U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

82–717 PDF 2013

MISSING WEAPONS AT THE NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE: MISMANAGEMENT AND LACK OF 

ACCOUNTABILITY 

JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

GOVERNMENT REFORM 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

AUGUST 2, 2013 

Serial No. 113–54 

(Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) 

Serial No. 113–39 

(Committee on Natural Resources) 

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 

http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

STEPHEN CASTOR, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, HOMELAND DEFENSE AND FOREIGN

OPERATIONS

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

(III) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Chris Stewart, UT 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Vacancy 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on August 2, 2013 ............................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Robert A. Knox, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Office 

of Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

The Hon. Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Ms. Kim A. Thorsen, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Public Safety, Resource Protection, and Emergency Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, and Ms. Teresa Chambers, Chief of the United 

States Park Police Force, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Jason Chaffetz, a Member of Congress from the State of 

Utah, Opening Statement ................................................................................... 40 

The Honorable John F. Tierney, a Member of Congress from the State of 

Massachusetts, Opening Statement ................................................................... 43 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Letter to Representatives Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz ................................................................. 45 

(1) 

MISSING WEAPONS AT THE NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE: MISMANAGEMENT AND LACK OF 

ACCOUNTABILITY 

Friday, August 2, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, JOINT

WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, COMMITTEE ON NATURAL

RESOURCES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz [chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security] presiding. 

Present from the Subcommittee on National Security: Representatives Chaffetz, Duncan, Bentivolio, and Tierney. 

Present from the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation: Representatives Bishop, Tipton, Smith, 

Southerland, Grijalva, Tsongas, and Shea-Porter. 

Also Present: Representative Norton. 

Staff Present from the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform: Brian Blase, Senior Professional Staff Member; Molly Boyl, 

Parliamentarian; Daniel Bucheli, Assistant Clerk; Caitlin Carroll, 

Deputy Press Secretary; Linda Good, Chief Clerk; Mitchell S. 

Kominsky, Counsel; Mark D. Marin, Director of Oversight; Ashok 

M. Pinto, Chief Counsel, Investigations; Sang H. Yi, Professional 

Staff Member; Devon Hill, Minority Research Assistant; Julia 

Krieger, Minority New Media Press Secretary; Elisa LaNier, Minority Deputy Clerk; and Brian Quinn, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. The committee will come to order. 

I would like to begin this hearing by stating the Oversight and 

Government Reform Committee’s mission statement. 

We exist to secure two fundamental principles: First, Americans 

have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them 

is well-spent. Second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights. 

Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to 

taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get 

from their government. We will work tirelessly, in partnership with 

citizen watchdogs, to deliver the facts to the American people and 

bring genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. 

2 

This is the mission of the Oversight and Government Reform 

Committee. 

We appreciate you being here in a joint effort with the Natural 

Resources Committee to conduct a very important oversight hearing today entitled, ‘‘Missing Weapons at the National Park Service: 

Mismanagement and Lack of Accountability.’’ 

I would also like to welcome Mr. Grijalva, who is here and joining us on the dais. I know that Mr. Tierney and Mr. Bishop of 

Utah, my colleague also involved in these two committees, will be 

joining us here shortly. 

I am pleased to hold today’s hearing jointly with my friend and 

gentleman from Utah, Representative Bishop. He is the chairman 

of the House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on 

Public Lands and Environmental Regulation. And I look forward to 

working with him on an ongoing basis on these issues. 

Today’s proceedings result from a need to further address questions and concerns raised in a June 27th report from this year 

issued by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Office of Inspector General entitled, ‘‘Review of U.S. Park Police Weapons Accountability 

Program.’’ 

In the report, the OIG made some very serious charges, including 

finding insufficient: ‘‘accountability, accuracy, and oversight’’ of the 

U.S. Park Police’s firearms program. During the course of the 

OIG’s investigation, the OIG found: ‘‘credible evidence of conditions 

that would allow for theft and misuse of firearms and the ability 

to conceal the fact if weapons were missing.’’. 

Moreover, despite requirements to maintain an accurate firearms 

inventory, the OIG found that U.S. Park Police firearms inventory 

records were inaccurate and failed to account for hundreds of firearms. If these findings are accurate, the lack of accountability is 

completely unacceptable. 

Given the OIG’s glaring findings about the U.S. Park Police’s 

lack of accountability for their weapons program, I am also interested to learn whether the ammunition used by the U.S. Park Police is properly accounted for. 

The Subcommittee on National Security previously conducted an 

oversight hearing on April 25th of this year entitled, ‘‘Oversight of 

the Federal Government’s Procurement of Ammunition,’’ in which 

we found that the Federal Government, in some cases, has not procured ammunition efficiently or effectively. 

Based on the seriousness of the charges in the OIG report, the 

findings warrant further examination where the report fell short. 

There are a number of questions that would be helpful to explain 

the findings. Are there examples where U.S. Park Police weapons 

were actually stolen or misused? How did the OIG arrive at the 

‘‘hundreds of weapons used’’ number? Were simple typographical 

errors or poor data entry the main cause of the unaccounted firearms? These are all legitimate questions. 

As a result, today’s hearing provides an opportunity to discuss 

the findings by the OIG and to assess the extent of accountability 

issues within the United States Park Police. 

It is also important to further examine the weapons procurement 

process. The OIG site reviews of U.S. Park Police’s field office armories discovered approximately 1,400: ‘‘extra,’’ weapons, with a 

3 

force of only 640 officers. These extra weapons consisted of 477 

military-style automatic and semiautomatic weapons. 

According to the OIG: ‘‘We also discovered a number of weapons 

that, according to USPP officials, fulfilled no operational need.’’ It 

is my understanding that the undetermined number were awaiting 

destruction. We need to discuss that. 

I am also concerned about OIG’s finding regarding senior management’s supervision of the weapons program, specifically that; 

‘‘staff at all levels, from the firearms program managers to their 

employees, had no clear idea of how many weapons they maintained due to their incomplete and poorly managed inventory controls.’’ 

