U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–546 PDF 2017

THE ADMINISTRATION’S RESPONSE 

TO FINDINGS OF UNETHICAL AND 

CRIMINAL CONDUCT AT THE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Thursday, June 23, 2016 

Serial No. 114–47 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

LOUIE GOHMERT, TX, Chairman 

DEBBIE DINGELL, MI, Ranking Democratic Member 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Jared Polis, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Vacancy 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Day, Thursday, June 23, 2016 ................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Dingell, Hon. Debbie, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan, Prepared statement of ................................................................ 4 

Gohmert, Hon. Louie, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas .............................................................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Guertin, Steve, Deputy Director of Policy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................................. 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 14 

Kendall, Mary, Deputy Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, 

U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................................. 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 9 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Hice, Hon. Jody, June 16, 2016 Letter to President Obama ......................... 17 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 30 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ADMINISTRATION’S RESPONSE TO FINDINGS OF 

UNETHICAL AND CRIMINAL CONDUCT AT 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Thursday, June 23, 2016 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Louie Gohmert, 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gohmert, Westerman, Hice, Mooney, 

LaHood, and Bishop (ex officio). 

Mr. GOHMERT. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will come to order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the 

Administration’s response to findings of unethical and criminal conduct at the Department of the Interior. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at the 

hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 

Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other 

Members’ opening statements made be made part of the hearing 

record if they are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 

p.m. today. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

We were notified that Ranking Member Dingell would not be 

able to be here. You may be aware we had an interesting evening 

and finished votes, I think, sometime after 3:00 a.m. 

I will also say that it is a pleasure to work with Congresswoman 

Debbie Dingell. She is, I have found, one of the more honorable, decent people of integrity like her husband, and it is a pleasure to 

work with her. I think a great deal of her and I am proud to consider her a friend. 

Now, I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GOHMERT. A month ago this committee examined unethical 

conduct on the part of officials at the Department of the Interior, 

including Jonathan Jarvis, the Director of the National Park 

Service, who openly lied to the Secretary and attempted to mislead 

the OIG. 

I mentioned then that the Department’s failure to hold its employees accountable facilitates unethical and illegal behavior. The 

Department witness repeatedly testified that Interior has ‘‘a 

culture of compliance.’’ Despite this, Secretary Jewell recently 

2 

issued a warning to 70,000 agency employees to ‘‘comply with the 

ethical responsibilities expected of all Federal employees.’’ 

Since that hearing, more reports of unethical and illegal acts 

have been released. 

The OIG reported that former BLM Director Bob Abbey personally arranged to sell Bureau of Land Management land in Nevada, 

so that his company could benefit to the tune of $528,000. The 

Department of Justice chose not to prosecute Mr. Abbey, despite 

OIG presenting the case to two separate U.S. Attorneys. 

OIG also investigated Stephen Barton, Chief of Administration 

and Information Management for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Mr. Barton failed to disclose that he was earning income, 

totaling nearly $400,000, from serving as treasurer of an association that receives grants from and is audited by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

While lying about his employment conflict of interest, OIG also 

found that Mr. Barton lived in Idaho while being paid a substantially higher amount by claiming Washington, DC as his residence. 

To top it off, Mr. Barton billed taxpayers over $96,000 for travel 

between the two locations. 

DOJ declined to prosecute the case. 

OIG also revealed that a U.S. Geological Survey lab in Colorado 

consistently manipulated lab results that are used by the Energy 

Resources Program and countless other entities from 2008 to 2014 

and, possibly, as far back as 1996. The full impact and scope of this 

falsified data is unknown, but it is sure to be far reaching and 

serious. 

At our last hearing, it was disclosed that OIG had confirmed a 

long-term pattern of sexual harassment at Grand Canyon National 

Park, where over 80 people were victimized. Leadership who allowed this practice to continue for years were not disciplined, and 

DOJ again refused to prosecute. I say ‘‘were not disciplined’’ 

because what was done was actually a favor to the culprit rather 

than a punishment. 

We now have learned that the problem extends to other locations 

in our national park system, including the Canaveral National 

Seashore, where the manager sexually harassed employees over a 

period of 5 years. To make matters even worse, the OIG has made 

us aware that additional, unrelated cases of sexual harassment are 

currently under investigation. 

Perhaps these serious issues should not be a surprise when such 

matters have been referred to a National Park Service Director 

who has shown a clear disinterest in following the ethics guidelines 

himself. 

And, yesterday, we were informed that Fay Iudicello, an SES 

employee in the Secretary’s office, egregiously violated hiring regulations on multiple occasions in order to secure a job for her family 

member. Not only that, but in the process, she also instructed her 

subordinates to eliminate qualified veterans from the pool of candidates because she did not want to have a disabled veteran on 

staff. Her discriminatory and illegal actions resulted not in her 

dismissal but, instead, in the employment of her relative and the 

rejection of more qualified veteran candidates. 

3 

Failure of accountability extends beyond the Department of the 

Interior. Of 29 criminal cases that the OIG referred to the Department of Justice over the course of 6 months, 17 were declined for 

prosecution. This number is troubling, especially when DOJ participates alongside the OIG in some of these investigations it ultimately declines to prosecute. 

While Justice’s involvement in OIG investigations can be beneficial, it can also slow the pace of an investigation, and it can limit 

what OIG is able to report to Interior for accountability purposes. 

We invited DOJ to testify today to help us understand how it 

works with the OIG, and how it decides whether to prosecute cases 

involving clear criminal violations. Rather than send a witness, 

DOJ instead put off the committee for days, questioned committee 

staff as to whether our committee has the right to request their 

presence at the witness table, and ultimately suggested that we 

read the ‘‘Principles of Federal Prosecution’’ online instead. 

So, let me be clear. It is completely appropriate for this committee to request the presence of the Department of Justice at the 

witness table. We have a valid interest in its involvement in these 

OIG investigations and in learning from DOJ itself about its processes for handling OIG referrals. 

The DOJ’s refusal to be here today casts their record of nonprosecution of Administration misconduct into a light of accommodating such misconduct. 

I thank the witnesses for coming here today and I look forward 

to their testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gohmert follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

A month ago this committee examined unethical conduct on the part of Department of the Interior officials, including the Director of the National Park Service, 

Jonathan Jarvis, who openly lied to the Secretary and attempted to mislead the 

OIG. 

I mentioned then that the Department’s failure to hold its employees accountable 

facilitates unethical and illegal behavior. The Department witness repeatedly testified that Interior has ‘‘a culture of compliance.’’ Despite this, Secretary Jewell 

recently issued a warning to 70,000 agency employees to ‘‘comply with the ethical 

responsibilities expected of all Federal employees.’’ 

Since that hearing, more reports of unethical and illegal acts have been released. 

The OIG reported that former BLM Director Bob Abbey personally arranged a 

sale of BLM land in Nevada so that his company could benefit to the tune of 

$528,000. The Department of Justice chose not to prosecute Mr. Abbey, despite OIG 

presenting the case to two separate U.S. Attorneys. 

OIG also investigated Stephen Barton, Chief of Administration and Information 

Management for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. OIG found that Mr. Barton 

failed to disclose that he was earning income—totaling nearly $400,000—while he 

served as treasurer of an association that receives grants from and is audited by 

the Fish and Wild Service. While lying about his employment conflict of interest, 

OIG found that Mr. Barton also lived in Idaho while being paid a substantially 

higher amount by claiming he resided in Washington, D.C. To top it off, Mr. Barton 

billed taxpayers over $96,000 for travel between the two locations. 

DOJ declined to prosecute this case. 

OIG also revealed that a U.S. Geological Survey lab in Colorado consistently manipulated lab results that are used by the Energy Resources Program and countless 

other entities from at least 2008 to 2014, and possibly as far back as 1996. The full 

impact and scope of this falsified data is unknown, but it is sure to be far reaching 

and serious. 

4 

At our last hearing, we mentioned that OIG had confirmed a long-term pattern 

of sexual harassment at Grand Canyon National Park, where over 80 people were 

victimized. Leadership who allowed this practice to continue for years were not disciplined and DOJ again refused to prosecute. 

We now have learned that the problem extends to other locations in our National 

Park System, including the Canaveral National Seashore where the manager 

sexually harassed employees over a period of 5 years. To make matters even worse, 

the OIG has made us aware that additional, unrelated cases of sexual harassment 

are currently under investigation. 

Perhaps these serious issues should not be a surprise when such matters have 

been referred to a National Park Service Director who is incapable of following 

ethics guidelines himself. 

And yesterday, we were informed that Fay Iudicello, an SES employee in the 

Secretary’s office, egregiously violated hiring regulations on multiple occasions in 

order to secure a job for her family member. And not only that, but in the process, 

she also instructed her subordinates to eliminate qualified veterans from the pool 

of candidates because she did not want to have a disabled veteran on staff. Her discriminatory and illegal actions resulted not in her dismissal, but instead in the employment of her relative, and the rejection of more qualified veteran candidates. 

Failure of accountability extends beyond the Department of the Interior. Of 29 

criminal cases that the OIG referred to the Department of Justice over the course 

of 6 months, 17 were declined for prosecution. This number is troubling, especially 

when DOJ participates alongside OIG in some of these investigations that it ultimately declines to prosecute. 

While Justice’s involvement in OIG investigations can be beneficial, it can also 

slow the pace of an investigation, and it can limit what OIG is able to report to 

Interior for accountability purposes. 

We invited DOJ to testify today to help us understand how it works with the OIG, 

and how it decides whether to prosecute cases involving clear criminal violations. 

Rather than send a witness, DOJ instead put off the committee for days, questioned 

committee staff as to whether this committee has the right to request their presence 

at the witness table, and ultimately suggested that we read the ‘‘Principles of 

Federal Prosecution’’ online instead. 

