Service. And I would like to submit our full
statement for the record and summarize, really, our views here.
The U.S. Park Police is the Nation's oldest uniformed
Federal law enforcement agency. The Park Police provides law
enforcement services to designated areas within the National
Park Service, predominantly in Washington, D.C., New York, and
San Francisco. The members of the Park Police are professional
police officers and dedicated public servants who help us
protect millions of visitors each year and protect some of our
most valued national icons, including the Washington Monument,
the Jefferson Memorial, the Statue of Liberty, and the Golden
Gate Bridge.
On June 27th, 2013, the Inspector General issued its review
of Park Police weapons accountability. The Inspector General's
review raised serious, significant concerns regarding Park
Police firearms management.
The accountability of weapons used by our law enforcement
personnel is of critical importance, and we take the issues
raised here very, very seriously. The IG report provided a
number of important recommendations to address those issues,
and we appreciate the IG's efforts. We are committed to
implementing these recommendations, which will improve the
accountability in this critical area.
In the last 30 days since the issuance of the IG's report,
we have taken immediate actions to address the IG's
recommendations. The first priority was to conduct a thorough
physical inventory of all government-owned firearms in Park
Police custody, in accordance with Recommendation 3 from the IG
report.
To conduct this physical inventory, we created a team of
senior officials from the National Park Service and the
Department's Office of Law Enforcement and Security to
personally contact all officers within the Park Police and to
personally inspect every Park Police firearm, whether issued to
an officer or secured in a Park Police facility. The team
visited Park Police facilities in San Francisco, New York, and
Washington, D.C. With the exception of three officers who are
currently either deployed overseas on a military assignment or
on extended leave, the team has met with each police officer.
The team has ensured that each inspected firearm has been
entered into and tracked in the Department's new property
accountability system. The initial assessment of the team is
that approximately 98 percent of the physical inventory of
firearms in the custody of the U.S. Park Police were previously
entered into this system. We are continuing our efforts to
complete the inventory, including any reconciliation with
existing records.
The team is also reviewing the Park Police's approach to
administrative oversight, training, and coordination. We are
committed to ensuring the members of the Park Police maintain
the highest standard of accountability with its firearms
inventories.
With regard to the other recommendations from the IG
report, we either have already addressed or are in the process
of addressing each one of them. For example, we are in the
process of reviewing all Park Police guidance to confirm that
it complies with Park Service and departmental regulations,
policies, and procedures. The Park Police has ceased using
informal property accountability systems, and we have
transitioned all of the firearms to our new property
accountability system. And the Park Police now has a schedule
to ensure quarterly inventories of all firearms. And the Chief
of Park Police will personally approve all firearms purchases.
That is already in place.
In addition, the National Park Service has asked the Park
Police to detail all the work that has been done to date on all
of the IG recommendations and the actions planned to
successfully address the ones that have not been completed.
The Department's Office of Law Enforcement and Security,
which is responsible for policy development, coordination,
evaluation, and support of the Department's programs concerning
law enforcement, will work with the National Park Service and
the Park Police to provide additional oversight. The office
periodically audits the Department's bureaus for compliance
with the Department of Law Enforcement policies. Currently, the
office is conducting a program compliance assessment on bureau
firearm programs.
We want to assure the committees that the Department, the
NPS, and the Park Police take very seriously the accountability
of weapons used by our law enforcement personnel. We will work
together to monitor compliance with the IG's direction on this
matter.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue. We
are happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chaffetz. Normally when we schedule a hearing at 9
o'clock in the morning, we are in safe territory until 10:30 or
so. Today being an exceptional day, Members are advised that
there is a vote on the floor. It has 13 minutes on the clock.
Given that necessity and priority, this committee is going to
stand in recess until the conclusion of the votes. And as soon
as we have Members back in appropriate numbers, we will resume
this hearing.
We are guessing that that is an hour and a half, an hour
and 15 minutes. It is certainly not any sooner than, say,
10:30. We will resume no sooner than 10:30, but when we have
our votes and we have Members back, we will resume.
This committee stands in recess until then.
[Recess.]
Mr. Chaffetz. The committee will come to order.
Thank you. We appreciate the time as we had to take to do
voting. And there will be voting later on, as well.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
The OIG, Inspector General, has issued a report. Ms.
Thorsen, Mr. Jarvis, Chief Chambers, do any of you take issue
with any of the findings in that report?
Mr. Jarvis. I will start.
We appreciate the IG's report, and we take all 10
recommendations--they are spot-on, and we are taking every one
of them seriously.
Mr. Chaffetz. But are any of the findings--do you take any
issue with any of the findings? I appreciate your
implementation of the recommendations; we are going to talk
about that. But any of their findings, did you take issue with
any of those?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, their findings indicated a snapshot,
essentially a photograph, of the conditions of inventory of
weapons at the Park Police facilities at that moment. I
consider them accurate, but they do not indicate the real
behind-the-scenes. They backed out and said, go do an
inventory. And that is what we are doing now.
Mr. Chaffetz. They took a snapshot in 2008, and they took
one in 2009. We had similar problems and challenges. Were those
accurate back then?
Mr. Jarvis. I am not that familiar with those reports
because I was not in this role at that time.
Mr. Chaffetz. And I guess that is one of the concerns, is
that when the Inspector General offers recommendations, they
take snapshots, we worry that some report gets put on some
shelf. I think that is in part why we are here today, is the
repetitive nature of these challenges.
Chief Chambers, according to the National Park Service
Handbook 44, an inventory is supposed to be taken twice a year.
Does that happen?
Chief Chambers. Yes, sir, it does.
Mr. Chaffetz. Did you sign this memo of August 31st saying:
``I certify that all weapons inventories for which I am
responsible have been completed and all weapons records have
been reconciled''?
Chief Chambers. I did, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. What did you base that on?
Chief Chambers. A number of conversations with folks in the
chain of command, including the firearms custodian himself.
Mr. Chaffetz. So merely conversations? Did you ever review
any of the records? Did you ever look at any of the physical
material?
Chief Chambers. I reviewed the records, but I did not
physically touch all of the weapons that are in the inventory.
But I did ask probing questions. I asked how it compared to the
previous inventory, to ensure that there were no anomalies. And
I asked if everything could be accounted for, even----
Mr. Chaffetz. Who did you have that conversation with?
Chief Chambers. With whom, sir? Deputy Chief Chapman,
Sergeant Dave Whitehorne, and perhaps the captain in training
at that time.
Mr. Chaffetz. So why the discrepancy on what Mr. Knox was
able to find versus what you found?
Chief Chambers. Sir, during the period of time he came in,
we were actually between two effective computer systems. One
had been shut down; the other was not back up and running. And
so we were left to use Excel spreadsheets, which, frankly, were
better than nothing, but not able to quickly ascertain where
items were or get a quick count on how many of anything there
was. That has all changed since then. But, in that snapshot of
time, we were limited in our capability to be able to quickly
review.
Mr. Chaffetz. Ms. Thorsen, why was this the case? Why the
discrepancy between the two?
You have an OIG report. You have somebody saying they
certify and sign this. They are obviously not reconciled. So I
give you an opportunity to say, were there any issues with the
findings of the Inspector General? You didn't say a word, so--
--
Ms. Thorsen. Chairman, I have no issue and the Department
has no issues with the findings in the IG report. I think the
10 recommendations are----
Mr. Chaffetz. But they are in dispute. Somebody is wrong.
You have Chief Chambers saying that the weapons inventories for
which I am responsible had been completed and all weapons
records have been reconciled, and the Inspector General is
saying, no, that is not the case. I am trying to figure out
from the three of you, why is that?
How does the Chief of the Park Police say they are
reconciled, the Inspector General says, no, they are not, they
are not even close? I give each of the three of you an
opportunity to question or dispute any of the claims or
findings from the Inspector General. You didn't say anything.
So put yourself in my shoes. What is the right answer here?
Ms. Thorsen. Well, I am not particularly familiar with the
memos and what the Chief did. She is----
Mr. Chaffetz. Why not? What is your relationship with the
Chief? Like, what responsibility or oversight or----
Ms. Thorsen. The Office of Law Enforcement Security, which
reports to me, has responsibility at the department level to
develop policy, departmental-level policy, coordinate with the
bureaus, and provide oversight. The accountability and
responsibility----
Mr. Chaffetz. So do you feel a responsibility for what
happens or doesn't happen in the Park Police?