Moreover, the OIG reported that firearms managers: ‘‘accepted 

verbal assurances that firearms inventories were completed correctly rather than taking personal responsibility for accuracy.’’ 

Unverified verbal assurances about the accuracy of the Park Police 

firearms inventory is simply not tolerable. 

The reported lack of accountability over the U.S. Park Police 

weapons program has been documented as a longstanding issue, I 

believe starting in 2003. But certainly in 2008 and 2009, the OIG 

found a lack of oversight of the weapons accountability program, 

but the problems persist still today. 

One of the main reasons that we are gathered here today and 

that I called this hearing, in conjunction with these other Members, is that this continues to evidently be an ongoing problem. Unfortunately, after the reports issued in 2008 and 2009, it does not 

appear, at least from the surface, that these problems were resolved. And we are talking about firearms. It is very important, 

and that is why we are here again today. 

I want to take a moment to emphasize that the hard work and 

dedication of the Park Police officers is greatly appreciated. We 

have great men and women who dedicate their lives, put themselves on the line in support of a very patriotic duty in serving 

their Nation and protecting some of our Nation’s greatest assets. 

We need to ensure that our law enforcement officers are properly 

trained and equipped to efficiently and effectively do their jobs. 

That said, the vandalism that recently occurred at the Lincoln 

Memorial, the National Cathedral, and the Smithsonian Castle all 

raise concerns about whether taxpayer dollars are being spent effectively in light of these shortcomings. I find it hard to believe 

that, given the prominence of the Lincoln Memorial, that we don’t 

have somebody 24/7 watching, guarding, taking care of the Lincoln 

Memorial, that somebody could come and do that and then simply 

be able to walk away. 

I am particularly interested to learn what the U.S. Park Police 

is doing to ensure that our national monuments will not be defaced, vandalized, or become prime targets of terrorism. 

I look forward to hearing from all the witnesses today. And today’s hearing will focus on the need for proper inventory procedures, improved oversight of firearms management, and we will be 

touching on the recent defacing of some of our Nation’s best assets. 

The committee seeks to ensure that the U.S. Park Police appropriately addresses the OIG recommendations outlined in the June 

27th, 2013, report. 

4 

Again, I thank you all for being here. 

And I greatly appreciate the work I do with my ranking member, 

the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney. And I now recognize him for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the interest of time this morning, I just ask unanimous consent that my opening remarks be placed upon the record. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Without objection, absolutely. We appreciate that. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Grijalva, we appreciate you being—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. Hopefully, we set a trend. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Hopefully, we set a trend, yes. 

We appreciate your being here today. 

Mr. Grijalva from Arizona is the ranking member, Public Lands 

and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee in the Natural Resources Committee. 

We appreciate you being here today. I now recognize you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I think the problems identified in the Interior Department’s 

Office of Inspector General require serious consideration. We 

should try to understand the allegations in the report and not overstate or politicize them. 

I would like to acknowledge that the Fraternal Order of Park Police has serious concerns with the methodology used by the Inspector General and the allegations made in the report. 

The title of this hearing, ‘‘Missing Weapons at the National Park 

Service,’’ that is—there is no reason to believe that weapons are 

missing or that weapons were ever in the hands of unauthorized 

personnel. An Interior Department task force was able to account 

for all weapons, with the exception of a few weapons assigned to 

officers who are overseas or on extended leave. The Department 

has determined that 98 percent of its weapons were already in the 

official system. 

And there is a whole litany of issues, but following the trend set 

by Mr. Tierney—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. Almost. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Almost following the trend set by Mr. Tierney, if 

I may, Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, enter the letter from 

the United States Park Police Fraternal Order as part of the record 

for this hearing? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. The rest of my statements, which were eloquent 

and well thought out, will be submitted for part of the record. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. All Members will have 7 days to submit opening 

statements for the record. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We will now recognize our first and only panel. 

Ms. Kim Thorsen is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public 

Safety Resource Protection and Emergency Services at the United 

States Department of Interior. The Honorable Jonathan B. Jarvis 

is the Director of the National Park Service. Ms. Teresa Chambers 

is the Chief of the United States Park Police. And Mr. Robert Knox 

is the Assistant Inspector General for Investigations with the OfVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:29 Sep 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\82717.TXT APRIL
5 

fice of Inspector General for the United States Department of Interior. 

We again appreciate all of you being here side by side to have 

this discussion. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn before 

they testify. 

If you will please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

Thank you. You may be seated. 

Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate you 

limit your testimony to 5 minutes. My understanding is we have 

a consolidated opening statement, which we greatly appreciate. 

But we will now recognize Mr. Knox first for his opening statement. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. KNOX 

Mr. KNOX. Good morning, Chairman Chaffetz and members of 

the subcommittees. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today 

about a recent Office of Inspector General report on the accountability and accuracy of the United States Park Police firearms inventory. 

In short, we found ample evidence that United States Park Police’s firearms management requires immediate attention to address the multitude of problems we found, which range from fundamental errors in recordkeeping to glaring nonfeasance by senior 

command officers. 

We initiated our review after receiving an anonymous complaint. 

We initially set out to determine if the United States Park Police 

could account for all military-style weapons in its inventory, whether the United States Park Police had failed to perform inventories 

due to missing weapons, and whether officers may have used 

United States Park Police weapons for their personal use. 

Our efforts to definitively address the allegations were hindered 

by the inability of the United States Park Police property and firearms custodians to provide a reliable baseline inventory and accounting of firearms. The conditions of the United States Park Police inventory were such that would allow for theft and misuse of 

firearms and the ability to conceal any missing weapons. 

Having found the firearms inventory program in disarray, we 

discontinued our efforts to prove or disprove the complainant’s allegations and changed our approach to focus on the overall management of the United States Park Police firearms inventory program. 