Let me make this clear—it is completely appropriate for this committee to request 

the presence of the Department of Justice at the witness table. We have a valid interest in its involvement in these OIG investigations, and in learning, from DOJ 

itself, about its processes for handling OIG referrals. The Department of Justice’s 

refusal to be here today makes me wonder what their motivations for failing to 

prosecute these cases really are. 

I thank our witnesses for coming here today and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The Chairman would normally recognize Mrs. 

Dingell; but, like I said, due to the unusual nature of the evening 

and the hardships it has placed on travel plans today, my friend, 

the Ranking Member, Mrs. Dingell, is not able to be here. 

I would ask unanimous consent that any opening statement she 

has would be made a part of the record. 

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Dingell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is our second hearing in this subcommittee that looks at reports from the 

Department of the Interior’s Inspector General. In the hearing on unethical conduct 

last month my colleague, Congressman Clay, sat in the Ranking Member chair because I was unable to attend and I am grateful for his commitment and effectiveness. He convincingly argued that instead of simply attacking the Administration 

for unethical conduct at the Department of the Interior, ‘‘We need to hear about the 

changes the Department is making to ensure the . . . cases before us aren’t 

repeated.’’ Thank you for responding to that request, Mr. Chairman. 

I am deeply concerned about the recent findings by the Inspector General. 

Undoubtedly, the individuals we will discuss today acted unethically. In the case of 

5 

the inorganics lab at the U.S. Geological Survey, the issue was so bad that it 

spanned three administrations with the most recent incident alone spanning two. 

This is unacceptable. 

Ensuring ethical conduct in the workplace is particularly critical for those who 

serve the public. The public must have faith that agencies serve their needs and 

tax dollars do not go to waste. During this time of low public trust in government, 

now more than ever we need to confirm that the Department responds to its ethical 

issues adequately. 

Let’s be frank. In any organization with over 70,000 employees, undoubtedly there 

will be bad decisions. In order to effectively manage those incidents, I believe three 

questions must be answered. 

First, has the Department taken the necessary steps to learn from the incidents? 

Did they take the time and effort to fully understand the problem, including the lessons the IG has to offer? 

Second, did the agency act to prevent these issues from re-occurring? Only by correcting past mistakes can the Department create a stronger and more ethical agency 

going forward. This administration has made multiple changes to try to correct the 

culture of corruption at key parts of the Department of the Interior that existed in 

the previous administration. It’s our job to make sure the Department responds to 

the most recent ethical lapses now. 

Third, are the cases at issue today isolated incidents or do they point to a more 

systemic problem? The authoritative voice on this question, Mary Kendall, has said 

that under this Administration there is now ‘‘a culture at Interior that, for the most 

part, is one populated by individuals who are committed to the mission and doing 

the right thing.’’ 

The Office of Inspector General’s Semiannual Reports to Congress support that 

statement. From October 2014 to March 2016, 56 employees of the Department of 

the Interior were suspended, reprimanded, and removed, transferred, resigned, or 

retired due to investigations by the Office of Inspector General. That’s a rate of 0.08 

percent for the agency as a whole. For comparison, that’s less than one-eighth the 

rate of corruption among members of the House of Representatives for that same 

time period. 

I also want to explore a statistic that speaks to a claim that seems to underpin 

this hearing. The Majority states that the DOI IG referred 29 cases to Justice, and 

Justice only took up 17 of those cases over a recent 6-month time period. The implication is that the DOJ is improperly turning down referrals from the IG. 

If we want to determine whether the Department of Justice in this Administration 

is treating offenders any differently than they should, we need a benchmark—some 

kind of point of comparison. So let’s look at how the DOJ has responded to serious 

offenses in the past. 

There is one case in particular that was mentioned in the previous hearing and 

provides a good reference point for what we are talking about today. I’m going to 

quote from the IG report. 

At the former Minerals Management Service under the previous administration, 

nearly one-third of the employees in one of the agency’s programs were receiving 

gifts and gratuities from the oil and gas industry. 

Employees were ‘‘effectively opting themselves out of the Ethics in Government 

Act, both in practice, and, at one point, even explored doing so by policy or 

regulation.’’ 

Employees ‘‘manipulated the contracting process from start’’ to enrich themselves. 

One employee pled guilty to a criminal charge. Two more were referred to the 

Department of Justice. And ‘‘others have escaped potential administrative action by 

departing from Federal service.’’ 

Employees ‘‘engaged in illegal drug use and illicit sexual encounters’’ with the 

very industry they were charged with regulating. That includes a supervisor who 

had sexual relations with subordinates and in consort with the oil and gas industry. 

As the report dryly says, ‘‘sexual relationships with prohibited sources cannot, by 

definition, be arms-length.’’ 

‘‘When confronted by our investigators, none of the employees involved displayed 

remorse.’’ 

This is a case that was so depraved that it makes the perpetrators of today’s case 

studies look like the Dalai Lama. On the surface, it seems that if ever there was 

a case that should have been prosecuted, it was this one. 

Still, that’s just one case. So I dug a little deeper and went all the way back to 

2001—the beginning of the previous administration—to look at the rate that cases 

were referred by the Interior IG to the DOJ but declined by DOJ. I used the same 

data source as the majority—semiannual OIG reports. It turns out that the previous 

administration’s Department of Justice declined to prosecute 67.1 percent of the 

6 

referrals from the DOI IG. Under this administration, it was 53.7 percent. So this 

administration prosecutes more of the Interior OIG cases than the previous 

administration. 

I think we need to take a good hard look at the cases we have before us today 

and make sure we are continuing to improve all the agencies at DOI. But let’s also 

make sure that we are being fair about the implications of these individual cases 

and examining all the evidence before we draw larger conclusions. Let’s make sure 

the Department of the Interior’s record of improvement has continued into this year. 

Let’s make sure the Department has learned from its mistakes. And let’s make sure 

the Department has the resources and the support it needs to guarantee employees 

continue to seek ethical consult going forward. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I will now introduce our witnesses. Ms. Mary 

Kendall is the Deputy Inspector General for the Office of the 

Inspector General at the U.S. Department of the Interior, and has 

testified here before. 

Ms. Kendall, welcome back. Thank you for being here. 

Then, Mr. Steve Guertin is the Deputy Director of Policy at the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Mr. Guertin, thank you for being here. 

Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules, 

oral statements must be limited to 5 minutes, but the entire written statement will appear in the hearing record regardless of your 

testimony. 

When you begin, the lights on the witness table will turn green. 

When you have 1 minute remaining the yellow light will come on. 

Your time will have expired when the red light comes on, and I will 

ask you to please conclude your statement. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Kendall for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARY KENDALL, DEPUTY INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. KENDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the work of the Office of the 

Inspector General. 

This hearing highlights the importance of bringing into the public view the role of the OIG as an independent, objective body to 

investigate matters that ultimately violate the public trust. 

I must emphasize the dedication and hard work of OIG staff and 

give credit to those who produce the results that are the subject of 

today’s hearing. 

These recent hearings have also reinforced our focus on analyzing patterns of misconduct, examples of retaliation or intimidation, and systemic failures in management and internal oversight 

of critical processes within the Department, such as human 

resources, and contract and grant management. 

With fewer than 80 investigators, we work with constrained resources to address the ever-increasing complaints and allegations 

we receive throughout the year from multiple sources. With limited 

time and resources, we tend to move from case to case without considering cross-cutting impacts or patterns that our investigations 

uncover. 

7 

Recently, however, we have begun to look for investigative trends 

that may eliminate more systemic issues within the Department 

and its bureaus. The OIG has established a reputation for fair and 

thorough investigative and audit work. While we produce a significant volume of both investigative and audit work, in light of our 

work size we are not always able to transmit and make public our 

work products as quickly as I would like. 

Our effort at transparency, something that I believe is unparalleled in the OIG community, has its own challenges. In preparing 

public versions of these investigative and audit results, we must 

address grand jury secrecy rules, privacy issues, confidential business and proprietary information protections, and protection of confidential sources. This effort can be quite time consuming, but I 

believe that the benefit of the resulting transparency is well worth 

the effort. 

By reducing the time we provide to the Department for consideration from 90 to no more than 30 days before publishing investigative reports or summaries on our Web site, we provide all of our 

stakeholders with clear expectations about the public availability of 

our reports. 

Much of our investigative work includes working with Assistant 

U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) and other officials in the Department of 

Justice. We have strong working relationships with many U.S. 

Attorney’s Offices, which has resulted in the prosecution of cases 

throughout the country. 

A couple of examples of these effective working relationships 

with DOJ are our considerable involvement with the Deepwater 

Horizon Task Force, both criminal and civil, which were led by 

DOJ and resulted in record-setting fines and penalties. 

We also had great success in the Guardians Task Force, which 

was led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana, 

to address public corruption involving tribal leaders. This model 

has become a standard for task forces in Indian Country. 

We consult with DOJ on all allegations that involve potential 

criminal violations. A considerable number of these cases do not get 

prosecuted for any number of appropriate reasons. 

Other times, a matter may be accepted for consideration for prosecution, but gets delayed due to higher priority cases or other resource limitations. The process of prosecutorial consideration is 

very deliberate, very detailed, and at times, completely out of our 

hands. 

I reiterate my thanks to the subcommittee for holding this hearing today, for giving these issues the attention they deserve, and 

for recognizing the need for transparency and accountability in this 

important area. 

This concludes my prepared testimony, and I am happy to 

answer any questions committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kendall follows:] 

8 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY L. KENDALL, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today regarding the work of the Office of Inspector 

General (OIG). This hearing, along with the previous hearing before this subcommittee and another recent hearing held by the House Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform, helps to highlight the importance of bringing into the public view the role of the OIG as an independent, objective body to investigate matters 

that ultimately violate public trust. I must emphasize the dedication and hard work 

of the OIG staff, and give credit to those who produce the results that are the subject of today’s hearing. 

These recent hearings have also reinforced our focus on analyzing patterns of misconduct, examples of retaliation or intimidation, and systemic failures in management and internal oversight of critical processes within the Department, such as 

human resources and contract and grant management. 