Ms. Thorsen. The accountability and the responsibility for,
in this instance, firearms rests at many levels. Starts with
the officer, supervisors, the Chief, the Director of the Park
Service, whom she reports to directly. And then my office has a
responsibility periodically to go in and ensure that, actually,
all of the law enforcement programs in the department follow
department policy, departmental policy. So that is our role.
Mr. Chaffetz. So, Mr. Jarvis, we have a dispute here.
Explain to me how we can have two totally different
conclusions. Who messed up here? Is it Chief Chambers? Is it
the Inspector General?
Mr. Jarvis. The way I see it, Mr. Chairman, is that we have
an inventory management issue. And that is exactly what the IG
found. They came in; they could not reconcile the weapons that
they saw in the U.S. Park Police possession against what should
be a computerized database. There was no reconciliation. And so
they backed out.
Mr. Chaffetz. Chief, were you or were you not able to
reconcile the weapons inventory?
Chief Chambers. At the time that the IG was there, we were
not in a position to say with certainty. But we can say now
that it has been reconciled.
Mr. Chaffetz. When were you there? When were you doing
this, Inspector?
Mr. Knox. Mr. Chairman, we----
Mr. Chaffetz. Microphone, please. If you can just turn on
the microphone. Thank you.
Mr. Knox. Mr. Chairman, we conducted our inspection from
February 11th to February 13th and continued----
Mr. Chaffetz. Of which year?
Mr. Knox. Of 2013.
Mr. Chaffetz. And you are saying that they were reconciled
on August 31st, 2012. And then, within 6 months, it was in
disarray. Is that what you are saying?
Chief Chambers. Sir, I am saying we couldn't prove or
disprove whether the records were accurate, because at that
moment in time we had Excel spreadsheets, several of them, to
try to bring this compilation. The weapons were there, but
there was no way to reconcile it. We can do so now.
Mr. Chaffetz. I have more questions about this, as do other
Members. I am way over time.
I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva,
for 5 minutes plus another minute or 2 if he so chooses.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me start with kind of a basic question, given the
report and the recommendations. Has the Park Police accounted
for all these weapons?
Ms. Thorsen, do you believe that all the weapons have been
accounted for? That same question for Director Jarvis and for
the Chief and for Mr. Knox.
If you wouldn't mind starting, Ms. Thorsen. Do you believe
all the weapons have been accounted for?
Ms. Thorsen. At this point in time, our office in
conjunction with the Park Service have conducted the physical
inventory of the Park Police weapons, and at this point in time
98 percent of them we have accounted for. There are three, as
mentioned by the Director, that we have not put our eyes on.
Okay, so that is not complete. So there are three outstanding
at this point in time. So, other than that, yes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Jarvis. I would agree with that. We are not satisfied
until we put our physical hands on every weapon that is in the
inventory. And we are still missing three that are assigned to
individual officers who are not on duty at the moment but will
be very soon.
Mr. Grijalva. Chief?
Chief Chambers. And, likewise, sir, just those final three
that we know we have to touch.
And then just as a safeguard, we have another step to do.
We are going to go back and look at acquisition and property
records to make certain that things that we have purchased or
acquired over the last 5 to 10 years are actually in that new
computerized database. I am confident that they are, but I want
that additional assurance.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Knox?
Mr. Knox. Congressman, the IG takes no position as to
whether they have full accountability of all the weapons
possessed by the U.S. Park Police or not.
Mr. Grijalva. Okay, Mr. Knox, if I could follow up just a
second. So when the inspection was going on, there was a spot
analysis that you talk about in your report. So there was no
follow-up investigation on the part of your office to go deeper
into that issue?
Mr. Knox. No, sir. As we began our assessment, we realized
that the condition of accountability was in disarray.
Mr. Grijalva. Okay.
Mr. Knox. There were not good, clear records of what
weapons should be available, what records should be on their
accountable records. And so we took a position of looking at
the weapons that were physically present in the locations we
visited.
And the reason for me saying we don't take a position on
the accountability today is that, although we are confident the
National Park Service is doing all they can to inventory the
weapons that are currently present within the control of the
U.S. Park Police, there is still another step, as the Chief
points out, to take, which is to go back in time and identify
the weapons that had been acquired either through transfer or
purchase or other means and ensure that all of those weapons
are accounted for, as well.
Mr. Grijalva. Yeah.
Let me go to another question having to do with the mission
of the Park Police: to provide quality law enforcement, to
safeguard lives, to protect our national treasures and symbols
of democracy, and preserve natural and cultural resources
entrusted to the American people and to the Park Service and
the Park Police.
Let me begin with you again, Ms. Thorsen. Do you believe
that the mission of the Park has been compromised as a result
of the report and--or as a result of the issues described in
the report?
Ms. Thorsen. No, I don't, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. If you don't mind, Director Jarvis, I would
just like to get this----
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir, I do not believe there has been any
compromise to our responsibilities.
Mr. Grijalva. Chief, if you don't mind?
Chief Chambers. Our mission has not been compromised, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. And I go back to you, Mr. Knox. Do you feel
that that essential mission, as a consequence of your
recommendations and snapshot view, has been compromised?
Mr. Knox. Sir, the OIG assessment related to the
accountability of weapons alone. And we did not look at the
impact that had on the operational mission of the U.S. Park
Police.
Mr. Grijalva. That is a neutral position?
Mr. Knox. It is a neutral position as to the operations as
you described them. We feel that the accountability of weapons
is a part of their duty and operations and that those were
severely lacking.
Mr. Grijalva. In the limited time, if I may, Mr. Knox, your
report uses words like ``inaction,'' ``indifferent,''
``nonfeasance,'' ``lackadaisical attitude'' to describe the
ways the senior management at the Park Police handled this
weapons accountability. Can you elaborate on why those strong
words are justified in the report?
And then, Chief Chambers, do you believe that the Inspector
General was justified in saying that Park Police senior
management has a lackadaisical attitude toward weapons
management and accountability?
I ask that question because, going back to the question I
just asked, it is about the integrity of that function, the
police function, and the confidence that the public has in it.
But that is why these questions are important.
So those words are pretty strong words, and your
justification for using them is my question.
Mr. Knox. Congressman, we looked at numerous factors when
we came to deliberately choose those words.
I would begin with the series of incidents where the Chief
of the U.S. Park Police had been advised of the serious
conditions regarding weapons accountability at the U.S. Park
Police. There was a memo authored by the force firearms
custodian to the Chief of Police in 2011 that actually
demonstrated an inventory variance of 120 weapons that was
brought to her attention.
Again in that year, the Audits and Evaluations Unit, part
of the Office of Professional Responsibility for the U.S. Park
Police, issued a memorandum based on their weapons
accountability assessment, and they indicated a critical
failure in the weapons accountability posture of the U.S. Park
Police.
And later a memo--I am sorry, a meeting regarding the force
firearms custodian memo was held, where discussions about the
content of that memo occurred. Later, a subsequent meeting with
Deputy Chief Chapman was held in 2012 as a follow-up to those
discussions.
And then I would point out that, even as we concluded our
field work on February 13th of 2013, I personally briefed the
Chief of Police for the U.S. Park Police on February 15th of
this year, advising her of our findings and urging her to take
immediate steps to begin an inventory and get a handle on what
the actual weapons count for the U.S. Park Police weapons
inventory was. And we found no meaningful efforts taken until
after the publishing of our report.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman, in the overage of time, could
the Chief respond?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Chief Chambers. Thank you for the opportunity.
While I would certainly have chosen different words and not
characterized it with words that may be so emotionally driven,
I do appreciate the feedback nonetheless.
Only because Mr. Knox mentioned several memos, I will touch
on them. At each step along the way, extreme action was taken--
dialogue, trips to the field offices by our force firearms
custodian.
But I must put on the record that the audits memo that
talked about the critical failure was a new memo to me. I had
never heard of it. And the only record that the Inspector
General's Office could produce was one that was still in draft
mode. It still had the track changes, it wasn't signed on
letterhead, it had no recommendations. That memo never made it
to my office.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the extra
time.