Following a consistent history of inaction and indifference on the 

part of United States Park Police leadership and management at 

all levels, we again found that the basic tenets of property management and supervisory oversight were missing in their most fundamental forms. Commanders, up to and including the chief of police, 

have a lackadaisical attitude toward firearms management. We 

6 

found evidence which indicates this indifference is a product of 

years of inattention to administrative detail and management principles in their most basic form. 

In 2008 and in 2009, the Office of Inspector General conducted 

reviews that included aspects of United States Park Police operations, including firearms inventory controls. In our 2008 report, 

we had a recommendation regarding property management. In 

2009, we focused on firearms inventory controls for all law enforcement programs at the Department of the Interior, which included 

the United States Park Police. At that time, we found and reported 

on strikingly similar conditions as we note in our current report: 

firearms custodians were unaware of the number of guns in their 

inventory or of the origin of these guns, and that guns physically 

present were not listed on the inventory. 

In the end, we have little confidence that the United States Park 

Police has the managerial commitment to implement a professionally responsible firearms management program without direct 

and frequent oversight from the National Park Service, the Office 

of Law Enforcement and Security, and the Office of Inspector General. 

Among the 10 recommendations we make in our report is a recommendation to initiate quarterly firearms inventories and provide 

the Office of Inspector General with the results. We intend to conduct a series of future reviews and inspections to ensure that the 

United States Park Police has implemented our recommendations 

and that they maintain the level of accountability expected of a law 

enforcement entity the size and stature of the United States Park 

Police. 

Chairman Chaffetz, this concludes my testimony today. I would 

be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittees may have. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. Appreciate that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knox follows:] 

7 


Insert offset folio 1 here 82717.001
8 


Insert offset folio 2 here 82717.002
9 


Insert offset folio 3 here 82717.003
10 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. My understanding is we have a consolidated 

opening statement. Would that be you, Mr. Jarvis? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JONATHAN B. JARVIS 

Mr. JARVIS. Okay. 

Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Members Grijalva and Tierney, and 

members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear 

today before you to discuss the findings of the Inspector General’s 

firearms accountability within the United States Park Police. 

My name is John Jarvis, and I am the Director of the National 

Park Service. And I would like to submit our full statement for the 

record and summarize, really, our views here. 

The U.S. Park Police is the Nation’s oldest uniformed Federal 

law enforcement agency. The Park Police provides law enforcement 

services to designated areas within the National Park Service, predominantly in Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco. 

The members of the Park Police are professional police officers and 

dedicated public servants who help us protect millions of visitors 

each year and protect some of our most valued national icons, including the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial, the 

Statue of Liberty, and the Golden Gate Bridge. 

On June 27th, 2013, the Inspector General issued its review of 

Park Police weapons accountability. The Inspector General’s review 

raised serious, significant concerns regarding Park Police firearms 

management. 

The accountability of weapons used by our law enforcement personnel is of critical importance, and we take the issues raised here 

very, very seriously. The IG report provided a number of important 

recommendations to address those issues, and we appreciate the 

IG’s efforts. We are committed to implementing these recommendations, which will improve the accountability in this critical area. 

In the last 30 days since the issuance of the IG’s report, we have 

taken immediate actions to address the IG’s recommendations. The 

first priority was to conduct a thorough physical inventory of all 

government-owned firearms in Park Police custody, in accordance 

with Recommendation 3 from the IG report. 

To conduct this physical inventory, we created a team of senior 

officials from the National Park Service and the Department’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security to personally contact all officers within the Park Police and to personally inspect every Park 

Police firearm, whether issued to an officer or secured in a Park 

Police facility. The team visited Park Police facilities in San Francisco, New York, and Washington, D.C. With the exception of three 

officers who are currently either deployed overseas on a military 

assignment or on extended leave, the team has met with each police officer. 

The team has ensured that each inspected firearm has been entered into and tracked in the Department’s new property accountability system. The initial assessment of the team is that approximately 98 percent of the physical inventory of firearms in the custody of the U.S. Park Police were previously entered into this sysVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:29 Sep 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\82717.TXT APRIL
11 

tem. We are continuing our efforts to complete the inventory, including any reconciliation with existing records. 

The team is also reviewing the Park Police’s approach to administrative oversight, training, and coordination. We are committed to 

ensuring the members of the Park Police maintain the highest 

standard of accountability with its firearms inventories. 

With regard to the other recommendations from the IG report, 

we either have already addressed or are in the process of addressing each one of them. For example, we are in the process of reviewing all Park Police guidance to confirm that it complies with Park 

Service and departmental regulations, policies, and procedures. The 

Park Police has ceased using informal property accountability systems, and we have transitioned all of the firearms to our new property accountability system. And the Park Police now has a schedule 

to ensure quarterly inventories of all firearms. And the Chief of 

Park Police will personally approve all firearms purchases. That is 

already in place. 

In addition, the National Park Service has asked the Park Police 

to detail all the work that has been done to date on all of the IG 

recommendations and the actions planned to successfully address 

the ones that have not been completed. 

The Department’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security, 

which is responsible for policy development, coordination, evaluation, and support of the Department’s programs concerning law enforcement, will work with the National Park Service and the Park 

Police to provide additional oversight. The office periodically audits 

the Department’s bureaus for compliance with the Department of 

Law Enforcement policies. Currently, the office is conducting a program compliance assessment on bureau firearm programs. 

We want to assure the committees that the Department, the 

NPS, and the Park Police take very seriously the accountability of 

weapons used by our law enforcement personnel. We will work together to monitor compliance with the IG’s direction on this matter. 

Thank you for your attention to this important issue. We are 

happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Normally when we schedule a hearing at 9 o’clock 

in the morning, we are in safe territory until 10:30 or so. Today 

being an exceptional day, Members are advised that there is a vote 

on the floor. It has 13 minutes on the clock. Given that necessity 

and priority, this committee is going to stand in recess until the 

conclusion of the votes. And as soon as we have Members back in 

appropriate numbers, we will resume this hearing. 