With fewer than 80 investigators, we work with constrained resources to address 

the ever-increasing complaints and allegations we receive throughout the year from 

multiple sources. We do so, in part, by capitalizing on a culture at Interior that, 

for the most part, is populated by individuals who are committed to the mission and 

doing the right thing. In fact, they are quick to report wrongdoing to the OIG. Just 

short of 50 percent of our complaints are generated by DOI employees and management. Another 15 percent of our complaints come from anonymous sources, many 

of which include information known only to DOI employees, so the total percentage 

is likely higher. 

With limited time and resources, our tendency has been to move from case to case 

without considering cross-cutting impacts or patterns that our investigations uncover. Recently, however, we have begun to look for investigative trends that may 

illuminate more systemic issues within the Department and its bureaus. 

The OIG has established a reputation for fair and thorough investigative and 

audit work. We are routinely called upon by the Department to conduct independent 

reviews of suspicious activity or allegations of misconduct. Several of the recent 

cases giving rise to congressional and media attention were generated by information reported to us by senior Departmental officials. As our reports reflect, however, 

the source of allegations does not influence the way in which we conduct our work, 

or report our investigative or audit findings. 

While we produce a significant volume of investigative and audit work, in light 

of our workforce size, we are not always able to transmit and make public our work 

products as quickly as I would like. We have implemented several internal processes 

to improve our timeliness without compromising the quality of our work and work 

products. As you know, we have also implemented a policy of making public essentially all of our investigative reports whether allegations are substantiated or not, 

as well as some additional audit reports that had not been published previously. 

This effort at transparency—something that is unparalleled in the OIG community—has its own challenges. In preparing public versions of these investigative and 

audit results, we must address grand jury secrecy rules, privacy issues, confidential 

business and proprietary information protections, and protection of confidential 

sources. This effort can be quite time consuming, but I believe that the benefit of 

the resulting transparency is well worth the effort. 

As I explained in my testimony for the May 24, 2016 hearing before this subcommittee, we have recently streamlined our process for publishing investigative reports, reducing the time we provide to the Department for review and action from 

90 to 30 days, before we provide investigative reports to Congress and publish those 

reports or summaries on our Web site. This change provides all of our stakeholders 

with clear expectations about the public availability of our reports. Since the improved publishing process was implemented, only one report has been delayed to 

allow the Department of Justice additional time for prosecutorial consideration. 

Much of our investigative work includes working with Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

and other officials from the Department of Justice (DOJ). We have strong working 

relationships with many U.S. Attorney’s offices, which have resulted in the prosecution of cases throughout the country. An example of this effective working relationship with DOJ is our considerable involvement in the Deepwater Horizon task 

forces—both criminal and civil—which were led by DOJ and resulted in recordsetting fines and penalties. We also had great success in the Guardians task force, 

which was led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana, addressing 

public corruption involving tribal leaders. This model has become a standard for 

task forces in Indian Country. 

9 

We consult with DOJ on all allegations that involve potential criminal violations. 

A considerable number of these cases do not get prosecuted for any number of appropriate reasons. Other times, a matter may be accepted for consideration for prosecution, but gets delayed due to higher priority cases or other resource limitations. 

The process of prosecutorial consideration is very deliberate, very detailed, and, at 

times, completely out of our hands. 

OIGs face significant hurdles to get their cases prosecuted. In certain areas of the 

country, we are presenting white collar crimes that simply do not meet the guidelines of the particular U.S. Attorney’s office. We also compete against more 

notorious crimes, such as human trafficking, murder, drug conspiracies, and other 

violent crimes. These are among the reasons why some of our cases that we wish 

would be prosecuted are declined. 

I reiterate my thanks to the subcommittee for holding this hearing, for giving 

these issues the attention they deserve, and for recognizing the need for transparency and accountability in this important area. 

This concludes my prepared testimony. I am happy to answer any questions that 

the members of the subcommittee may have. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. GOHMERT TO MARY KENDALL, 

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF THE INTERIOR

Question 1. Please verify whether or not Mr. Abbey and his business partner are 

still doing business with either BLM or the Department of the Interior. 

Answer. We have not found any contracts or financial assistance awards for Mr. 

Abbey; his business partner; Robcyn, LLC; or Abbey, Stubbs and Ford, LLC. 

Question 2. What has your office and the Office of Suspension and Debarment 

done to ensure Mr. Abbey will no longer be able to do business with either DOI or 

its subsequent agencies? 

Answer. The Administrative Remedies Division of the Office of Inspector General 

reviews business entities that lack business integrity or have a history of poor performance of contractors, participants, or financial assistance recipients and makes 

recommendations to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Suspending and 

Debarring Official for administrative actions. Our Administrative Remedies Division 

is currently reviewing the information available regarding Mr. Abbey, his business 

partner, and their firm to make an appropriate recommendation about suspension 

and debarment. 

Question 3. Your investigation also concluded that a realty specialist in the 

Nevada State Office provided non-public information to Mr. Ford during the presale 

process. According to the DOI Table of Penalties, each of the two regulations violated [5 CFR 2635.703 (2015) and 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(8) (2015)] carries potential 

penalties ranging from reprimand to removal. During the hearing, you mentioned 

that you ‘‘[had] not received any final information [. . .]’’ regarding actions DOI has 

taken to hold the specialist accountable. 

Please provide the committee an update on whether or not DOI has made 

progress on this issue. 

Answer. On July 27, 2016, BLM requested an additional 90 days to prepare their 

response to our report. We only granted a 30-day extension, however, and we expect 

a response from Deputy Director Dan Fowler, BLM Office of Law Enforcement and 

Security, on or before September 4, 2016. 

Question 4. During the hearing, you received questions regarding a DOI report 

analyzing incidents of scientific integrity, namely data manipulation, at the USGS 

Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado. 

When asked who the specific agencies and organizations (universities, private 

companies, etc.) were contracting with the lab or requesting studies from them, you 

stated ‘‘I know that USGS itself used the lab; I could not tell you, sitting here today, 

what other agencies used this lab. We may or may not have that information. If 

we have it, I would be glad to give it to you.’’ 

Please provide the committee a list of agencies and outside organizations that 

either contracted with the USGS Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood or 

requested studies from them. 

10 

Answer. 

Customers who submitted samples to the lab: 

1. USGS Scientists/Researchers stationed at the USGS Eastern Energy 

Resources Science Center in Reston, VA 

2. USGS Scientists/Researchers stationed at the USGS Central Energy 

Resources Science Center in Lakewood, CO 

3. Scientist at Southern Illinois University 

4. Scientist at State Geological Survey office in Pennsylvania 

5. Scientist at State Geological Survey office in Wyoming 

6. Scientist at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 

Customers and collaborators external to USGS: 

1. Southern Illinois University 

2. State Geological Survey office in Pennsylvania 

3. State Geological Survey office in Wyoming 

4. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 

5. S.S. Papadopulos & Associates—Bethesda, MD 

6. Civil & Environmental Engineering, Stanford University—Stanford, CA 

7. Department of Environmental Science, Xi’an Jiaotong—Liverpool University, 

Jangsu Province, People’s Republic of China 

8. Center for Geomicrobiology, Aarhus University—Aarhus, Denmark 

9. Afghan Geological Survey, sponsored by U.S. Agency for International 

Development 

10. United Nations Environment Programme 

11. ESKOM (a South African electric power generation/distribution utility 

company) 

12. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc. 

13. IEA Clean Coal Centre 

14. University of Texas at Dallas—Richardson, TX 

15. Craton Resources (Pty) Ltd.—Lobatse, Botswana 

16. Department of Geological Survey, Economic Geology Division—Lobatse, 

Botswana 

17. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul—Porto Alegre, Brazil 

18. Kiwira Coal Mines—Mbeya, Tanzania 

19. University of Zambia—Lusaka, Zambia 

20. Minufiya University—Sadat City, Egypt 

21. Ministry of Energy and Minerals—Dodoma, Tanzania 

22. University of Botswana—Gaborone, Botswana 

23. Afghan Geological Survey 

24. Colorado School of Mines—Golden, CO 

25. Genesis Gas & Oil LLC—Kansas City, MO 

26. Hess Corp. 

27. Denbury Resources 

Question 5. Please provide information about the process by which OIG worked 

with the Department of Justice in the Abbey, Barton, and Grand Canyon 

investigations. 

Answer. The U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) for the District of Nevada requested 

that the FBI investigate the circumstances surrounding the Henderson, NV land 

deal. We later joined that investigation after then-Secretary Ken Salazar asked us 

to investigate as well. Once we joined with the FBI, we coordinated regularly with 

the USAO and provided frequent updates on the status of the investigation. The 

USAO worked closely with our office and issued grand jury subpoenas in support 

of the investigation, but it ultimately declined to prosecute. 

OIG policy is to coordinate with a USAO within approximately 60 days of initiating a criminal investigation, which we did in both the Grand Canyon and Barton 

investigations. In most cases, the USAO does not accept a case that early in the 

investigation. We simply want to ensure that the appropriate USAO(s) is/are aware 

of our investigation and willing to assist should the need arise for grand jury subpoenas or warrants. 

11 

In the initial stages of our investigative work in the Barton case, we referred our 

findings to the USAO for the Eastern District of Virginia, which declined to prosecute. We subsequently referred our findings to the USAO for the District of Idaho, 

which also declined. After learning of our investigation, the Public Integrity Section 

of the Department of Justice asked to review our report. We are currently working 

with them on this case and a related investigation. 

After completing our investigative work in the Grand Canyon case, we referred 

our findings to the USAO for the District of Arizona, which declined to prosecute. 

Question 6. What types of subpoenas were used in those investigations? 

Answer. We used grand jury subpoenas in the Henderson land sale investigation. 