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Knox, I will give you an opportunity to
respond to that.
Mr. Knox. I can't say for sure whether the Chief of Police
received the memo from the force firearms custodian. But I
would point out the multiple events that occurred between 2011
and 2013. And it is the position of the Office of Inspector
General that at least some of those should have alerted the
senior leadership, including the Chief of Police, of the
serious conditions of loss of weapons accountability at the
U.S. Park Police.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
Mr. Knox. Some action----
Mr. Chaffetz. I now want to recognize Chairman Rob Bishop
from Utah for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for the opportunity of being part of
this hearing.
In some respects, I feel like I am dealing with Syria
policy; I don't really know who the good guys are out there. In
fact, I think there is failure on every level that has gone
through here. So I appreciate it. I appreciate the questions
Mr. Grijalva asked.
And, Ms. Chambers, I am going to follow up on that in a
minute, but I want to go to Mr. Jarvis first.
The IG report focuses exclusively on failures within the
Park Police, for which you have ultimate jurisdiction. Is there
something about the relationship or the autonomy of the Park
Police that allows them to fall outside of department policies
on firearms?
Mr. Jarvis. No, Mr. Chairman. I believe that all of our
departmental and National Park Service policies apply directly
to the U.S. Park Police.
Mr. Bishop. So the rest of the Park Service, you also have
armed law enforcement in the rest of the Nation outside of
these three cities?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. So how do you compare the accountability in
place for those weapons, opposed to what we found here in the
Park Police?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, with all of our managers who have line
responsibilities for controlled property such as weapons, we
have a policy of inventory. I have a policy of trust but
verify, which means I expect them to do their audits and report
deliberately on their inventory as well as any missing weapons.
And----
Mr. Bishop. So I appreciate the concept of verify; that is
extremely important. But have you investigated--what have you
done to investigate the concept of park-wide, firearms Park
Service-wide, not just with the Park Police?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, we have periodic audits, where we do send
in our agents to do spot audits on the weapons inventory. When
I was a superintendent, we would have independent audits done
specifically. And I can remember one specific case where we did
find a missing weapon that was not recorded, and I removed that
employee's law enforcement commission immediately and
permanently.
So we do have that kind of oversight and auditing going on
throughout the Service.
Mr. Bishop. So you are confident that this problem only
exists within the Park Police, that it is not systemwide?
Mr. Jarvis. It is not systemwide.
Mr. Bishop. Can I ask you why you weren't on top of what
was happening, then, in the Park Police?
Mr. Jarvis. I was only made aware of this when I was
briefed by the IG. That is the first time, and that was in June
of this year. That is when I was made aware.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Well, we will get more into that in
detail.
I have one other issue with you, though. In 2010, the Park
Service sent guidance to the field that the Springfield Armory
Historic Site would no longer accept firearms for destruction.
So I am assuming that these historic arms are just sitting
somewhere under your jurisdiction.
Do you have any responsibility to bear for these unused
weapons piling up over with the Park Service police?
Mr. Jarvis. It took us 3 years to get a new contract for
weapons disposal. And so the Springfield Armory shut down on
their weapons disposal responsibilities; it took us 3 years to
get a new contract. So there are approximately 500 weapons in
the inventory at the U.S. Park Police that are due for disposal
and destruction.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Chambers, is that an accurate number?
Chief Chambers. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Bishop. And are any of these of historic value?
Chief Chambers. I don't know, sir. I could find out for
you.
Mr. Bishop. Really?
Do you have any policy for allowing historically valuable
weapons to be saved, something other than being destroyed, Mr.
Jarvis?
Mr. Jarvis. Absolutely. At the Springfield Armory
specifically, which is the storage repository for historic
weapons----
Mr. Bishop. Wait, you mean they are taking them now?
Mr. Jarvis. I don't know the answer to that question. But
let me just say that before we do complete destruction on the
weapons that have been accumulated, we will see if there are
any historic weapons that are valuable for display or museum
storage.
Mr. Bishop. Do we know how many are?
Mr. Jarvis. I do not know that.
Mr. Bishop. Do you know, Ms. Chambers, how many are?
Chief Chambers. I do not, sir. I know----
Mr. Bishop. Shouldn't you?
Chief Chambers. I have that information at my disposal but
not here today, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Look, I am over by 40 seconds here. I am not as
longwinded as Raul or Jason, but I definitely have second-round
questions for some of the rest of you.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
We will now recognize the gentlewoman from Washington,
D.C., Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say I have some questions about the report,
but I do want to take this opportunity to thank the Park
Police. The Park Police are the only--we have, as the saying
goes, fifty-eleven police forces in the District of Columbia.
Every little agency has a police force. This is the only city-
wide--indeed, it is a region-wide police force. And it is often
underappreciated.
I remember, after 9/11, the Capitol Police were quickly
reinforced with new police. And it took some time to get around
to the Capitol Police, which has much larger territory
throughout the District of Columbia and the entire region. So I
have watched the Capitol Police very closely. They have
jurisdiction for, for example--except for the Metropolitan
Police Department, they are the only police department that can
go anywhere. Most of the police, unless they have signed
memoranda of understanding pursuant to a bill I got passed
about a decade ago, can't even leave the premises.
So when we are talking about after Boston, we are talking
about all the parades and the people who can go and really
protect people in this town, you are talking about, when it
comes to Federal police, only the Park Police. And I want to
thank the Park Police for what looks to be a quick capture of
the person who may have been, is alleged to have been defacing
monuments.
I want to ask you--I also want to thank you for somehow
finding a way to make sure that the Park Police were not on
furloughs. That seemed to me to be particularly absurd. When we
have had furloughs in the Federal Government, we have always
exempted law enforcement officers. And we were putting the
entire city at risk, with all of the officials and all of the
ceremonies. And you found the funds.
Are you able to fill vacancies in the Park Police, Chief
Chambers?
Chief Chambers. We are not currently hiring, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. So if someone were to leave because of the
sequester or the cuts, those positions could not be filled?
Chief Chambers. At this moment, we do not have a class
schedule. We will be looking closely at the fiscal year 2014
budget as we get closer to that.
Ms. Norton. Well, I will be interested to know whether you
are able to keep a force in place during this time.
If I could ask Mr. Knox, apparently--and believe me,
because I represent the District of Columbia, I was pleased
that apparently no weapons were stolen, weapons were not found
to be taken home for personal use, no weapons were ever seized
in a crime.
Could this have happened without some kind of monitoring?
Did this just happen by chance? Those would have been the
worst, it seems to me, of the results, and yet none of that
occurred. Why not?
Mr. Knox. Well, Congresswoman, we didn't examine--our
assessment of weapons accountability at the Park Police did not
find instances of weapons being stolen. We found instances of
weapons not being accounted for properly, either in that we
found weapons on hand which were not indicated on the property
records or we found property records for weapons which were not
physically present.
Ms. Norton. So are you assured that all the weapons are
accounted for? Are there recommendations of the IG for how to
do this without taking a lot of time and effort, especially now
in personnel, especially now when that personnel, of course,
would not be available?
Are there examples from other either Federal police or
other police of ways to do this that you could recommend to the
Park Police so this would not become a paperwork exercise but
would be geared to just the kinds of things you have not just
found? You have not found yet stolen weapons, people taking
weapons home when they shouldn't be or ending up in a crime.
So does somebody have a streamlined way to do this that you
could recommend to the Park Police?
Mr. Knox. Well, Congresswoman, we made 10 recommendations
in this assessment which we feel, if complied with, will
enhance their weapons accountability posture a great deal. Our
expectation would be that they can account for all their
weapons, and that would be typical behavior in most police
agencies.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
I will ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Southerland of
Florida, who is on the Natural Resources Committee, to also
join us in this hearing.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Bentivolio, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Based on the IG report, the lack of accountability here is
very disturbing. I think about how the government holds
civilians accountable for the firearms they own as private
citizens through registration and licensing procedures. But
here we have government firearms, paid for by taxpayers, left
in your care, with a total lack of accountability. The IG
discovered hundreds of handguns, rifles, and shotguns not
listed on official Park Police inventory records.