We are guessing that that is an hour and a half, an hour and 

15 minutes. It is certainly not any sooner than, say, 10:30. We will 

resume no sooner than 10:30, but when we have our votes and we 

have Members back, we will resume. 

This committee stands in recess until then. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. The committee will come to order. 

Thank you. We appreciate the time as we had to take to do voting. And there will be voting later on, as well. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

12 

The OIG, Inspector General, has issued a report. Ms. Thorsen, 

Mr. Jarvis, Chief Chambers, do any of you take issue with any of 

the findings in that report? 

Mr. JARVIS. I will start. 

We appreciate the IG’s report, and we take all 10 recommendations—they are spot-on, and we are taking every one of them seriously. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But are any of the findings—do you take any 

issue with any of the findings? I appreciate your implementation 

of the recommendations; we are going to talk about that. But any 

of their findings, did you take issue with any of those? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, their findings indicated a snapshot, essentially 

a photograph, of the conditions of inventory of weapons at the Park 

Police facilities at that moment. I consider them accurate, but they 

do not indicate the real behind-the-scenes. They backed out and 

said, go do an inventory. And that is what we are doing now. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. They took a snapshot in 2008, and they took one 

in 2009. We had similar problems and challenges. Were those accurate back then? 

Mr. JARVIS. I am not that familiar with those reports because I 

was not in this role at that time. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And I guess that is one of the concerns, is that 

when the Inspector General offers recommendations, they take 

snapshots, we worry that some report gets put on some shelf. I 

think that is in part why we are here today, is the repetitive nature of these challenges. 

Chief Chambers, according to the National Park Service Handbook 44, an inventory is supposed to be taken twice a year. Does 

that happen? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Yes, sir, it does. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Did you sign this memo of August 31st saying: ‘‘I 

certify that all weapons inventories for which I am responsible 

have been completed and all weapons records have been reconciled’’? 

Chief CHAMBERS. I did, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What did you base that on? 

Chief CHAMBERS. A number of conversations with folks in the 

chain of command, including the firearms custodian himself. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So merely conversations? Did you ever review any 

of the records? Did you ever look at any of the physical material? 

Chief CHAMBERS. I reviewed the records, but I did not physically 

touch all of the weapons that are in the inventory. But I did ask 

probing questions. I asked how it compared to the previous inventory, to ensure that there were no anomalies. And I asked if everything could be accounted for, even—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Who did you have that conversation with? 

Chief CHAMBERS. With whom, sir? Deputy Chief Chapman, Sergeant Dave Whitehorne, and perhaps the captain in training at 

that time. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So why the discrepancy on what Mr. Knox was 

able to find versus what you found? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Sir, during the period of time he came in, we 

were actually between two effective computer systems. One had 

been shut down; the other was not back up and running. And so 

13 

we were left to use Excel spreadsheets, which, frankly, were better 

than nothing, but not able to quickly ascertain where items were 

or get a quick count on how many of anything there was. That has 

all changed since then. But, in that snapshot of time, we were limited in our capability to be able to quickly review. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Ms. Thorsen, why was this the case? Why the discrepancy between the two? 

You have an OIG report. You have somebody saying they certify 

and sign this. They are obviously not reconciled. So I give you an 

opportunity to say, were there any issues with the findings of the 

Inspector General? You didn’t say a word, so—— 

Ms. THORSEN. Chairman, I have no issue and the Department 

has no issues with the findings in the IG report. I think the 10 recommendations are—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But they are in dispute. Somebody is wrong. You 

have Chief Chambers saying that the weapons inventories for 

which I am responsible had been completed and all weapons 

records have been reconciled, and the Inspector General is saying, 

no, that is not the case. I am trying to figure out from the three 

of you, why is that? 

How does the Chief of the Park Police say they are reconciled, 

the Inspector General says, no, they are not, they are not even 

close? I give each of the three of you an opportunity to question or 

dispute any of the claims or findings from the Inspector General. 

You didn’t say anything. So put yourself in my shoes. What is the 

right answer here? 

Ms. THORSEN. Well, I am not particularly familiar with the 

memos and what the Chief did. She is—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Why not? What is your relationship with the 

Chief? Like, what responsibility or oversight or—— 

Ms. THORSEN. The Office of Law Enforcement Security, which reports to me, has responsibility at the department level to develop 

policy, departmental-level policy, coordinate with the bureaus, and 

provide oversight. The accountability and responsibility—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So do you feel a responsibility for what happens 

or doesn’t happen in the Park Police? 

Ms. THORSEN. The accountability and the responsibility for, in 

this instance, firearms rests at many levels. Starts with the officer, 

supervisors, the Chief, the Director of the Park Service, whom she 

reports to directly. And then my office has a responsibility periodically to go in and ensure that, actually, all of the law enforcement 

programs in the department follow department policy, departmental policy. So that is our role. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So, Mr. Jarvis, we have a dispute here. Explain 

to me how we can have two totally different conclusions. Who 

messed up here? Is it Chief Chambers? Is it the Inspector General? 

Mr. JARVIS. The way I see it, Mr. Chairman, is that we have an 

inventory management issue. And that is exactly what the IG 

found. They came in; they could not reconcile the weapons that 

they saw in the U.S. Park Police possession against what should 

be a computerized database. There was no reconciliation. And so 

they backed out. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Chief, were you or were you not able to reconcile 

the weapons inventory? 

14 

Chief CHAMBERS. At the time that the IG was there, we were not 

in a position to say with certainty. But we can say now that it has 

been reconciled. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When were you there? When were you doing this, 

Inspector? 

Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, we—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Microphone, please. If you can just turn on the 

microphone. Thank you. 

Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, we conducted our inspection from February 11th to February 13th and continued—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Of which year? 

Mr. KNOX. Of 2013. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And you are saying that they were reconciled on 

August 31st, 2012. And then, within 6 months, it was in disarray. 