In the Barton investigation, we issued an IG subpoena to the Western Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for email correspondence. We did not issue any subpoenas in the Grand Canyon investigation. 

Question 7. Please provide insight you may have into why DOJ declined to 

prosecute those referrals. 

Answer. The Department of Justice provides guidelines to its Federal prosecutors 

in its U.S. Attorneys Manual, 9-27.220-27.260, available at https://www.justice.gov/ 

usam/usam-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution. This manual instructs prosecutors that, ‘‘no prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the government believes that the person probably will be found guilty by an unbiased trier of 

fact’’ (9-27.220). The manual also states that a prosecution should be declined if one 

of the following factors is present: ‘‘(1) No substantial Federal interest would be 

served by prosecution; (2) The person is subject to effective prosecution in another 

jurisdiction; or (3) There exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution’’ 

(Id.). Section 9-27.230 provides a list of factors (that it deems not ‘‘all-inclusive’’) 

that a prosecutor should use in determining whether there is a substantial Federal 

interest served by a prosecution. Although these guidelines apply to all DOJ prosecutors, individual U.S. Attorneys and DOJ Criminal Division offices vary widely on 

the types of cases they accept for prosecution. 

With respect to the three OIG investigations you referenced, the Barton matter 

is still under review by DOJ. In the Abbey matter, it is our understanding that it 

was declined because the U.S. Attorney’s Office concluded that the evidence was insufficient to sustain its burden of proof at trial. In the Grand Canyon matter, we 

discussed three individual subjects with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and were advised 

that prosecution was declined due to insufficiency of evidence. 

In some situations, obtaining a declination allows us to complete our investigations. Pursuant to our Office of Investigations manual and consistent with DOJ 

guidance, when we conduct a non-custodial interview of a current Department employee about matters that could result in criminal prosecution, our investigators are 

required to give one of two types of legal warnings. The first is the Garrity warning 

(named for a Supreme Court decision), which advises the employee that the interview is voluntary and that the employee will not be disciplined for refusing to answer questions. As part of this warning, the employee is specifically advised that 

he or she does not have to answer questions. 

After we receive a declination from a Federal prosecutor, our investigators can 

provide a Kalkines warning (named for a Federal court case) to the employee if he 

or she previously declined to answer interview questions. This warning compels the 

employee to answer questions and advises that failure to do so can result in disciplinary action. In effect, this legal warning provides the employee immunity from 

criminal prosecution through use of the information provided during the interview. 

Because immunity from prosecution can only be conferred by DOJ, it is only given 

after the appropriate U.S. Attorney’s Office or DOJ component has declined 

prosecution. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much, Ms. Kendall. We 

appreciate your testimony. 

At this time the Chair now recognizes Mr. Guertin for 5 minutes. 

12 

STATEMENT OF STEVE GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF 

POLICY, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. GUERTIN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today on behalf of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

I am Steve Guertin, Deputy Director. My remarks will focus on 

a recent report of the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of the Interior on the activities of former employee, Stephen 

M. Barton. 

First, I would like to emphasize that the Service greatly values 

the work of the OIG. OIG investigations and reports help educate 

and remind all Department of the Interior employees of the rules 

governing our work. The OIG’s work helps to maintain the professional integrity and ethical foundation that underpins public 

service, and the OIG aids our continuous efforts to improve 

management operations. 

Speaking for myself and everyone I talked with at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service about the Barton report, we were all outraged 

and concerned about the actions undertaken by Mr. Barton. Mr. 

Barton was Chief for Administration and Information Management 

in the all-important Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration, or WSFR 

Program. 

His Federal career began in September 2007 and ended last 

month. During part of that time, he simultaneously served as 

treasurer for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies, WAFWA. His position at WAFWA ended in early 2014. 

The findings of the OIG report are deeply troubling to all of us. 

The evidence suggests that Mr. Barton systematically and intentionally lied on his financial disclosure reports and lied on his 

ethics forms. Barton deceived, misled, and lied to his supervisor. 

He failed to disclose income he had received from WAFWA while 

he was also working as a Federal employee. 

He concealed the extent of his involvement with WAFWA. He 

violated a 2010 request for ethics approval to engage in outside 

work on which he had certified that he received no compensation 

from WAFWA, and that his work from WAFWA would be limited 

to less than 10 hours a week. 

In addition, the OIG report provides evidence that Barton received nearly $100,000 in travel reimbursements over a period of 

5 years for questionable travel. We believe he carefully and deliberately manipulated our systems and our personnel to engineer 

this travel for personal reasons. He concealed these actions. 

Upon initial review of the OIG report, the Service acted quickly 

to address problems that were identified in the report. We immediately moved Barton out of his position and curtailed his access 

to all travel and financial systems. The Service Director asked 

Barton’s supervisor to step aside and move to a new position 

outside of the program he previously led. We detailed our Chief 

Financial Officer to act as the Assistant Director for WSFR to ensure objective review, control, and management of the situation. 

Mr. Barton is no longer employed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. We have also served Mr. Barton with a collection notice to 

13 

recoup the nearly $100,000 of travel funds he manipulated for 

personal benefit. 

We have a strong system of internal controls designed to effectively mitigate risk and prevent these types of issues from occurring, but no system is perfect. Unfortunately, this is a situation 

where a senior employee lied to officials, intentionally subverted 

policies and procedures, and exploited the trust of his supervisor. 

In addition to the quick and decisive actions we took to address 

Barton’s misconduct, the Service has also undertaken a comprehensive review to ensure that our internal controls are sufficient to detect and prevent similar occurrences from taking place in the 

future. 

Like my colleagues in the rest of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

family, we are all outraged by his behavior. We believe the vast 

majority of the Service’s 9,000 employees are dedicated, hardworking, ethical, have great professional integrity, and take the 

mission of the Service and their individual responsibilities very 

seriously. Situations like these with Barton threaten to reflect 

poorly on all Service employees. 

That is one reason why, when we became aware of this unethical 

behavior, we took immediate and strong action. Such misconduct is 

unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

We appreciate the OIG’s thorough work on this investigation, 

and we appreciate the subcommittee holding this hearing to examine this issue. 

Thank you, and we are happy to answer any questions that you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guertin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR POLICY, 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member Dingell, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify on the Inspector 

General’s report on the actions of a former employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service). My name is Stephen Guertin. I am the Deputy Director for Policy 

for the Service. 

The Service recognizes and greatly values the important work that the Office of 

the Inspector General (OIG) performs to ensure that all individuals throughout the 

Department of the Interior are aware of, and adhering to, the laws, rules and regulations governing the work of Federal employees. The OIG’s work helps maintain 

the professional integrity and ethical foundation that underpins our public service. 

The OIG provides valuable assistance to our bureau as we continuously work on improving management operations. 

The OIG Report of Investigation titled: WAFWA Employment of USFWS Chief 

(Case No. OI–VA–15–0379–I) (June 7, 2016) concerns former Service employee 

Stephen M. Barton, who was Chief for Administration and Information Management in the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) program. The Service took 

prompt and appropriate action in response to this report and Mr. Barton is no 

longer employed with the Service. According to the OIG report, during part of that 

time, Mr. Barton also served as treasurer for the Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). His position at WAFWA spanned sometime in 2004 

through early 2014. 

The findings outlined in the OIG report are deeply troubling, and the Service took 

immediate action to address the specific situation and is working to ensure it will 

not be replicated in the future. The evidence presented in the OIG report suggests 

that Mr. Barton systematically and intentionally lied on his financial disclosure reports and ethics forms; that he deceived his supervisor; that he failed to disclose 

income he received from WAFWA while he was also working as a Federal employee; 

14 

and that he concealed the extent of his involvement with WAFWA. His nondisclosure was highlighted by his submission of a signed 2010 ‘‘Request for Ethics 

Approval to Engage in Outside Work’’ form, on which he certified that he received 

no salary or compensation from WAFWA and that his work for WAFWA would be 

limited to approximately 10 hours per week. In addition, the OIG report provides 

evidence that Mr. Barton received nearly $100,000 in travel reimbursements over 

a period of 5 years for questionable travel. It appears that he manipulated the 

Service’s systems and personnel to engineer this travel for personal reasons. 

Given the gravity of the issues raised in the OIG report, the Service acted quickly 

to appropriately address problems identified in the report. Upon receipt of the OIG 

report, Mr. Barton was immediately moved out of his position and barred access to 

all travel and financial systems. The Service Director asked Mr. Barton’s supervisor 

to step aside and move to a new position and the Service’s Chief Financial Officer 

was asked to step in as the Acting Assistant Director for WSFR. As noted in the 

OIG’s report, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Virginia and the 

District of Idaho declined the case for prosecution. 

At present, the Service is undertaking a separate, comprehensive review to ensure 

that internal controls related to Mr. Barton’s actions—controls that may apply to 

other Service employees—are sufficient to detect and avoid similar occurrences from 

taking place in the future. The Service’s corrective actions will include increased 

oversight related to outside employment, travel management, use of government 

property, and time and attendance. The Service has issued a reminder to qualifying 

employees that all external income needs to be reported on the annual financial disclosure form, and we are adding an additional level of review for this information 

and developing a verification process. In addition, the Service is issuing guidance 

to employees regarding what they can and cannot do when they have relationships 

with outside organizations and what may create a conflict of interest. We will be 

issuing a reminder to employees regarding prohibitions of the use of Federal property or information systems to conduct outside business. The Service is developing 

additional processes for oversight of travel, including a certification and audit 

process. 

We are also using this incident as an opportunity to underscore training and 

ethical responsibilities required by all Service employees. 

The vast majority of the Service’s over 9,000 employees are dedicated, hardworking, and ethical; have great professional integrity; and take the mission of the 

Service and their individual responsibilities very seriously. When we become aware 

of unethical behavior like that identified in this report, we take appropriate and immediate action. 