Where is the failure here that periodic and accurate
inventory records were not maintained? Is there any legitimate
excuse for this lack of accountability? Should there be more
frequent audits and inventories?
Chief Chambers, in the Army, we are required to hold
periodic weapons inventories. Each soldier was held accountable
for the weapons they were assigned. And like most all instances
in the military, the most senior person is responsible to
ensure that his subordinates do what they are supposed to do.
Ms. Chambers, as the Chief of the Park Police, who is
ultimately responsible for the firearms inventory at the Park
Police?
Chief Chambers. It is me, sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. The IG report indicated that a board of
survey should be conducted whenever an item is lost or stolen.
I imagine that in the case of firearms, which are sensitive
government property, like in the military.
And this is even more important. The IG report also stated
that when asked about a board of survey, you were not aware of
what a board of survey was and whether it was required to be
conducted for missing weapons. Can you explain why this was not
clear to you?
Chief Chambers. Yes, sir. I had never personally heard the
term. That did not mean that my team did not. In fact, we have
reissued the memo, identifying the members of various boards of
survey. It had been an ongoing practice. Just coming from
municipal government, it was a term that was foreign to me.
Mr. Bentivolio. Mr. Knox, are you aware of any disciplinary
actions at the Park Police taken as a result of the IG
findings?
Mr. Knox. No, sir, I am not.
Mr. Bentivolio. Mr. Jarvis, nice to see you again.
Who should be held accountable for these shortcomings? What
type of disciplinary actions will be taken?
Mr. Jarvis. We are still in the investigative phase on
this. The first step was Recommendation 3, which is a full
physical inventory. As I indicated in my earlier testimony, we
are almost done with that. We still have three officers that we
want to put our hands on those weapons and look at their serial
numbers.
Then there is a forensic, sort of, analysis of the previous
procurements. So, when were those guns brought into the U.S.
Park Police? When were they purchased? When were they
transferred from other agencies? We want to compare that to the
inventory, and then we will see whether or not there are any
weapons truly missing or stolen.
And then and only then, would we take a disciplinary action
if we found that there was true mismanagement. At this point,
we have a inventory management issue, not a mismanagement
issue.
And we have to get that completed over the next probably 60
days or so to get that second part of that, sort of, forensics
done on the procurement. And then we will understand whether or
not this is just a fact that we did not have them in the
inventory and could not account for them in the computer system
rather than there are actually missing weapons.
Mr. Bentivolio. Well, if you can't account for them, it
sounds to me like it is mismanagement or something else.
But I understand, according to testimony earlier, it has
been ongoing for the past 5 to 10 years, correct? Did I
understand that correctly, yes or no?
Chief Chambers. I heard that. I wasn't aware of anything
prior to 2011.
Mr. Bentivolio. Well, I heard testimony of going back as
far as 2008 and 2009.
Ms. Chambers, do you receive a bonus?
Chief Chambers. No, sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. Do you, Mr. Jarvis?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. In 2008, you never received a bonus?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. 2010?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. 2011?
Mr. Jarvis. My salary is fixed exactly. No bonus.
Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Chaffetz. Will the gentleman yield to the chairman of
the subcommittee?
Mr. Bentivolio. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Jarvis, you gave a nice spin there, but you
didn't answer his question. His question is who is ultimately
responsible, not what have you done. Who is ultimately
responsible?
Mr. Jarvis. I am the Director of the Park Service. I am
ultimately----
Mr. Bishop. So you are ultimately responsible for this.
Mr. Jarvis. I am ultimately responsible.
Mr. Bishop. What about Ms. Chambers? What culpability does
she have in this chain of reaction?
Mr. Jarvis. She is the line supervisor, U.S. Park Police.
She is also responsible.
Mr. Bishop. Look, guys, there was a 2003 report that was
given, 133 guns were missing, 2 ended up in a pawn shop; a 2008
report that showed problems; a 2009 report that showed
problems. All of you were on the job then.
Mr. Jarvis, what specifically did you do to implement the
findings of the 2009 report?
Mr. Jarvis. I was unaware of the 2009 report.
Mr. Bishop. But it came under your watch.
Mr. Jarvis. I was not the Director until October of 2009.
Mr. Bishop. No, you were the Director after this report was
taken--this report was permitted. What did you do about it?
Even if it came after you took office, which it did not,
what should you have done about it?
Mr. Jarvis. I should hold my line supervisors accountable
to follow the procedure----
Mr. Bishop. Just the line supervisors?
I mean, Ms. Chambers, you are throwing everyone in your
department under the bus. How much accountability should you
have for that? That was his question. It hasn't been answered.
How much accountability should you hold?
Chief Chambers. Full accountability.
Mr. Bishop. Have you taken full accountability and
responsibility for it?
Chief Chambers. Yes, sir, I have.
Mr. Bishop. What has your action been?
Chief Chambers. We have--the most immediate has been to
elevate the position of the firearms manager, sir, custodian
manager----
Mr. Bishop. What about your responsibility?
Chief Chambers. --so that I have a more direct line of
communication with that person.
Mr. Bishop. So you are still blaming other people for it.
Chief Chambers. No, sir. It is my responsibility.
Mr. Bishop. I am going to yield back to the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. Chaffetz. The gentleman yields back.
We will now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Duncan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And both chairmen have started touching on this, but I read
in this letter, it said, ``This report further underscores''--
the letter from the Deputy Inspector General Kendall--``This
report further underscores the decade-long theme of inaction
and indifference of U.S. Park Police leadership. Basic tenets
of property management and supervisory oversight are missing in
their simplest forms. Commanders up to and including the Chief
of Police have a lackadaisical attitude toward firearms
management. Historical evidence indicates that this
indifference is a product of years of inattention to
administrative detail.''
That is a very disturbing letter. And then it becomes even
more disturbing when I read that the 2008 report and the 2009
report both have the same language.
``We found a disconcerting attitude toward firearms
accountability within U.S. Park Police. In particular, we found
that firearms custodians were unaware of the number of guns in
their inventory or of the origin of these guns and that guns
physically present were not listed on the inventory.''
That is very disturbing, that this has been going on for,
it says, a decade and that there was this report in 2008 and
2009.
Are we going to be back here 5 years from now and the
situation is going to be the same? I mean, will each of you
assure us that something is going to be done to straighten this
out and change these lackadaisical attitudes about this, or are
you just going to go back to your offices and laugh about this
hearing?
Mr. Jarvis. I will respond to that.
Absolutely, I can assure you that we will not be back in
here, other than perhaps to report on the final findings of
this investigation. But I can assure you that we will,
throughout the National Park Service, including the U.S. Park
Police, ensure accountability throughout the organization.
Mr. Duncan. Ms. Chambers?
Chief Chambers. I certainly echo the Director's remarks.
Action has been taken and will continue to be taken. It is a
continual improvement process, and we will get better at it
with each day.
Mr. Duncan. Is it accurate, the report I have, that there
are 640 officers that are in your department----
Chief Chambers. Approximately, sir.
Mr. Duncan. --in your force?
Chief Chambers. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duncan. I mean, that is not a gigantic bureaucracy. It
looks like to me like it shouldn't be this difficult to
straighten this out and change these attitudes and this
indifference.
So thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We will start a second round here. I will recognize myself.
Chief Chambers, in response to Chairman Bishop, you said
that you were elevating this position or this person. What does
that mean?
Chief Chambers. Not the person, sir, the position. It has
been a----
Mr. Chaffetz. When you say ``elevate,'' what does that
mean?
Chief Chambers. Right now, it is in the hands--the firearms
custodian position is handled by a sergeant who also is our
range master. That is not appropriate. I need a person full-
time who will devote all of his energy to the management of the
firearms.
So a lieutenant is now being taken from another position.
That lieutenant is being pulled out of the chain of command and
going right to the Deputy Chief, who sits next to my office, so
that we----
Mr. Chaffetz. So how many weapons, then, does the U.S. Park
Police have? What is the current inventory?
Chief Chambers. Approximately 2,500, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. So you have 2,500 weapons. Why that number?
Why 2,500?
Chief Chambers. Well, sir, a patrol officer would have
three weapons each: a firearm at his side, a pistol; a patrol
rifle; and a Taser.