Is that what you are saying? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Sir, I am saying we couldn’t prove or disprove 

whether the records were accurate, because at that moment in time 

we had Excel spreadsheets, several of them, to try to bring this 

compilation. The weapons were there, but there was no way to reconcile it. We can do so now. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I have more questions about this, as do other 

Members. I am way over time. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, for 5 

minutes plus another minute or 2 if he so chooses. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start with kind of a basic question, given the report and 

the recommendations. Has the Park Police accounted for all these 

weapons? 

Ms. Thorsen, do you believe that all the weapons have been accounted for? That same question for Director Jarvis and for the 

Chief and for Mr. Knox. 

If you wouldn’t mind starting, Ms. Thorsen. Do you believe all 

the weapons have been accounted for? 

Ms. THORSEN. At this point in time, our office in conjunction with 

the Park Service have conducted the physical inventory of the Park 

Police weapons, and at this point in time 98 percent of them we 

have accounted for. There are three, as mentioned by the Director, 

that we have not put our eyes on. Okay, so that is not complete. 

So there are three outstanding at this point in time. So, other than 

that, yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. JARVIS. I would agree with that. We are not satisfied until 

we put our physical hands on every weapon that is in the inventory. And we are still missing three that are assigned to individual 

officers who are not on duty at the moment but will be very soon. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Chief? 

Chief CHAMBERS. And, likewise, sir, just those final three that we 

know we have to touch. 

And then just as a safeguard, we have another step to do. We 

are going to go back and look at acquisition and property records 

to make certain that things that we have purchased or acquired 

over the last 5 to 10 years are actually in that new computerized 

database. I am confident that they are, but I want that additional 

assurance. 

15 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. Knox? 

Mr. KNOX. Congressman, the IG takes no position as to whether 

they have full accountability of all the weapons possessed by the 

U.S. Park Police or not. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Okay, Mr. Knox, if I could follow up just a second. 

So when the inspection was going on, there was a spot analysis 

that you talk about in your report. So there was no follow-up investigation on the part of your office to go deeper into that issue? 

Mr. KNOX. No, sir. As we began our assessment, we realized that 

the condition of accountability was in disarray. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Okay. 

Mr. KNOX. There were not good, clear records of what weapons 

should be available, what records should be on their accountable 

records. And so we took a position of looking at the weapons that 

were physically present in the locations we visited. 

And the reason for me saying we don’t take a position on the accountability today is that, although we are confident the National 

Park Service is doing all they can to inventory the weapons that 

are currently present within the control of the U.S. Park Police, 

there is still another step, as the Chief points out, to take, which 

is to go back in time and identify the weapons that had been acquired either through transfer or purchase or other means and ensure that all of those weapons are accounted for, as well. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yeah. 

Let me go to another question having to do with the mission of 

the Park Police: to provide quality law enforcement, to safeguard 

lives, to protect our national treasures and symbols of democracy, 

and preserve natural and cultural resources entrusted to the American people and to the Park Service and the Park Police. 

Let me begin with you again, Ms. Thorsen. Do you believe that 

the mission of the Park has been compromised as a result of the 

report and—or as a result of the issues described in the report? 

Ms. THORSEN. No, I don’t, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. If you don’t mind, Director Jarvis, I would just 

like to get this—— 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir, I do not believe there has been any compromise to our responsibilities. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Chief, if you don’t mind? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Our mission has not been compromised, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And I go back to you, Mr. Knox. Do you feel that 

that essential mission, as a consequence of your recommendations 

and snapshot view, has been compromised? 

Mr. KNOX. Sir, the OIG assessment related to the accountability 

of weapons alone. And we did not look at the impact that had on 

the operational mission of the U.S. Park Police. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. That is a neutral position? 

Mr. KNOX. It is a neutral position as to the operations as you described them. We feel that the accountability of weapons is a part 

of their duty and operations and that those were severely lacking. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. In the limited time, if I may, Mr. Knox, your report uses words like ‘‘inaction,’’ ‘‘indifferent,’’ ‘‘nonfeasance,’’ ‘‘lackadaisical attitude’’ to describe the ways the senior management at 

16 

the Park Police handled this weapons accountability. Can you 

elaborate on why those strong words are justified in the report? 

And then, Chief Chambers, do you believe that the Inspector 

General was justified in saying that Park Police senior management has a lackadaisical attitude toward weapons management 

and accountability? 

I ask that question because, going back to the question I just 

asked, it is about the integrity of that function, the police function, 

and the confidence that the public has in it. But that is why these 

questions are important. 

So those words are pretty strong words, and your justification for 

using them is my question. 

Mr. KNOX. Congressman, we looked at numerous factors when 

we came to deliberately choose those words. 

I would begin with the series of incidents where the Chief of the 

U.S. Park Police had been advised of the serious conditions regarding weapons accountability at the U.S. Park Police. There was a 

memo authored by the force firearms custodian to the Chief of Police in 2011 that actually demonstrated an inventory variance of 

120 weapons that was brought to her attention. 

Again in that year, the Audits and Evaluations Unit, part of the 

Office of Professional Responsibility for the U.S. Park Police, issued 

a memorandum based on their weapons accountability assessment, 

and they indicated a critical failure in the weapons accountability 

posture of the U.S. Park Police. 

And later a memo—I am sorry, a meeting regarding the force 

firearms custodian memo was held, where discussions about the 

content of that memo occurred. Later, a subsequent meeting with 

Deputy Chief Chapman was held in 2012 as a follow-up to those 

discussions. 

And then I would point out that, even as we concluded our field 

work on February 13th of 2013, I personally briefed the Chief of 

Police for the U.S. Park Police on February 15th of this year, advising her of our findings and urging her to take immediate steps to 

begin an inventory and get a handle on what the actual weapons 

count for the U.S. Park Police weapons inventory was. And we 

found no meaningful efforts taken until after the publishing of our 

report. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, in the overage of time, could the 

Chief respond? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Chief CHAMBERS. Thank you for the opportunity. 