The Service appreciates the OIG’s thorough work on this investigation. We also 

appreciate the subcommittee holding this hearing to examine this issue. Thank you 

and I am happy to answer any questions you might have. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. GOHMERT TO STEVE GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Question 1. Please provide information about the specific amount Mr. Barton 

would have been paid had he been stationed in Boise, and the amount he was paid 

in Washington, DC. 

Answer. Mr. Barton’s former position as Chief of the Division of Administration 

and Information Management in the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program 

is located in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s headquarters office. During Mr. 

Barton’s tenure in that position he maintained a residence in Virginia, as well as 

a residence in Boise, Idaho where his family resided. 

In 2015, the salary for a GS-15, Step 10 with locality pay included for the Washington, DC-metropolitan area was $158,700. During the same year, a GS-15, 

Step 10 employee stationed in Boise, Idaho earned a salary of $150,830. This is a 

difference of $7,870. The salary differential in previous years was similar. 

Question 2. Please provide a detailed description of the approval process for Mr. 

Barton’s travel, including information about which expenses had to be approved, 

how often it had to be approved, and which individuals were responsible for 

approving and processing his travel. 

Answer. Mr. Barton utilized the Service’s standard process for approving his 

travel, which is as follows. 

When traveling, an employee requests a management assistant to prepare his or 

her travel authorization documents. The employee provides that staff person with 

the information related to travel locations, airlines, and times of departure. At 

15 

times, an employee directly enters travel information into the travel system 

(Concur) used by the Department of the Interior. In other instances, the employee 

requests a management assistant to enter the information. Through Concur, the employee or the management assistant selects flights and inputs any other associated 

costs with the trip (e.g. rental car, per diem, lodging, taxi, etc.). 

Once a travel authorization is complete, the employee and the management assistant electronically approve it. It is then routed to the employee’s supervisor, or 

the supervisor’s back-up (an acting GS-15 supervisor in the case of Mr. Barton), for 

electronic review and approval. Once the authorization is approved, the airfare, 

lodging, and rental car are booked. 

Upon returning from travel, an employee either enters the actual costs into a 

travel voucher or provides all the receipts from the trip to a management assistant 

to enter into the system. The system automatically identifies which per diem 

amounts the traveler is eligible for (based primarily on location). The management 

assistant adjusts this information in the voucher if needed. 

Once a trip voucher is complete and all supporting receipts are uploaded into the 

system, the voucher is signed by the management assistant. Then the employee reviews the voucher and if deemed appropriate, electronically signs it. Once signed by 

the employee, the program’s Administrative Officer reviews for accounting accuracy 

and appropriateness. If the Administrative Officer notes mistakes, the voucher is 

sent back to the employee and/or the management assistant for correction. Once the 

mistakes are corrected, the Administrative Officer approves the voucher electronically and forwards it to the final approver, the employee’s supervisor or the supervisor’s back-up. 

The Service has a strong system of internal controls designed to effectively 

mitigate risk and prevent these types of issues from occurring. In the specific case 

of Mr. Barton, he manipulated the Service’s procedures, protocol, and personnel to 

engineer his travel for personal reasons and exploited the trust of his supervisor. 

Question 3. Please provide the amount of per diem received by Mr. Barton while 

he was in Idaho between 2011 and 2015. 

Answer. Mr. Barton received $6,163.93 for per diem while he was in Idaho during 

the period between 2011–2015. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Guertin. I appreciate your 

testimony and appreciate your forthrightness. 

At this time, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. 

Ms. Kendall, you were very helpful in your testimony in our last 

hearing. You seemed very forthright, and I was curious; after your 

testimony here, was there anybody at the Department of the 

Interior that made any comment at all to you about your written 

or oral testimony here? 

Ms. KENDALL. We met with the Chief of Staff, the Deputy 

Secretary, and a member from the Solicitor’s Office to talk about 

how the Office of Inspector General might improve on what I referred to in my testimony, which is identify patterns and repeat offenses of retaliation and intimidation, people who are repeat 

offenders in terms of misconduct, and bring that to the attention 

of, essentially, the Secretary’s Office. 

What we have done in the past is usually work at the bureau 

level, work with the bureau directors, or sometimes even lower 

than that. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I was just curious if anybody commented at all to 

you about your testimony in the last hearing we had here. 

Ms. KENDALL. Not really, sir, no. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Does the Department of Justice work closely with 

you and the Inspector General’s Office on most of your 

investigations? 

Ms. KENDALL. I would not say most of them. The ones where we 

actually do identify potential criminal violations early, we might 

16 

engage the Department of Justice early. Many of the cases may 

have criminal implications, and we will not bring them until we 

have really come to the end of the case. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And it only makes sense that sometimes you will 

not find out criminal implications until you get deeper into the 

evidence that is there; correct? 

Ms. KENDALL. Exactly. 

Mr. GOHMERT. When the Department of Justice does get involved 

in OIG investigations, does that slow the progress of the 

investigation? 

Ms. KENDALL. It can slow the progress, yes, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Does it limit your ability at OIG to use 

subpoenas? 

Ms. KENDALL. No, sir, it does not. 

Mr. GOHMERT. It does not limit your ability to gather evidence 

that you can then submit to the Justice Department at all? 

Ms. KENDALL. When we work with U.S. Attorneys, we actually 

have an additional authority usually through the grand jury system. We maintain our Inspector General subpoena authority regardless; but, when a U.S. Attorney is involved, they usually decide 

whether to use a grand jury subpoena or an IG subpoena. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Is it unusual for the Department of Justice, in 

cases in which they are investigating with you, where you have 

identified early on that there appears to be potential criminal conduct—is it unusual for them to decline to prosecute the case? 

Ms. KENDALL. I would not say it is unusual. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Do you have any kind of feel for approximately 

how often DOJ declines to prosecute cases that you have submitted 

to them? 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t have a percentage or even a raw number. 

I could get that for you, sir. 

In the cases where we engage with the U.S. Attorney’s Office 

early, we usually have a sense of how things are going. We are 

usually hopeful that there will be a prosecution. 

Mr. GOHMERT. If you could get that number for us, that would 

be very helpful. 

Ms. KENDALL. We will do that. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Did the DOJ participate in the investigation of 

Bob Abbey in the Henderson land deal? 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, sir, they did. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Did you find evidence you believed indicated 

criminal violations in that Abbey land deal? 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Apparently you referred that case to two different 

U.S. Attorney’s Offices; correct? 

Ms. KENDALL. We may have. My recollection on that one is that 

we worked with one U.S. Attorney’s Office. We may have had a 

couple AUSAs working on it, but I may be mistaken there. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Did you believe there was sufficient evidence to 

go forward with the prosecution in that case? 

Ms. KENDALL. That is a difficult question to answer. We believe 

that there was enough evidence to present it to the U.S. Attorney 

to consider it for prosecution. I cannot speak for what the Department of Justice considers. 

17 

Mr. GOHMERT. And I would not ask you to speak for them. It 

would be hard enough for them to explain themselves. 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. My time has expired, and I have to go testify 

before a committee myself now. So, at this time, Mr. LaHood will 

be taking over as Chairman of the Committee. Hopefully, I will be 

able to finish and get back. 

At this time, I yield to Mr. Hice for 5 minutes. 

Dr. HICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

calling this hearing. 

This is now actually the third hearing on this issue that I have 

participated in, and after the two previous hearings, quite frankly, 

I have been shocked at the culture of corruption and misconduct 

that has been allowed to persist at the National Park Service. 

In fact, last Wednesday, Director Jarvis was at the Oversight 

and Government Reform Committee to answer some questions pertaining to allegations of sexual harassment, unethical behavior, 

misconduct, and on and on and on; and, unfortunately, for the 

members of that committee and for the citizens of the United 

States of America, Director Jarvis was not able to answer the questions, not even the simplest questions. 

And, Mr. Chairman, that is why this past Thursday, I actually 

sent a letter to President Obama, where I asked him to have 

Director Jarvis resign from his position, and I fully stand by that 

letter today. 

In fact, I would ask unanimous consent to include a copy of the 

letter in the record. 

Mr. LAHOOD [presiding]. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

WASHINGTON, DC 

June 16, 2016 

Hon. BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States, 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20500. 

Dear Mr. President: 

As a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and 

House Natural Resources Committee, I am deeply troubled by the pattern of misconduct and unethical behavior by employees of the National Park Service, and 

specifically, Director Jonathan Jarvis. Over the past month, I have had the opportunity now to participate in two separate hearings where the problems at this 

agency have become more publicly known. 

Unfortunately, this pattern of misconduct starts at the very top of the National 

Park Service with Director Jarvis. Last year, the Department of Interior’s Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) began an investigation associated with a book deal on the 

National Park System that Director Jarvis negotiated without consulting the 

Department’s Ethics Office. To make matters worse, the OIG noted in its report on 

Director Jarvis that he chose to avoid consultation with the Ethics Office because 

it would essentially delay his book from being published. 

Furthermore, this misconduct does not stop with Director Jarvis. In the hearings 

held in these two House Committees, we learned of two additional investigations 

conducted by the OIG on allegations of sexual harassment at the Grand Canyon 

National Park’s River District and Cape Canaveral National Seashore. In both 

locations, the OIG found that individuals chose not to come forward out of a fear 

18 

of professional retaliation or that complaints were not properly sent up the chain 

of command. 

Regrettably, in these cases—and others—the proper form of discipline was not 

pursued. In the case of Director Jarvis’ book deal, the only punishment he faced was 

that he was stripped of his authority to implement the Park Service’s Ethics 

Program and is required to attend monthly ethics training courses for the remainder 

of his tenure. Others have either been transferred out of their positions or have 

been allowed to retire without facing the punishment that fits the misconduct. 

These are just some of the examples of the ethical failures and misconduct committed by employees of the National Park Service and the lack of discipline they 

have faced. Ultimately, Director Jarvis must be held accountable for these actions. 