Mr. Chaffetz. So the IG found that there were in their
words, 1,400 extra weapons. What are these extra weapons?
Chief Chambers. Sir, I would have characterized it
differently but as I probed the extra weapons included things
like serialized parts, firearms that had been cannibalized so
that we could keep other firearms in working condition without
incurring additional cost. Some of these were training weapons.
Some, as we had already discussed, were those were set aside
awaiting disposal once we were able to get a contract.
Mr. Chaffetz. So you said 2,500 weapons is how many you
have?
Chief Chambers. Approximately, yes, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. You have 640 officers?
Chief Chambers. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. You said that a person would have three
weapons?
Chief Chambers. A patrol officer would have three, yes,
sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. Who has more than three weapons?
Chief Chambers. It is likely that a SWAT officer may have
an additional weapon depending on his assignment.
Mr. Chaffetz. So you have 640 sworn officers, who have
three weapons each, that is close to 1,900.
Chief Chambers. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. How do you account for the other 600 weapons?
Chief Chambers. Sir, many are for training purposes. They
include things like simunitions guns that you point at a
screen, Tasers, things that----
Mr. Chaffetz. When can you provide to this committee--when
I say ``this'' committee, both committees, Oversight and
Natural Resources, the actual inventory?
Chief Chambers. I'm sorry, you are asking for----
Mr. Chaffetz. A copy of the inventory.
Chief Chambers. Yes, sir, I would be glad to.
Mr. Chaffetz. When will I get that?
Chief Chambers. If I could have a week that would be
appreciated.
Mr. Chaffetz. One week sounds reasonable.
Chief Chambers. All right, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. By next Friday, we look forward to seeing
that inventory. I asked you if you took any issue with the idea
with the findings of the OIG. He found that you had 1,400 extra
weapons. Do you take exception to that?
Chief Chambers. I do, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. Why didn't you say that before when I asked
you?
Chief Chambers. Sir, I didn't want to interrupt. Others
were speaking.
Mr. Chaffetz. No. I asked you that question. You weren't
interrupting. How is it that there is such a disparity--how did
you come up with the number 1,400 extra weapons?
Mr. Knox. Chairman, during our assessment we physically
examined over 1,350 or so weapons on hand. At the same time the
force firearms custodian provided us a list indicating he had
1,450 essentially weapons on hand. There was a disparity in
those numbers, and even as I listened to the Chief testify
today, if each officer has a weapon and we have 1,920 weapons
therefore issued, that would leave only 600 on hand for a total
count of 2,500. But we counted twice that many. And granted
they are a collection of----
Mr. Chaffetz. Let me understand that. You counted how many
weapons?
Mr. Knox. 1,350.
Mr. Chaffetz. But when you said twice that many, twice of
what? Explain that to me.
Mr. Knox. If three weapons are issued to each officer,
meaning a total of 1,920, and if 2,500 is the total sum of
weapons in possession of the Park Police, we should have only
been able to count 600 weapons when we went through the various
facilities. But, in fact, we counted 1,350.
Mr. Chaffetz. Chief? How do you answer that?
Chief Chambers. Sir, many of those are patrol rifles that
have not yet been issued. The patrol rifle program, it takes 40
hours for an officer to get fully certified. And at this
moment, we don't have a range to use so we use those as we can
get it. It will take several more years until every officer is
certified to carry a patrol rifle.
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Jarvis, do you concur with everything the
Chief is saying?
Mr. Jarvis. I do, I do. I want to add one other factor
though that they are in possession of some 500 weapons that are
scheduled for disposal----
Mr. Chaffetz. Would any of those disposals include the
sales of those weapons?
Mr. Jarvis. I do not believe so, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. Why not, why not sell the weapons? They are
of value.
Mr. Jarvis. I think our policies are that those weapons go
to disposal.
Mr. Chaffetz. That is a policy we need to revisit. My time
is expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Knox, just for the sake of definition, it is my
understanding that what triggered your investigation and your
recommendations and findings was an anonymous tip or an
anonymous complaint. That anonymity, is it for the sake of
protecting a whistleblower under the statute, or is it indeed
anonymous as the definition would be of anonymous?
Mr. Knox. Congressman, in this instance, the complaint was
received anonymously. We have no knowledge----
Mr. Grijalva. Was it in writing, a phone call?
Mr. Knox. The complaint was received in writing.
Mr. Grijalva. Excuse me. I don't have that here with me.
That particular complaint, that has been made available to the
committee in writing?
Mr. Knox. No, sir, I believe I don't believe it has.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman, could we have that complaint in
writing as part of the record?
Mr. Knox. Are you asking me for the complaint?
Mr. Grijalva. Yeah.
Mr. Knox. I will have to consult with the Deputy IG on our
policy relating to release.
Mr. Chaffetz. The committee would certainly appreciate
that, not just the consultation but to comply with the ranking
member's request.
Mr. Knox. I understand. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grijalva. And excuse me. I keep and to all the
witnesses--I keep asking the same question to people because I
keep looking for a smoking gun, and I can't seem to find one.
Pardon the pun.
The Fraternal Order of Police has concerns with the
methodology and the allegations made in the IG report. They
believe that law enforcement best practices were not followed
and that the report unjustly put, places blame on the current
agency administration for the failure of previous chiefs of
police and that the report undermines the credibility of this
and future IG assessments and indeed the credibility of the
force itself.
Chief, your reaction to that assessment. And I will ask the
same of you, Mr. Knox, if you don't mind.
Chief Chambers. The Fraternal Order of Police's
communication with you is, of course, on their own volition.
The fact that one agrees or disagrees with how the IG's report
may have been conducted is not as important to me as the value
I find and I did find it valuable and the 10 recommendations
are a great road map for us and I intend to see that they are
fully implemented.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Knox.
Mr. Knox. Congressman, I received a copy of the Fraternal
Order of Police letter just moments before while we were in
recess. I've read it. I'm not sure what information they might
be referring to. I take exception to their statement about
undermining the value of OIG activity. In fact, our
recommendations have been received well by the National Park
Service, and we're pleased that they intend to implement them.
Mr. Grijalva. And I agree. I think that the fact that the
reaction from the administration and the Department has been to
be proactive and say, okay, let's look at these and make
corrections and adjustments. But we keep looking for the root
cause of all this. And so that is why I'm assuming we are
having this hearing rather than giving it ample time for the
recommendations to be implemented, to be corrected, and then to
have a hearing on the assessment toward the end of the line as
opposed to making some judgments now that are probably I think
patently unfair when the process isn't done yet.
But given all that, there was a transition going on, Ms.
Thorsen, from one system to another dealing with a reliable
weapons inventory.
Do you believe that that transition to a new system is one
of the reasons the Park Police could not provide the IG at that
moment of the snapshot with the records upon request?
Ms. Thorsen. Without understanding the thorough assessment
process that the IG used, they have their own methodologies in
which they follow when they do their assessments, it appears
that when they were looking for records and talking to the
Chief they were unable to bring up records in the FBMS system.
So that may have very well played into the fact that they could
not produce at the time the electronic accounting records
needed for verification.
FBMS is the financial and business and management system
for the Department.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Not by act of Congress and by
unfortunately a signature of the administration, we have guns
in the parks, and the public can have that access. And I would
suspect that maybe our committees' time would be well served to
assessing how that's going, what stress is put on Park Police
and employees, and what, if any, backlash has been in terms of
public acceptance of that.
With that, I yield back. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. I now recognize Chairman Bishop
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Ms. Thorsen, you're the person who oversees all the law
enforcement programs in the Department. What is your
responsibility to ensure the Department firearm policies are
known and followed?
Ms. Thorsen. The office of law enforcement security in the
Department is part of the tiered responsibility in the
Department for firearms accountability. It starts with the
officer supervisory chain, the Chief in this instance, the
director of the particular bureau that the law enforcement
program resides in. We have seven----
Mr. Bishop. So is it your responsibility to make sure she
knows what she's supposed to be doing?
Ms. Thorsen. We do that through compliance evaluations
periodically, yes.
Mr. Bishop. So if the Chief claims that she didn't know
about some of these things, is that your responsibility for
making that known? Is that your--has it been your office's
failure in her not understanding what she was supposed to be
doing?