While I would certainly have chosen different words and not 

characterized it with words that may be so emotionally driven, I do 

appreciate the feedback nonetheless. 

Only because Mr. Knox mentioned several memos, I will touch 

on them. At each step along the way, extreme action was taken— 

dialogue, trips to the field offices by our force firearms custodian. 

But I must put on the record that the audits memo that talked 

about the critical failure was a new memo to me. I had never heard 

of it. And the only record that the Inspector General’s Office could 

produce was one that was still in draft mode. It still had the track 

17 

changes, it wasn’t signed on letterhead, it had no recommendations. That memo never made it to my office. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the extra 

time. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Knox, I will give you an opportunity to respond to that. 

Mr. KNOX. I can’t say for sure whether the Chief of Police received the memo from the force firearms custodian. But I would 

point out the multiple events that occurred between 2011 and 2013. 

And it is the position of the Office of Inspector General that at 

least some of those should have alerted the senior leadership, including the Chief of Police, of the serious conditions of loss of weapons accountability at the U.S. Park Police. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

Mr. KNOX. Some action—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I now want to recognize Chairman Rob Bishop 

from Utah for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you for the opportunity of being part of this 

hearing. 

In some respects, I feel like I am dealing with Syria policy; I 

don’t really know who the good guys are out there. In fact, I think 

there is failure on every level that has gone through here. So I appreciate it. I appreciate the questions Mr. Grijalva asked. 

And, Ms. Chambers, I am going to follow up on that in a minute, 

but I want to go to Mr. Jarvis first. 

The IG report focuses exclusively on failures within the Park Police, for which you have ultimate jurisdiction. Is there something 

about the relationship or the autonomy of the Park Police that allows them to fall outside of department policies on firearms? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, Mr. Chairman. I believe that all of our departmental and National Park Service policies apply directly to the 

U.S. Park Police. 

Mr. BISHOP. So the rest of the Park Service, you also have armed 

law enforcement in the rest of the Nation outside of these three cities? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. So how do you compare the accountability in place 

for those weapons, opposed to what we found here in the Park Police? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, with all of our managers who have line responsibilities for controlled property such as weapons, we have a policy 

of inventory. I have a policy of trust but verify, which means I expect them to do their audits and report deliberately on their inventory as well as any missing weapons. And—— 

Mr. BISHOP. So I appreciate the concept of verify; that is extremely important. But have you investigated—what have you done 

to investigate the concept of park-wide, firearms Park Service-wide, 

not just with the Park Police? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, we have periodic audits, where we do send in 

our agents to do spot audits on the weapons inventory. When I was 

a superintendent, we would have independent audits done specifically. And I can remember one specific case where we did find a 

missing weapon that was not recorded, and I removed that employee’s law enforcement commission immediately and permanently. 

18 

So we do have that kind of oversight and auditing going on 

throughout the Service. 

Mr. BISHOP. So you are confident that this problem only exists 

within the Park Police, that it is not systemwide? 

Mr. JARVIS. It is not systemwide. 

Mr. BISHOP. Can I ask you why you weren’t on top of what was 

happening, then, in the Park Police? 

Mr. JARVIS. I was only made aware of this when I was briefed 

by the IG. That is the first time, and that was in June of this year. 

That is when I was made aware. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Well, we will get more into that in detail. 

I have one other issue with you, though. In 2010, the Park Service sent guidance to the field that the Springfield Armory Historic 

Site would no longer accept firearms for destruction. So I am assuming that these historic arms are just sitting somewhere under 

your jurisdiction. 

Do you have any responsibility to bear for these unused weapons 

piling up over with the Park Service police? 

Mr. JARVIS. It took us 3 years to get a new contract for weapons 

disposal. And so the Springfield Armory shut down on their weapons disposal responsibilities; it took us 3 years to get a new contract. So there are approximately 500 weapons in the inventory at 

the U.S. Park Police that are due for disposal and destruction. 

Mr. BISHOP. Ms. Chambers, is that an accurate number? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. BISHOP. And are any of these of historic value? 

Chief CHAMBERS. I don’t know, sir. I could find out for you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Really? 

Do you have any policy for allowing historically valuable weapons to be saved, something other than being destroyed, Mr. Jarvis? 

Mr. JARVIS. Absolutely. At the Springfield Armory specifically, 

which is the storage repository for historic weapons—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Wait, you mean they are taking them now? 

Mr. JARVIS. I don’t know the answer to that question. But let me 

just say that before we do complete destruction on the weapons 

that have been accumulated, we will see if there are any historic 

weapons that are valuable for display or museum storage. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do we know how many are? 

Mr. JARVIS. I do not know that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you know, Ms. Chambers, how many are? 

Chief CHAMBERS. I do not, sir. I know—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Shouldn’t you? 

Chief CHAMBERS. I have that information at my disposal but not 

here today, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Look, I am over by 40 seconds here. I am not as 

longwinded as Raul or Jason, but I definitely have second-round 

questions for some of the rest of you. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

We will now recognize the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C., 

Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to say I have some questions about the report, but 

I do want to take this opportunity to thank the Park Police. The 

Park Police are the only—we have, as the saying goes, fifty-eleven 

19 

police forces in the District of Columbia. Every little agency has a 

police force. This is the only city-wide—indeed, it is a region-wide 

police force. And it is often underappreciated. 

I remember, after 9/11, the Capitol Police were quickly reinforced 

with new police. And it took some time to get around to the Capitol 

Police, which has much larger territory throughout the District of 

Columbia and the entire region. So I have watched the Capitol Police very closely. They have jurisdiction for, for example—except for 

the Metropolitan Police Department, they are the only police department that can go anywhere. Most of the police, unless they 

have signed memoranda of understanding pursuant to a bill I got 

passed about a decade ago, can’t even leave the premises. 