Therefore Mr. President, I believe that the time has come for you to call on Director 

Jarvis to tender his resignation as the Director of the National Park Service. Should 

he choose not to resign, I believe that you must relieve him of his duties effective 

immediately. 

Sincerely, 

JODY HICE, 

Member of Congress. 

cc: The Hon. Sally Jewell, Secretary, Department of the Interior 

Dr. HICE. Thank you. 

I also have had a little bit of time to review Director Jarvis’ book, 

which, incredibly to me, is entitled, ‘‘A Guidebook to American 

Values and our National Parks.’’ It is just amazing to me, this 

whole thing. 

Based on the OIG report on Director Jarvis, he obviously lied to 

Secretary Jewell. The report mentions that he deliberately avoided 

consulting the Ethics Office before writing this book. 

It is more than ironic, beyond ironic, to think that Director 

Jarvis has anything to offer us in terms of a guide on American 

values, when he, himself, is evidently so steeped in corruption. 

But with all of that in mind, Ms. Kendall, I want to thank you 

again for appearing before us. I would like to ask you a couple of 

questions. 

Following the subcommittee’s hearing on ethics last month, 

Director Jarvis decided to send an email to employees apologizing 

for his failure to have this book approved by proper officials. Are 

you aware of that email? 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, sir, I am. 

Dr. HICE. Your report on Director Jarvis lays out evidence that 

he misled your office in the course of the investigation. Has 

Director Jarvis apologized to you? 

Ms. KENDALL. No, sir. 

Dr. HICE. Referring back to the email that he sent to the 

National Park Service employees, did he apologize for lying to the 

Secretary of the Interior? 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t recall that was in his email. 

Dr. HICE. Do you recall whether or not he apologized for conspiring to create a fraudulent narrative basically where he claims 

that Eastern National asked him to write a book when, in fact, it 

was his idea to write the book, or was he simply apologizing in the 

email for his failure to submit the book for review? 

Ms. KENDALL. I would say his apology was much more the latter. 

I thought it was terribly qualified and not as sincere as I would 

have liked to have seen. 

19 

Dr. HICE. Is it possible, Ms. Kendall, that Director Jarvis still 

does not understand what he did wrong? 

I mean, if he is not able to apologize to your office for withholding relevant information during the investigation, if he is not 

willing or able to apologize for lying to the Secretary or acknowledging the fact of conspiring about the true origin of this book, does 

he not get it, or is he trying to avoid the real issue right now? 

Ms. KENDALL. I would say it is the latter. 

Dr. HICE. And what makes you say that? 

Ms. KENDALL. I would look at his letter to his employees. I think 

it suggested that he was sorry that it happened, but when he spoke 

to our investigators, as you know, sir, he said he would do it again 

if it came to that. 

Dr. HICE. Thank you very much. My time has expired, and I 

appreciate your testimony here today, Ms. Kendall. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

At this time we will yield 5 minutes to the Full Committee 

Chairman, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

I apologize for coming in late. I will make up for it by leaving 

right after I am done. 

Ms. Kendall, I appreciate you being here. You publicly, I believe, 

released a report yesterday. 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. The report details an incidence involving improper 

hiring and discrimination against veterans in the Office of the 

Secretary. Am I right in that assumption? 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. The report discussed how an individual at the office 

repeatedly violated hiring practices or procedures to secure a job 

for a relative. Is that also correct? 

Ms. KENDALL. It was a relative of her ex-husband, yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. I guess that is enough of a nexus. OK. 

How many times was the job posting rewritten or canceled to 

benefit this particular individual? 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t remember precisely. It was more than once. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Three, four, five, ten? 

Ms. THOMPSON. I would say two or three, perhaps. 

Mr. BISHOP. I understand from the report that the veterans who 

are more highly qualified and have veteran preference status were 

asked to withdraw their application at the direction of this 

individual. 

Ms. KENDALL. That is my understanding. 

Mr. BISHOP. I also understand that this individual instructed her 

subordinates to find reasons to disqualify those veterans who could 

not be convinced to withdraw their application, because she did not 

want a potentially disabled veteran on the staff. Am I reading that 

correctly from your report? 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe so, sir, yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. I also understand that discrimination against 

veterans and the continual rewriting of job postings did ultimately 

result in the employment of her former nephew, by marriage. Is 

that individual still employed at the DOI? 

20 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe so. 

Mr. BISHOP. When did this individual retire from the Interior 

Department, the one who hired? 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe she retired around the beginning of this 

calendar year. 

Mr. BISHOP. And, have there been any disciplinary actions taken 

against her, for what I say is an egregious hiring practice? 

Ms. KENDALL. Once she is retired, the Department is very 

limited in what they can do. 

Mr. BISHOP. Was it forced retirement? 

Ms. KENDALL. Not that I know of, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. How did you know about this? How did 

the investigation on this particular issue begin? 

Ms. KENDALL. I would have to—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Did someone inform you or is this kind of like a 

routine investigation that you do? 

Ms. KENDALL. No, I believe we had a complaint come in 

regarding this. 

Mr. BISHOP. And are there other cases in the pipeline of which 

you know? 

Ms. KENDALL. We have many, many cases in the pipeline. I don’t 

know that we have any with this kind of egregious hiring issues. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, I admit it is egregious, and I thought we were 

past that. 

I appreciate the report. I appreciate your coming here and testifying, and I appreciate your bringing this to light, not only to the 

public in your report, but also to the committee. So, thank you very 

much. 

Ms. KENDALL. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. I will yield back. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

At this time we will yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 

Arkansas, Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I also would like to extend my thanks to the witnesses for being 

here this morning. 

Ms. Kendall, as I listen to the testimony and the questions, it reminds me how important it is to have transparency in our government and how important your job is as an Inspector General in 

shining light on some of these issues. It appears that you have 

quite a bit of job security with the way some of these agencies have 

been operating. 

My specific questions have to do with the OIG’s investigation of 

the Henderson, Nevada land sale. That is the OIG’s investigation 

into Bob Abbey, the former Director of the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

Who requested that the OIG investigate Mr. Abbey? 

Ms. KENDALL. The former Secretary, Ken Salazar. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. OK. And also I believe this committee. 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, sir, we got a letter from then-Chairman Doc 

Hastings. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And what did the OIG investigation ultimately 

find? 

21 

Ms. KENDALL. What we found is that there was unusual access 

to the BLM by Bob Abbey’s former partner, who was involved in 

the land sale, and that Abbey had personal substantial involvement in the approving of that land sale, which is a violation of the 

ethics rules. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. What specific actions did Mr. Abbey take? 

Ms. KENDALL. Going by recollection, I believe that he met specifically with the individual who was trying to accommodate the sale, 

who was his former partner and would be his partner again when 

he retired; and if I remember correctly, he was the ultimate person 

who needed to approve the sale. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So was he recused from his prior business 

dealings before this time? 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Did he abide by the ethics pledge he took and 

the recusal agreements he signed? 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t believe so. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. OK. Are Mr. Abbey and his business partner, 

Mr. Ford, continuing to do business with BLM? Is that appropriate 

given the allegations your office has substantiated? 

Ms. KENDALL. In that regard, sir, I believe that my office is 

working with the Department’s Office of Suspension and 

Debarment to ensure that they are not able to do business with the 

Department of the Interior or, quite frankly, with other departments in the Federal Government. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. But right now they are still doing business? 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t know one way or the other, sir. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. OK. So the Abbey investigation also concluded 

that a realty specialist in the Nevada State Office provided nonpublic information to Mr. Ford during the pre-sale process. Did she 

violate any Federal regulations by doing so? 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Do you recall how many regulations she 

violated? 

Ms. KENDALL. Well, I don’t know—there are a number of them. 

Certainly she gave preferential treatment, which is something that 

a public service simply should not do; and she also provided information that was not readily available to the public to an 

individual. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Kind of like a government form of insider 

trading maybe? 

Ms. KENDALL. Perhaps. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So, what penalties apply when a Federal 

employee violates those regulations? 

Ms. KENDALL. There is usually a range of penalties. In this case 

I don’t know specifics, but it can be anything from a written reprimand to removal. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And finally, on this issue, has the Department 

of the Interior taken any action to hold the realty specialist 

accountable? 

Ms. KENDALL. We have received information that they intend to, 

but I don’t believe we have received any final information as to 

what they have done. 

22 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So, they intend to but they have not—and how 

long ago? 

Ms. KENDALL. It has probably been within the last 4 weeks that 

we received that response from the Department, but I can get that 

information to you. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. OK. And, Mr. Chairman, will we have a second 

round of questions? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Yes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I will yield back at this time. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

At this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West 

Virginia, Mr. Mooney. 

Mr. MOONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Kendall, I have had a lot of dealings with the Department 

of the Interior in West Virginia. We are dealing with coal mining 

and other issues. I work with them and deal with them on a lot 

of issues. I have a few questions for you. 

In your semi-annual report to Congress from March, you mentioned that, of the 29 cases you referred to the Department of 

Justice for prosecution, 17 were declined. Is that correct? 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe so, yes, sir. 

Mr. MOONEY. So, they would not prosecute 17. And do you refer 

all cases where laws are broken to the Department of Justice? I 

mean, they declined 17. So, are you just referring everything, or do 

you only refer those where the violations and weight of evidence 

would likely result in a conviction? 

Ms. KENDALL. We refer cases where we believe we have evidence 

of a criminal violation. We do not make the distinction that we 

have enough for a conviction. That is really for the Department of 

Justice to make that decision. 

Mr. MOONEY. OK, this was since March. Do you have any updated information about how many have been referred and declined 

since March? 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t have that today. We can certainly get that 

to you, sir. 

Mr. MOONEY. I would appreciate that. 

Are all the cases of criminal conduct that you refer to the 

Department of Justice about employee wrongdoing or do some of 

them involve non-government employees? 

Ms. KENDALL. Some certainly involve non-government employees. 