Ms. Thorsen. No, I do not believe it is our office's
failure.
Mr. Bishop. That's your responsibility.
Ms. Thorsen. Our responsibility is to issue departmental
policy, which we did after the 2009 report was issued.
Mr. Chaffetz. How do you follow up on that?
Ms. Thorsen. We follow up with periodic compliance
evaluations and we are in the middle of doing a firearm
assessment right now in all seven law enforcement programs in
the Department.
Mr. Bishop. The report--they started looking at this thing
in February. You started counting in July. Why was there that
disparity of time? Why did you wait so long to try and find out
what the answers would be?
Ms. Thorsen, I'm still coming at you.
Ms. Thorsen. Actually we started our assessment in April
and we are still in the middle of that.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Knox, you didn't do a baseline accounting,
did you, of how many guns ought to be there, what is the number
that should be?
Mr. Knox. Mr. Chairman, we could not do that. The records
were not available.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Ms. Thorsen, what has your office
done to provide an accurate baseline accounting for firearms,
not just within her department but across the Department?
Ms. Thorsen. With the park police we are part of the team
that is actually out doing a physical inventory right now
regarding the Park Police.
Mr. Bishop. Are you doing a baseline?
Ms. Thorsen. We are doing a physical inventory at this
point and----
Mr. Bishop. Is somebody going to come up with how many
weapons should be out there?
Ms. Thorsen. That's the next phase. As talked about
earlier, we will be looking at, the Park Service in particular
will be looking at purchasing records, transfer records and
comparing those to the physical inventory and----
Mr. Bishop. When is that going to happen? When will that be
done?
Ms. Thorsen. I don't have an exact date but I'm hoping in
the next couple months or two.
Mr. Bishop. So are we. The Department's testimony says----
Mr. Chaffetz. Will the gentleman yield.
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Mr. Chaffetz. Recommendation Number 6 says reduce the
firearms inventory to no more than the minimum necessary to
equip law enforcement, and that is to be done by October 2013.
If you don't have a baseline, you don't know how many you're
going to reduce it by, I worry that, do you even know what the
recommendations are?
Ms. Thorsen. Yes, I do, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. All right, the Department testimony says the
Office of Law Enforcement and Security will work with the Park
Service to provide additional oversight. That suggests that
OLES has not, in the past, been conducting adequate oversight
of the department's law enforcement units in their firearm
inventory? Did you or OLES conduct any oversight in response to
the allegations of the 2009 report to ensure that
recommendations were implemented?
Did you do anything for the 2009 report?
Ms. Thorsen. We issued a variety of policies in our
firearms policy, and then we have since also looked and
compared policies at the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau
of Reclamation, and the Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law
Enforcement to ensure that they had policies in place that we,
we in the Department, identified from the 2009 report.
Mr. Bishop. So why wasn't he able to find any of that
stuff?
Ms. Thorsen. Well, those were three different bureaus. The
Park Police, the process for the Park Service and the Park
Police with them, and that follow-up is scheduled in the next
couple of months. We have, the capacity we have in the
Department with seven law enforcement programs we are going
through them systematically.
Mr. Bishop. All right. So they are different than the
others and I get that. But in 2009, it was supposed to be, the
recommendation was OLES should revise existing policy to direct
that lost or missing cached firearms must be reported and
investigated similar to lost or missing assigned firearms. That
was the responsibility in 2009. Why didn't you do it?
This is now 4 years later we find out it hasn't been done.
Why wasn't it done?
Ms. Thorsen. We did issue policy, Chairman, to ensure that
weapons lost, missing weapons were reported. Those are required
to be reported up in to our interior operations center on a
serious incident report.
Mr. Bishop. But what good are those policies if no one
knows about it and no one is following up on it? You have no
follow-up on what you said you did after the two--there is no
reason that this IG's report should have come out. There was
already a problem in 2003 when all of you were involved. There
was a report in 2008, and another one in 2009. It told you to
do this. You say you issued policies but no one knows about
them and no one followed up on them. Why not?
Ms. Thorsen. The bureaus do know about the policies we
issued. We issued them to all seven law enforcement programs
once they are issued from the Department. We also have ongoing
conversations with the bureaus, the Bureau of law Enforcement
Programs, in fact, while we are developing those policies and
when we issue those policies. So they are aware of those
policies.
Mr. Bishop. Then why didn't you have the data? Why were
these things missing? Why did the IG report find out so many
problems that they labeled also as a lackadaisical action and a
culture that takes place? Why wasn't this thing solved in 2009
if you actually did your job in 2009? If you actually followed
the policies that were requested, and you say you do, why do we
still have this problem 4 years later? And it was a perfect
question by Mr. Duncan. Are we going to have the same thing
happen in 5 years because of the attitude, lackadaisical
attitude we have in the Department? Ms. Thorsen, this is your
responsibility, why has it not been done? Why 4 years later are
we still in a mess?
Ms. Thorsen. The responsibility and accountability for
firearms rests partly with the Department, but also with, as I
said earlier, the officer, supervisory chain, the Chief and the
director of whatever particular bureau the law enforcement
program falls in. And as the director spoke earlier to, they do
regular inventories, yearly inventories and information
assurances statements every year to ensure that those
accountable property items are tracked. So my expectation is
that the bureaus and their programs are executing those
requirements through policies we issue and policies issued by
the acquisition and property management staff.
Mr. Bishop. All right, I'm way over time so I will ask this
simple question. If you did everything right, who screwed up?
Ms. Thorsen. The Department issued policies for--actually
the 2008 and the 2009 reports. The Park Police did not
institute all of those policies, which we found out, and we are
implementing those recommendations as we speak right now from
the IG's report.
Mr. Bishop. So Ms. Chambers screwed up?
Ms. Thorsen. There are many layers of folks that were not
taking appropriate accountability.
Mr. Bishop. So you all screwed up?
Ms. Thorsen. No, I would not say everybody screwed up, sir.
Mr. Bishop. But somebody had to.
Ms. Thorsen. There are members, members of the force,
members of the Park Service as identified by the IG in the
report that apparently were not able to account for their
firearms. So we take the recommendations to heart, we are
implementing them to ensure that they are trained and that they
are well aware of their personal accountability requirements
when it comes to firearms.
Mr. Bishop. All right, this is the last statement then. If
you ordered, if you did the policies, you took the
recommendations that go back 4 years ago and you did all of
that, this IG's report should not have happened. Somewhere
there was a failure. This IG's report should not have happened
at all. Somewhere there is a failure, and someone needs to be
responsible for that failure.
I'm sorry. I do have one last question. You said you
elevated this new position to take care of this problem.
Chief Chambers. Sir, I have assigned it to rank one rank
higher.
Mr. Bishop. So someone got promoted to do this?
Chief Chambers. No, sir. A current lieutenant has now been
moved into this new position.
Mr. Bishop. So someone on staff has been promoted into this
new position?
Chief Chambers. Not promoted, sir, moved laterally from his
other assignment as a shift commander.
Mr. Bishop. Was this person responsible for this--oh, never
mind. I think you understand where I'm coming. Somebody got a
new assignment because of this but that doesn't solve the
problem. I'm sorry for going over.
Mr. Chaffetz. One of the challenges is everybody, oh, we
take responsibility, but nobody is held accountable. Nobody is
held accountable. That's the problem. Is anybody fired? Has
anybody been fired? No. And we have this persistent problem,
we're dealing with weapons. This is not an excusable, oh,
sorry, I won't let that happen again.
If President Obama wants gun control, he should start with
the United States Park Police.
Now a very generous 5 minutes for the gentlewoman from
Washington, D.C., Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Well, the committee is and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, is right to be concerned about the IG report and what
looks like difficulties of setting up a two system to keep
track of guns. Anybody who has control of guns has a special
responsibility. I'm going to say I find it also interesting
that this committee is as interested as it is in the question
since it has tried in the past to wipe out all the gun laws in
the District of Columbia which would have given the Park Police
a whole lot more work than it has now.
So I'm interested less in beating somebody up and finding
out how to get this gun given the personnel issues that face
every agency, including the Park Police.
Now did I understand you to say that you are not filling
vacancies, Ms. Chambers?