So when we are talking about after Boston, we are talking about 

all the parades and the people who can go and really protect people 

in this town, you are talking about, when it comes to Federal police, only the Park Police. And I want to thank the Park Police for 

what looks to be a quick capture of the person who may have been, 

is alleged to have been defacing monuments. 

I want to ask you—I also want to thank you for somehow finding 

a way to make sure that the Park Police were not on furloughs. 

That seemed to me to be particularly absurd. When we have had 

furloughs in the Federal Government, we have always exempted 

law enforcement officers. And we were putting the entire city at 

risk, with all of the officials and all of the ceremonies. And you 

found the funds. 

Are you able to fill vacancies in the Park Police, Chief Chambers? 

Chief CHAMBERS. We are not currently hiring, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. So if someone were to leave because of the sequester or the cuts, those positions could not be filled? 

Chief CHAMBERS. At this moment, we do not have a class schedule. We will be looking closely at the fiscal year 2014 budget as we 

get closer to that. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I will be interested to know whether you are 

able to keep a force in place during this time. 

If I could ask Mr. Knox, apparently—and believe me, because I 

represent the District of Columbia, I was pleased that apparently 

no weapons were stolen, weapons were not found to be taken home 

for personal use, no weapons were ever seized in a crime. 

Could this have happened without some kind of monitoring? Did 

this just happen by chance? Those would have been the worst, it 

seems to me, of the results, and yet none of that occurred. Why 

not? 

Mr. KNOX. Well, Congresswoman, we didn’t examine—our assessment of weapons accountability at the Park Police did not find instances of weapons being stolen. We found instances of weapons 

not being accounted for properly, either in that we found weapons 

on hand which were not indicated on the property records or we 

found property records for weapons which were not physically 

present. 

Ms. NORTON. So are you assured that all the weapons are accounted for? Are there recommendations of the IG for how to do 

this without taking a lot of time and effort, especially now in perVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:29 Sep 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\82717.TXT APRIL
20 

sonnel, especially now when that personnel, of course, would not be 

available? 

Are there examples from other either Federal police or other police of ways to do this that you could recommend to the Park Police 

so this would not become a paperwork exercise but would be geared 

to just the kinds of things you have not just found? You have not 

found yet stolen weapons, people taking weapons home when they 

shouldn’t be or ending up in a crime. 

So does somebody have a streamlined way to do this that you 

could recommend to the Park Police? 

Mr. KNOX. Well, Congresswoman, we made 10 recommendations 

in this assessment which we feel, if complied with, will enhance 

their weapons accountability posture a great deal. Our expectation 

would be that they can account for all their weapons, and that 

would be typical behavior in most police agencies. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

I will ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Southerland of Florida, who is on the Natural Resources Committee, to also join us in 

this hearing. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bentivolio, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Based on the IG report, the lack of accountability here is very 

disturbing. I think about how the government holds civilians accountable for the firearms they own as private citizens through registration and licensing procedures. But here we have government 

firearms, paid for by taxpayers, left in your care, with a total lack 

of accountability. The IG discovered hundreds of handguns, rifles, 

and shotguns not listed on official Park Police inventory records. 

Where is the failure here that periodic and accurate inventory 

records were not maintained? Is there any legitimate excuse for 

this lack of accountability? Should there be more frequent audits 

and inventories? 

Chief Chambers, in the Army, we are required to hold periodic 

weapons inventories. Each soldier was held accountable for the 

weapons they were assigned. And like most all instances in the 

military, the most senior person is responsible to ensure that his 

subordinates do what they are supposed to do. 

Ms. Chambers, as the Chief of the Park Police, who is ultimately 

responsible for the firearms inventory at the Park Police? 

Chief CHAMBERS. It is me, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. The IG report indicated that a board of survey 

should be conducted whenever an item is lost or stolen. I imagine 

that in the case of firearms, which are sensitive government property, like in the military. 

And this is even more important. The IG report also stated that 

when asked about a board of survey, you were not aware of what 

a board of survey was and whether it was required to be conducted 

for missing weapons. Can you explain why this was not clear to 

you? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Yes, sir. I had never personally heard the term. 

That did not mean that my team did not. In fact, we have reissued 

21 

the memo, identifying the members of various boards of survey. It 

had been an ongoing practice. Just coming from municipal government, it was a term that was foreign to me. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Mr. Knox, are you aware of any disciplinary actions at the Park Police taken as a result of the IG findings? 

Mr. KNOX. No, sir, I am not. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Mr. Jarvis, nice to see you again. 

Who should be held accountable for these shortcomings? What 

type of disciplinary actions will be taken? 

Mr. JARVIS. We are still in the investigative phase on this. The 

first step was Recommendation 3, which is a full physical inventory. As I indicated in my earlier testimony, we are almost done 

with that. We still have three officers that we want to put our 

hands on those weapons and look at their serial numbers. 

Then there is a forensic, sort of, analysis of the previous procurements. So, when were those guns brought into the U.S. Park Police? When were they purchased? When were they transferred from 

other agencies? We want to compare that to the inventory, and 

then we will see whether or not there are any weapons truly missing or stolen. 

And then and only then, would we take a disciplinary action if 

we found that there was true mismanagement. At this point, we 

have a inventory management issue, not a mismanagement issue. 

And we have to get that completed over the next probably 60 

days or so to get that second part of that, sort of, forensics done 

on the procurement. And then we will understand whether or not 

this is just a fact that we did not have them in the inventory and 

could not account for them in the computer system rather than 

there are actually missing weapons. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Well, if you can’t account for them, it sounds to 

me like it is mismanagement or something else. 

But I understand, according to testimony earlier, it has been ongoing for the past 5 to 10 years, correct? Did I understand that correctly, yes or no? 

Chief CHAMBERS. I heard that. I wasn’t aware of anything prior 

to 2011. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Well, I heard testimony of going back as far as 

2008 and 2009. 

Ms. Chambers, do you receive a bonus? 

Chief CHAMBERS. No, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Do you, Mr. Jarvis? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. In 2008, you never received a bonus? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. 2010? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. 2011? 