Mr. MOONEY. OK. And of the 17 cases that were declined, how 

many were employees of the Department of the Interior where they 

violated the law? 

Ms. KENDALL. Again, I would have to get that information to 

you, but I would be glad to do that. 

Mr. MOONEY. OK. And there is the statute of limitations. Is there 

a statute of limitations on the crimes that Mr. Barton committed? 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. MOONEY. Do you know when that expires? 

Ms. KENDALL. There is a general statute of limitations, about 5 

years for most crimes. 

Mr. MOONEY. OK. 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t know precisely for this. 

23 

Mr. MOONEY. OK. Is there also a statute of limitations for the 

crimes that Bob Abbey committed? 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe so. 

Mr. MOONEY. When would that time out? 

Ms. KENDALL. Probably about the same time. 

Mr. MOONEY. How does your typical referral to the Department 

of Justice work? For example, does your staff develop relationships 

with specific U.S. Attorneys? 

Ms. KENDALL. We often do that, yes. 

Mr. MOONEY. Once the DOJ declines to prosecute a case, do you 

know if they can prosecute at a later date? 

Ms. KENDALL. If the statute of limitations has not run out, they 

probably would have the technical authority to do so. 

Mr. MOONEY. OK. Then would you be willing to refer cases to the 

Department of Justice again for prosecution if the statute of limitations has not lapsed? 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t know that we have done that. There may 

have been some cases where we have gotten an initial declination; 

but in discussions with, say, the U.S. Attorney or Assistant U.S. 

Attorney, there is more work that we could do where we would represent, but I don’t come up with any examples of that offhand. 

Mr. MOONEY. So, you have not done it. Why? I mean, is there 

any reason you would not do it? 

Ms. KENDALL. There are reasons that we go to the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office to actually to get a declination. In some cases, we 

know that there is a potential crime, but there are problems with 

the case that it probably would not be prosecuted. If we get a declination from a U.S. Attorney’s Office, we can then compel a government employee to speak to us, whereas if the criminal actions 

were still outstanding, they would be able to refuse to speak to our 

investigating agents. 

Mr. MOONEY. OK. Thank you. 

My time is almost up. I will go ahead and yield back. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

I will yield myself 5 minutes at this time. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today and for your 

testimony. 

Mr. Guertin, I know in your opening statement you talked about 

the facts and circumstances involving Mr. Barton, which are, I 

think by your own adjectives, very, very troubling. 

And Mr. Barton, as I understand it, his title was Chief of 

Administrative Information and Management; and clearly he found 

a creative way to enrich himself illegally, but I guess the part that 

is really revealing is that he did it out in the open. 

As I understand it, Mr. Barton was stationed in Washington, DC; 

is that correct? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LAHOOD. But where was he actually living, Mr. Guertin? 

Mr. GUERTIN. My understanding is Mr. Barton maintained an 

apartment in the DC Metro area, so he had residency established 

in Virginia. The IG report revealed that he was making frequent 

travel back to Boise, Idaho. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And he was actually living in Boise. That is my 

understanding; correct? 

24 

Mr. GUERTIN. It appears he was visiting there quite frequently, 

yes, sir. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Beyond that, he was being paid Boise locality rates. 

Is that my understanding, or was it DC rates? 

Mr. GUERTIN. He would have been paid based on where his duty 

station was, which is the DC Metro area, sir. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And that would have been a higher rate; correct? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Slightly higher than what employees receive in 

Idaho, yes, sir. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And related to that locality rate, do you know how 

much additional income that deception provided him? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Probably a couple of thousand dollars a year, sir, 

in locality rate adjustment for a large metro area like DC versus 

a smaller town like Boise, Idaho. 

Mr. LAHOOD. If I told you that was about $15,000 that he 

received because of the DC locality rates, would you dispute that? 

Mr. GUERTIN. On a yearly basis, that sounds a little high, sir, 

but we can certainly verify for the record the specific amount that 

would have been the difference. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And, who paid for the travel, Mr. Guertin, for Mr. 

Barton to travel back and forth between Boise and Washington, 

DC? 

Mr. GUERTIN. He billed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 

that travel. 

Mr. LAHOOD. How many flights did Mr. Barton take between 

Boise and Washington, DC, between 2011 and 2015? 

Mr. GUERTIN. It appears, on the evidence that was provided to 

us by the OIG report, as well as our own forensics deep dive into 

the travel records going back those several years, he made a total 

of at least 50 round trip visits out there, which would have meant 

a total of 100 flights. 

The troubling thing about this former employee is that he engineered a lot of his travel to guise it under a need for meeting with 

constituent groups, partners, or others and routed himself through 

Boise. I used to live and work in the West myself and know there 

are regional airports like Boise, Salt Lake, and others. It is very 

easy to route yourself through a city like that. 

Mr. LAHOOD. So, my understanding is that the 100 trips that he 

took during this 3- or 4-year period cost about $96,000 to taxpayers. You would not dispute that; correct? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Just to clarify, sir, it would be a total of 50 round 

trips, 100 flights, and he did bill $96,000 and some change to the 

Federal Government, yes, sir. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Ms. Kendall, did your investigation also find that 

he charged expenses to the Federal Government when he was 

actually at home in Boise? 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, sir, I believe so. 

Mr. LAHOOD. In fact, he took per diem for weekends in Boise. 

Ms. KENDALL. That is my understanding. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And I guess, looking at the facts, Mr. Barton was 

paid additional salary for reportedly living in DC, and then 

financed the deception through this travel and was being paid a 

salary of $155,000 per year. Is that accurate? 

25 

Mr. GUERTIN. The last year that he was employed by the Federal 

Government, that would have been his annual salary level, yes, sir. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Just for a point of reference, the medium household income in Idaho is less than $50,000 a year. Clearly, Mr. Barton 

was making an exorbitant salary or living through this deception 

or arrangement he had. 

Ms. Kendall, there was another element to this, too, where he 

supplemented his income even more beyond what I just went 

through, and that was through his role with the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies from 2004 to 2014. As I 

understand it that is a private organization, and he was the treasurer of that organization; is that correct? 

Ms. KENDALL. That is my understanding, yes, sir. 

Mr. LAHOOD. During this entire time, did you or your Department question him being the treasurer of that department? 

Ms. KENDALL. Certainly my office did not. We did not know 

about it, and I do not believe that we had any indication that Fish 

and Wildlife did. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I see my time has expired. I look forward to a 

second round of questions. 

At this time I will yield to Mr. Westerman another 5 minutes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Kendall, I want to come back to another investigation. This 

one is based on an audit released dated June 16, and it was a 

USGS laboratory. Your audit looked at scientific misconduct and 

data manipulation at the Energy Geochemistry Laboratory’s 

Inorganic Section in Lakewood, Colorado. The problems were so 

severe, in fact, that the USGS has already closed the inorganic lab 

in question permanently; is that correct? 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Your report states that there have been two 

periods in which mass spectrometer operators in the lab’s Inorganic 

Section have violated established laboratory practices without detection for many years. The first began in 1996 and continued to 

be undiscovered until 2008. A second began in 2008 and continued 

undiscovered until late 2014. 

So, there have been problems at this lab from 1996 until 2014, 

for a couple of decades; is that correct? 

Ms. KENDALL. That is my understanding, yes, sir. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. You also state in your audit that a review revealed that the full extent of the impacts are not yet known, but 

nevertheless, they will be serious and far ranging. 

I am just astonished with this. According to your report, the affected projects represented about $108 million in taxpayer funding 

from Fiscal Year 2008 through 2014; is that correct? 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And, is it correct that samples were used to 

generate some of the analytical results that were then manipulated, were not retained, and that the analyst kept poor records for 

a substantial portion of his work and consequently the work cannot 

be reproduced? 

Ms. KENDALL. That is my understanding, yes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So, USGS officials have stated that lab conditions, in particular heat, have virtually affected their analysis, and 

26 

that these adverse conditions stretch back to the period of 1996 to 

2008, during which there were also significant problems with the 

lab work. 

But in 2011, USGS installed the new $175,000 machine in the 

lab. Do you have an explanation why USGS would put a new, expensive machine in this lab that had these problems that remained 

uncorrected? 

Ms. KENDALL. No, I do not. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. It defies logic. 

During the course of an interview with one of your auditors 

dated November 16, 2015, one former USGS employee alleged that, 

apparently during the first period of problems at this lab, an employee of the lab would say, ‘‘Tell me what you want and I will get 

it for you.’’ 

Although it is not exactly clear from the interview record, he 

would also say, ‘‘What we do is like magic.’’ 

Given the lab’s history and that problems had already been identified when this interview was being conducted, such a statement 

seems potentially significant. Your office explained that you don’t 

know the context or veracity of this statement, and that this issue 

was not part of the audit so it was not pursued; is that correct? 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Do you know the status of the analyst involved 

and his supervisor? 

Ms. KENDALL. I understand that the analyst involved, the one 

who was manipulating the mass spectrometer, is no longer employed with USGS. I don’t know the status of the supervisor. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So, USGS has advised committee staff that, 

because scientists had already begun to distrust this lab so significantly, they began relying upon analysis from other labs, limiting 

the amount of work products that were comprised or ruined. 

I guess, maybe, because I come from an engineering and a forestry background, a lot of the work that people do that is based on 

scientific research is so important. If the base research is flawed, 

then that affects work that goes out from there. We spent 

$108 million for this research and I am not even sure what the 

scientific research results were used in. 

Do you have any idea what kind of different research papers or 

where this data was used? 

Ms. KENDALL. That was precisely the scope of our review. We 

conducted an inspection, which is a very narrow, focused review, 

and our purpose was to identify those documents that this 

scientific data was used in. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Do you know ultimately who used this and 

what decisions may have been made on this improper data? 