Chief Chambers. Not sworn vacancies, and civilian ones only
on an as need basis and approved up the chain of command.
Ms. Norton. So no matter how low, we have a lieutenant who
was here in a line position that had to do with patrol of the
Park Police throughout the region?
Chief Chambers. Yes, ma'am. He was a shift commander.
Ms. Norton. So somebody is going to have to do that job
which has to do with law and order.
So I'm concerned that at a time when even officers of the
Park Police when they leave the Park Police and create a
vacancy cannot be replaced that we are talking about why people
aren't doing what clearly they should have been doing in this
climate.
All I can say, Chief Chambers, is in trying to get ahold of
this inventory, an important responsibility of the Park Service
and of the Park Police, I certainly hope that because you have
heard so much at this hearing from Congress and that can always
be intimidating, you will bear in mind that the public wants
our monuments to be safe. Our public wants the 20 million
visitors who come to this city from around the world to be
safe, especially since most of them go to the monuments and to
the Mall.
So I can only hope that your first priority, whatever the
concern, and it is a legitimate concern, about these guns does
not deflect you from the law and order, the law and order
mandate of the Park Police.
Mr. Knox, is there any evidence that there has ever been a
system to keep control of guns? I mean aren't we starting from
the ground up?
Mr. Knox. Congresswoman, the current state of
accountability for weapons at the Park Police is in disarray.
Ms. Norton. I understand that. I am saying it sounds to me
as though no one ever invented one.
Mr. Knox. Well there is no, as we say in our report we
don't have a baseline from which to start. There's no point in
time where we have any confidence in any inventory----
Ms. Norton. So bear that in mind that essentially there is
no record that the Park Police has ever in any administration
at any time done anything but keep the guns from getting out of
its control and apparently it has done that, but it has never
had the kind of professional system that we would expect a law
enforcement office to have. Of course the Park Police has been
among the most unappreciated and least well staffed police
forces, Federal police forces. And you know it shows.
So I understand this is an important issue. I represent
this city. If the Park Police don't keep control of guns then,
of course, in no small measure this city may be the first to
feel the effects of it.
But we're asking the Park Police to create, invent a system
that was never in place at a time when they will not be able to
replace peace officers no matter how low the number gets when
and if they leave. So I want to make it clear that there are
mandates and there are mandates. And I certainly hope nothing
in this hearing makes you believe that there is any mandate
more important than making sure that our monuments, our
visitors and the people, our Federal employees, the people who
come to this city in huge numbers every day, are safe.
Mr. Knox, this may not be done as fast as it should be but
I assume you also would believe that their first priority
should be the protective mandate of any police force.
Mr. Knox. Congresswoman, of course we do. I do as well
personally. But I would like to say that weapons accountability
is a very fundamental task of a law enforcement agency and not
a difficult one to achieve. It just takes leadership.
Ms. Norton. Agreed. And I'm the first to agree to that. As
I say. My district would be the first to feel the effects. But
you're talking to people who cannot fill any position at any
time and whose budget is going to go lower and lower each year
unless we do something about it. I think everybody ought to put
all the cards on the table, and that's the big elephant in this
hearing room today.
And I yield back the balance of my time and I thank the
chairman.
Mr. Chaffetz. And I thank the gentlewoman. I would remind
the gentlewoman that the U.S. Park Service spends some $50
million a year acquiring new properties, acquiring new things.
We can't even take care of what we have now. So if you share my
commitment that we need the proper personnel, they need to be
trained, they need to be supervised properly, perhaps the
gentlewoman would join me in making sure that rather than
acquiring new things and spending to the tune of $50 million a
year doing so within just this one department, maybe we should
take care of what we have here today.
Now I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I
recognize him for 5--I'm so sorry the gentleman from Michigan,
Mr. Bentivolio, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
be perfectly clear. There's no doubt in my mind that I don't
think our officers on the job are not doing that job and
protecting the life and property of the United States
Government as well as our visitors.
But Ms. Chambers, Chief Chambers, I'm still a little
concerned. You said something earlier that you did not know
what a report of survey was, what last year you just learned of
it? Is that right?
Chief Chambers. After the interview with the Inspector
General's investigator, I then inquired of my staff, what is
this term? What does it mean? And they provided me with all the
background.
Mr. Bentivolio. And how long have you been in this
position?
Chief Chambers. Sir, I was reinstated in January of 2011.
Mr. Bentivolio. Reinstated.
Chief Chambers. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. That means you held this position before?
Chief Chambers. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. What years was that?
Chief Chambers. 2002 and 2003, sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. So you held this position before and you
didn't find out what a report of survey was?
Chief Chambers. I had never heard the term, sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. Do you have any military experience?
Chief Chambers. No, sir, I don't.
Mr. Bentivolio. Okay. You know, I could pretty much ask
most privates and corporals and surely an E5 sergeant what a
report of survey is and they will be able to tell you. And I'm
a little bit surprised and disturbed that somebody at your rank
doesn't understand that.
Now let me ask you another question real quickly. If I went
and just stopped in one of your field offices where there were
some rifles or pistols and I asked you and read the serial
number, would you be able to tell me where it was acquired,
when it was acquired, who had it or a chain if you will or,
yes, somebody signed for it, a hand receipt for it, anything
like that?
Chief Chambers. Not knowing the capabilities of the
financial business management system that we just got access
to, I don't know that answer today, but I'd be glad to find out
for you.
Mr. Bentivolio. So--let's say I'm an officer. Do I come in
and say hey I would like to check out a rifle, I'm qualified, I
was a master gunner for my unit, I'm SWAT trained, former
military policeman, I know how this works.
How do I get that weapon?
Chief Chambers. Actually we've got such a request right
now. An officer would request to have one assigned to him so
that he doesn't have to go to an arms room. It would be
assigned to him each and every day to take out on patrol.
Mr. Bentivolio. What do you mean you don't have an arms
room? If he signs it out every day you have to have a secure--
--
Chief Chambers. It would be a secure area for him, yes,
sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. So these are locked up overnight when he is
not on duty?
Chief Chambers. Correct, sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. And then he shows up in the morning, he is
going on duty, does he sign for that weapon?
Chief Chambers. He better. I don't know the answer----
Mr. Bentivolio. He'd better?
Chief Chambers. There are sign-out procedures.
Mr. Bentivolio. Okay, well, there should be an armorer or
somebody that hands that weapon over to him and he signs for
it. Is that correct?
Chief Chambers. That's correct, sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. All right. Now if you're not doing that,
I'm going to highly recommend U.S. Army veterans. Do you hire
any veterans?
Chief Chambers. We do, sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. Well, you know, they know this stuff
backwards and forwards. They know the procedure. Maybe you
should consult somebody who has experience in this area other
than somebody who, well, apparently doesn't know. Because there
should be a chain of title or a chain that I can look at right
now and see a serial number and ask you where that weapon is or
find out immediately where that weapon is and who had it at all
times at any moment.
And you know in the Army if you didn't do that in my unit,
you'd be relieved on the spot, there would be a report of
survey on the spot, five or six officers would have their heads
rolling if they didn't get it fixed within hours.
Chief Chambers. And that's certainly the ultimate goal.
Mr. Bentivolio. But nobody's head's rolling. Nobody
understands. And I keep hearing 5 to 10 years, and apparently
you didn't know what a report of survey was even back in 2002
when you held this position.
Chief Chambers. That's correct.
Mr. Bentivolio. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my
time. Thank you.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
I will recognize myself as we wrap this up. I do have a few
more questions.
Chief, how is it that somebody could walk up to the Lincoln
Memorial, throw green paint on it, and walk away without
anybody noticing? How does that happen?
Chief Chambers. Sir, if a criminal is intent on committing
a crime in the presence or outside the presence of a police
officer's view, he or she can do it. Fortunately, we have got
technology that has helped us gather the evidence needed in
this case.
Mr. Chaffetz. Why wasn't that person apprehended on the
spot? Is there not a person there patrolling at the time?
Chief Chambers. There is, sir. And he had just left that
side of the statue and was actually on the back side at the
moment that it occurred. I'm confident that it happened very
quickly based on other witness statements.
Mr. Chaffetz. I find it totally and wholly unacceptable
that we don't have the adequate control on something so
precious and so visible, so close to the White House as the
Lincoln Memorial. It is just stunning. We will have to get into
that further.
How much ammunition do you have?
Chief Chambers. Sir, we have approximately 500,000 rounds
of ammunition, and we will be using about 200,000 of that here
in the next few months for requalification. That happens twice
a year.
Mr. Chaffetz. So 200,000 rounds for 640 people, I will have
to work back and do the math, that seems like an awful lot
actually as I kind of calculate it right off the top of my head
here.
What I would like, and Mr. Jarvis, I would like this from
you and Ms. Thorsen as well, all seven of the agencies, I hope
you find it reasonable to ask for the current inventory. We've
done this with other departments and agencies, we did it with
the Social Security Administration, we have done it with
others, it is not a new ask, to provide us a listing of how,
the current inventory of all the weapons broken out by each of
the seven agencies, the departments, whatever you want to call
them, that would also include the inventory of ammunition.
And if you could also show us the historical purchases of
both weapons and ammunition for the last 5 years, that would be
very helpful.
And the final thing that I would ask is a projection on
what you anticipate purchasing over the next 24 months. I know
that crosses a couple different fiscal years and what not but
certainly you have some sort of projection. And Mr. Jarvis, is
that a reasonable ask?
Mr. Jarvis. I think that the ask for the current inventory
is very reasonable. I think we can supply that. At least I'm
speaking for the Park Service, I can't speak for the other
agencies, and also inventory weapons and ammunition.
Projections--one caveat I would say going back and looking over
the past 5 years of procurement, that will be, that's a big
lift. As was indicated here a little bit behind the scenes, we
have transitioned to a new accounting system----
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, what's a reasonable time that you would
get that to the two committees?
Mr. Jarvis. I will have to get back to you on what, how
much time that will take. I don't want to overpromise and
underdeliver on that, so I want to be able to tell you how long
it would take.
Mr. Chaffetz. Could we say September 7th; is that a
reasonable time, over a month away?
Mr. Jarvis. That we could get back to you with how long it
will take?
Mr. Chaffetz. No. No.
Mr. Jarvis. I cannot promise you that I can have 5 years of
procurement data to you by September 7th. That is unreasonable.
Mr. Chaffetz. Let's say this, by the end of August that you
would get us the current inventory, which you supposedly have
right at your disposable at this time, and we will give you an
additional 30 days for the projection of procurement. Is that
fair, the end of September for the procurement projections?
Mr. Jarvis. I would guess that our projection for
procurement is probably the next 12 months, because we don't--
fiscal year----
Mr. Chaffetz. Next 12 months is a start. That gives you
almost 60 days to do the, I think that's reasonable. Ms.
Thorsen, can we do that with all the agencies or all the
departments under those time parameters?
Ms. Thorsen. Well, I also don't want to overpromise and
underdeliver.
Mr. Chaffetz. I'm asking you to make a commitment. You are
the one in charge.
Ms. Thorsen. I will work with the other directors in the
bureaus to ensure that they get the direction and that we move
forward, absolutely.
Mr. Chaffetz. And that you will hit those dates.
Ms. Thorsen. Yes.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chaffetz. Now I yield to or recognize the gentleman
from Utah, Chairman Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I was just making sure when he said the
gentleman from Utah he actually meant me.
Mr. Knox, you didn't go through an assessment of
procurement or storage or anything else of ammunition, did you,
in the report?
Mr. Knox. Mr. Chairman, no, we did not.
Mr. Bishop. Were there anecdotal evidences or issues that
you saw as you were going through the report?
Mr. Knox. Anecdotally we observed as we moved through the
various facilities conditions which could be enhanced for
security, all of which I should mention, sir, were known by the
Park Police and something they are dealing with.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Thorsen, you have a policy for missing
weapons?
Ms. Thorsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Knox, did Chief Chambers know that policy
for missing weapons?
Mr. Knox. Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell you whether she knew
or did not know.
Mr. Bishop. Isn't--the claim is that you were not aware of
that policy, though, is that right, Ms. Chambers?
Chief Chambers. I believe the report would make one believe
that I did not know, but that is not accurate, sir.
Mr. Bishop. You did know?
Chief Chambers. Of course, sir.
Mr. Bishop. That means you should have done something about
it then.
Chief Chambers. Sir, we have no evidence of missing
weapons.
Mr. Bishop. Right. There is a couple of last requests I'm
going to have from everybody here.
Mr. Knox, this is something for which you are not
responsible but we are going to call for it one more time, Miss
Kendall's title is Acting IG, right?
Mr. Knox. Mr. Chairman, she uses the title Deputy IG, which
is the position she held. She did act for a while but the
vacancy act----
Mr. Bishop. Is there an IG, a permanent IG?
Mr. Knox. No, sir, we at the Interior Department do not
have----
Mr. Bishop. It has been about 4 years since we had one,
right? I'm going to make this call one more time as our
committee has previously. There needs to be a permanent IG
appointed and it would give some more credibility to the
reports that are coming out of your office. I want--we need to
have a permanent IG. I appreciate that.
Mr. Jarvis, I do have some empathy for the position you
have, especially when the Park Police has an autonomous streak
to it, but the responsibility is still to come back with these
reports. I notice that many of the recommendations we're asking
to be done by October 1st, to be completed by October 1st.
I would like you to supply our committee with the evidence
of what you have done by October 1st to implement all these
recommendations. And I appreciate that.
Ms. Thorsen, it would be the same thing, if we can get by
October 1st the implementation report from what you have been
doing.
Ms. Chambers, are you a political appointee in this
position or are you a merit?
Chief Chambers. Merit, sir.
Mr. Bishop. So you will stay there until you decide to
retire?
Chief Chambers. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. We need a better job. This is not acceptable
from those who are under you. And that's all there is. This
report should never have come out because in 2003 your entity
lost 133 guns. They found them in pawn shops in Georgia, a
couple of them. This will not happen again. This should not
happen again. It is your responsibility. Make sure it does not
happen again.
And, Mr. Jarvis, we will hold you accountable for that as
well.
Chief Chambers. You have my commitment, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. The gentleman yields back. We'll recognize
the ranking member, Mr. Tierney, from Massachusetts.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Jarvis, in this particular instance, following this
report, have there been any identification of lost weapons?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir, there have not.
Mr. Tierney. No indication of people finding them in pawn
shops or anything else?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Knox, you did a weapons accountability
overview on your report and recommended that they have a better
system of weapons accountability, correct?
Mr. Knox. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. And you base that on best practices in the law
enforcement field?
Mr. Knox. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. And that's reflected in your recommendations?
Mr. Knox. It is in fact.
Mr. Tierney. Okay. Mr. Jarvis, you have looked at those
eight recommendations, and you think they are reasonable?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes and there are 10 actually, I looked at all
ten.
Mr. Tierney. And Ms. Chambers, you agree?
Chief Chambers. I do, sir.
Mr. Tierney. And you are in the process of trying to
accommodate all of those 10 recommendations, correct?
Chief Chambers. Some have already been completed. Many of
the others are well on their way, sir.
Mr. Tierney. And Mr. Knox, you have committed to having a
constant overview of this progress?
Mr. Knox. Yes, sir. As I stated in my opening remarks, we
feel we must stay engaged and continue some reviews.
Mr. Tierney. How will you do that?
Mr. Knox. We will schedule reviews and inspections after we
receive results from the National Park Service on the
implementation of our 10 recommendations.
Mr. Tierney. And if you feel that they're falling
unreasonably behind the schedule for time you said you will
notify the committees that are here today?
Mr. Knox. Yes, sir, we will.
Mr. Tierney. And neither Mr. Jarvis or Ms. Chambers have
any difficulty with that at all; you're set on that process? Do
you feel that each of you has the personnel that's competent to
carry out these recommendations?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, and we have drawn from the Department of
the Interior as well to assist us in that work.
Mr. Tierney. And Ms. Thorsen, you are satisfied with that
as well?
Ms. Thorsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you all for your testimony. I yield
back.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. We appreciate your attentiveness
to this matter. We look forward to hitting those dates and
those commitments that we have made, and the committee now
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82717.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82717.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82717.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82717.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82717.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82717.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82717.010