Ms. KENDALL. We did not go into the decisions. The actual publications and other things that used this data are attached to our report in, I think, Appendix B. We itemized the areas where that 

data was used. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. OK. I know I am going over a little bit, but it is just astounding that we would spend $108 million on manipulated research, and then the far-reaching effects that that would 

have. We know how research multiplies and affects different parts 

of our society and our economy, and we always hope that is going 

27 

to be in a good way, but if you are working off of flawed data, it 

definitely could be in a bad way. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

At this time, I yield myself another 5 minutes for the second 

round. 

I am going to pick up on the same line of questioning I had regarding Mr. Barton. I did want to clarify; I think I had mentioned 

that the median household income in Boise, Idaho is $50,000. 

Getting back to the relationship that Mr. Barton had with this 

association, it turns out that in 2013, he made $109,000 in that 

year alone in being paid as the treasurer for this agency, along 

with working for the Federal Government. 

Ms. Kendall, did you find that Mr. Barton went as far as double 

billing for his work for the association, the private organization, 

and the Fish and Wildlife Service? 

Ms. KENDALL. We did a comparison of the hours that he billed 

for Fish and Wildlife versus the hours he billed to WAFWA. I don’t 

know that we did an analysis as to whether those overlapped or 

were double billed. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Were you familiar with a conference he attended 

in Hawaii where he did double bill both? 

Ms. KENDALL. I am not aware of that. 

Mr. LAHOOD. If I told you that occurred, would you disagree with 

that? 

Ms. KENDALL. I would have no basis to disagree. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And, Mr. Guertin, was your agency aware of Mr. 

Barton’s position as treasurer of WAFWA, the private 

organization? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Congressman, Mr. Barton came to the Fish and 

Wildlife Service as a retired employee of the Idaho Fish and Game 

Department; and, at that time, he had worked with WAFWA as 

their treasurer. 

When he was hired by the Fish and Wildlife Service, he purported to his supervisor that this was a voluntary non-paid 

position, and he likened it to, ‘‘Well, I help them collect the till at 

the end of the services kind of a thing.’’ As a Federal employee, he 

was required each year to fill out a detailed ethics form stating 

crystal clear if there were any sources of outside income, particularly his role as a grant administrator for agencies that we partner 

with on conservation. 

Each year he failed to comply with this requirement for all 

Federal employees, lied on his ethics forms, and did not disclose 

any of this outside income. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And what sort of problems could be created by a 

senior official at Fish and Wildlife Service serving as the treasurer 

of a private association that receives Federal grants? 

Mr. GUERTIN. First of all, an appearance of conflict of interest. 

It is inappropriate for Federal employees to be involved in that 

type of role. 

Second and most importantly, Federal employees are required to 

comply with these ethics laws for a reason, and he did not comply 

with them. That was the most unsettling and troubling aspect of 

28 

all. He failed to comply and meet his responsibilities as a Federal 

employee. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And why did the Fish and Wildlife Service allow 

him to continue working for WAFWA or at least remove him from 

his duties at the Service? 

Mr. GUERTIN. He continued to purport that this was a part-time, 

non-paying type of position. He was confronted with this back in 

2014, and, at that point, actually resigned from WAFWA because 

he started getting nervous he was going to be caught doing this. 

So he was, in fact, confronted and did, in fact, move off that position with WAFWA a couple of years ago. 

Mr. LAHOOD. The part that is really concerning is Mr. Barton 

was not a low-level official at Fish and Wildlife. He was a top 

senior official, top 1 percent in terms of salary, not including his 

six-figure moonlighting, doing all of these other things. 

How is it possible that a fraud like this went unnoticed for so 

many years? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Unfortunately, many of the systems we rely on require individual employees to self-report. They fill out these ethics 

forms and they self-report them. We do not have the authority to 

independently contact any of these groups. 

So, all I can say, Congressman, is that the 9,000 employees that 

I work with are honest or ethical and comply with these requirements. Mr. Barton did not. He misled and deceived all of us, and 

for that reason we are here before you today. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Yes, and obviously you believe and have formed the 

opinion that what he did was wrong, unethical, and inappropriate; 

correct? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Absolutely, yes, sir. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Have you recommended prosecution of Mr. Barton 

for the activities he engaged in? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Under the Privacy Act, I am not privy to share 

with you in this public hearing what actions the Fish and Wildlife 

Service did take. We did have the opportunity yesterday afternoon 

to brief committee staff on the specific actions we took in private 

session, and after the committee wraps up today, I would be glad 

to provide to you the same information in private session. 

It is just the Privacy Act does not allow me to address that in 

this public hearing, sir. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Have you formed an opinion on whether he should 

be prosecuted or held accountable? 

Mr. GUERTIN. We took what actions we could under our guidance. We also sent him a bill to collect the $96,000 in fraudulent 

travel claims. 

Mr. LAHOOD. What if he does not pay that? 

Mr. GUERTIN. We, under the Antideficiency Act and the authorizing legislation that enabled this program to begin with, will 

pursue every avenue at our means to continue to bird-dog him and 

collect those funds back. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I know I am going over my time here, but how do 

you give taxpayers some level of confidence that what occurred 

here will no longer occur? 

What mechanisms have you put in place, what safeguards? 

29 

I mean, clearly, what was done over this 10-year period did not 

work. So, how do you give confidence to the American people that 

you have changed the procedure? 

Mr. GUERTIN. We are going back to every automated and selfreporting system we have in the Fish and Wildlife Service. We 

have some of our best folks working on ensuring that we have the 

proper guidance, protocols, and internal controls. 

We actually have a lot of belief in the current system of internal 

controls. In this case, this unfortunate case, this one employee, a 

clever guy, was able to manipulate both personnel and systems to 

create this appearance that he was on authorized travel when, in 

fact, he was not. We are revitalizing all of our systems and personnel processes concurrently going forward so that unfortunate 

incidents can never happen again. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

I am over my time. At this time, I yield an additional 5 minutes 

to Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I regret we do not have more Members here, but at least we are 

getting some of this on the record. 

Ms. Kendall, I would like to go back to the last topic we discussed on the USGS laboratory. I have a list here of some of the 

project names, and this is really disturbing when I see some of 

these project names and to know that data was manipulated. 

One of them is uranium in the environment. My understanding 

is that a mass spectrometer looks at the different chemical and 

ionic makeups of substances so it can tell you what kind of heavy 

metals are there and what kind of chemicals are in the sample. 

Just looking down this list, geological CO2 sequestration, health 

effects of energy resources, Alaska rural energy, geochemistry of 

solid fuels, U.S. coal resources and reserves assessment, produced 

waters, and the list goes on and on about very important scientific 

issues. 

And to think that the data may have been manipulated in the 

base level in these mass spectrometer readings is, again, really disturbing. I believe there was a project on Everglades’ toxics. Can 

you tell me some of the agencies or organizations that the lab was 

contracting with? 

Who was requesting these studies? 

Ms. KENDALL. I know that USGS itself used the lab. I could not 

tell you sitting here today what other agencies used this lab. We 

may or may not have that information. If we have it, we would be 

glad to get it to you. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Yes, I would like to see that. 

And do you know if it was all government agencies? Was it 

universities? Was it private companies? 

Ms. KENDALL. I simply don’t know, sir. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Do you know if any research papers had to be 

recalled when it was found out this data had been manipulated? 

Ms. KENDALL. I believe some had to be recalled, yes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. What about dissertations that college students 

worked on? 

Ms. KENDALL. I don’t know that for a fact, sir. Our goal in this 

review was to identify those areas where the data had an impact, 

30 

and USGS is actually taking steps to make that extra determination that you are talking about, that is, dissertations, and other 

kinds of research that may have relied on this bad data. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Do you know if there are any other 

investigations in the other USGS laboratories? 

Ms. KENDALL. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So, you think this may have just been kind of 

a lone wolf that, for two decades, was generating bad data that was 

going into the research? 

Ms. KENDALL. It may have been. I do not have information to say 

one way or the other. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

At this time I would like to thank our witnesses for being here 

today. 

Obviously there is an overwhelming amount of disturbing information the Inspector General has delivered in the last several 

weeks, and I can assure you that the Natural Resources Committee 

and this subcommittee will continue to examine these issues. 

Unfortunately, it has become entirely clear that there is no 

‘‘culture of compliance’ at the Department of the Interior. That may 

be a nice slogan, but the action and accountability behind it fall 

terribly short of the responsibility that taxpayers deserve. 

These cases touch many sub-agencies of the Interior, including 

the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and even 

the Office of the Secretariat. 

We had hoped that the Department would work with us to provide a witness that could have answered on their behalf, but we 

were left with a solitary witness from the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and that is disappointing. 

The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in 

writing. Under Committee Rule 4(h), the hearing record will be 

open for 10 business days for these responses. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the committee 

stands adjourned. Thank you for your testimony. 

[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector 

General—Investigative Report of Failure to Disclose Employment at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Posted on June 

7, 2016. Submitted by Subcommittee Staff—Majority. 

2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector 

General—Investigative Report of BLM Land Sale, 

Henderson, NV. Posted on May 31, 2016. Submitted by 

Subcommittee Staff—Majority. 

3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector 

General—Scientific Integrity Incident at USGS Energy 

Geochemistry Laboratory. Posted on June 15, 2016. 

Submitted by Subcommittee Staff—Majority. 

31 

4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector 

General—Investigative Report of Alleged Contract Steering 

by the National Park Service’s Denver Service Center. 

Posted on June 7, 2016. Submitted by Subcommittee Staff— 

Majority. 

5. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector 

General—Investigative Report of Misconduct at the Grand 

Canyon River District. Posted on January 12, 2016. 

Submitted by Subcommittee Staff—Majority. 

6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector 

General—Investigative Report of Sexual Misconduct by Chief 

Ranger at Canaveral National Seashore. Posted on June 13, 

2016. Submitted by Subcommittee Staff—Majority. 

7. Kadzik, Peter J., Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, June 20, 2016 

Letter to Chairman Louie Gohmert stating that the 

Department would not participate in the hearing. 

Æ