Mr. JARVIS. My salary is fixed exactly. No bonus. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield to the chairman of the 

subcommittee? 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Yes, sir. 

22 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Jarvis, you gave a nice spin there, but you 

didn’t answer his question. His question is who is ultimately responsible, not what have you done. Who is ultimately responsible? 

Mr. JARVIS. I am the Director of the Park Service. I am ultimately—— 

Mr. BISHOP. So you are ultimately responsible for this. 

Mr. JARVIS. I am ultimately responsible. 

Mr. BISHOP. What about Ms. Chambers? What culpability does 

she have in this chain of reaction? 

Mr. JARVIS. She is the line supervisor, U.S. Park Police. She is 

also responsible. 

Mr. BISHOP. Look, guys, there was a 2003 report that was given, 

133 guns were missing, 2 ended up in a pawn shop; a 2008 report 

that showed problems; a 2009 report that showed problems. All of 

you were on the job then. 

Mr. Jarvis, what specifically did you do to implement the findings of the 2009 report? 

Mr. JARVIS. I was unaware of the 2009 report. 

Mr. BISHOP. But it came under your watch. 

Mr. JARVIS. I was not the Director until October of 2009. 

Mr. BISHOP. No, you were the Director after this report was 

taken—this report was permitted. What did you do about it? 

Even if it came after you took office, which it did not, what 

should you have done about it? 

Mr. JARVIS. I should hold my line supervisors accountable to follow the procedure—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Just the line supervisors? 

I mean, Ms. Chambers, you are throwing everyone in your department under the bus. How much accountability should you have 

for that? That was his question. It hasn’t been answered. How 

much accountability should you hold? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Full accountability. 

Mr. BISHOP. Have you taken full accountability and responsibility for it? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Yes, sir, I have. 

Mr. BISHOP. What has your action been? 

Chief CHAMBERS. We have—the most immediate has been to elevate the position of the firearms manager, sir, custodian manager—— 

Mr. BISHOP. What about your responsibility? 

Chief CHAMBERS. —so that I have a more direct line of communication with that person. 

Mr. BISHOP. So you are still blaming other people for it. 

Chief CHAMBERS. No, sir. It is my responsibility. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am going to yield back to the gentleman from 

Michigan. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. The gentleman yields back. 

We will now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And both chairmen have started touching on this, but I read in 

this letter, it said, ‘‘This report further underscores’’—the letter 

from the Deputy Inspector General Kendall—‘‘This report further 

underscores the decade-long theme of inaction and indifference of 

23 

U.S. Park Police leadership. Basic tenets of property management 

and supervisory oversight are missing in their simplest forms. 

Commanders up to and including the Chief of Police have a lackadaisical attitude toward firearms management. Historical evidence 

indicates that this indifference is a product of years of inattention 

to administrative detail.’’ 

That is a very disturbing letter. And then it becomes even more 

disturbing when I read that the 2008 report and the 2009 report 

both have the same language. 

‘‘We found a disconcerting attitude toward firearms accountability within U.S. Park Police. In particular, we found that firearms custodians were unaware of the number of guns in their inventory or of the origin of these guns and that guns physically 

present were not listed on the inventory.’’ 

That is very disturbing, that this has been going on for, it says, 

a decade and that there was this report in 2008 and 2009. 

Are we going to be back here 5 years from now and the situation 

is going to be the same? I mean, will each of you assure us that 

something is going to be done to straighten this out and change 

these lackadaisical attitudes about this, or are you just going to go 

back to your offices and laugh about this hearing? 

Mr. JARVIS. I will respond to that. 

Absolutely, I can assure you that we will not be back in here, 

other than perhaps to report on the final findings of this investigation. But I can assure you that we will, throughout the National 

Park Service, including the U.S. Park Police, ensure accountability 

throughout the organization. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Ms. Chambers? 

Chief CHAMBERS. I certainly echo the Director’s remarks. Action 

has been taken and will continue to be taken. It is a continual improvement process, and we will get better at it with each day. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Is it accurate, the report I have, that there are 640 

officers that are in your department—— 

Chief CHAMBERS. Approximately, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. —in your force? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I mean, that is not a gigantic bureaucracy. It looks 

like to me like it shouldn’t be this difficult to straighten this out 

and change these attitudes and this indifference. 

So thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

We will start a second round here. I will recognize myself. 

Chief Chambers, in response to Chairman Bishop, you said that 

you were elevating this position or this person. What does that 

mean? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Not the person, sir, the position. It has been 

a—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When you say ‘‘elevate,’’ what does that mean? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Right now, it is in the hands—the firearms custodian position is handled by a sergeant who also is our range master. That is not appropriate. I need a person full-time who will devote all of his energy to the management of the firearms. 

So a lieutenant is now being taken from another position. That 

lieutenant is being pulled out of the chain of command and going 

24 

right to the Deputy Chief, who sits next to my office, so that 

we—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So how many weapons, then, does the U.S. Park 

Police have? What is the current inventory? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Approximately 2,500, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you have 2,500 weapons. Why that number? 

Why 2,500? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Well, sir, a patrol officer would have three 

weapons each: a firearm at his side, a pistol; a patrol rifle; and a 

Taser. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So the IG found that there were in their words, 

1,400 extra weapons. What are these extra weapons? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Sir, I would have characterized it differently 

but as I probed the extra weapons included things like serialized 

parts, firearms that had been cannibalized so that we could keep 

other firearms in working condition without incurring additional 

cost. Some of these were training weapons. Some, as we had already discussed, were those were set aside awaiting disposal once 

we were able to get a contract. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you said 2,500 weapons is how many you 

have? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Approximately, yes, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You have 640 officers? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You said that a person would have three weapons? 

Chief CHAMBERS. A patrol officer would have three, yes, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Who has more than three weapons? 

Chief CHAMBERS. It is likely that a SWAT officer may have an 

additional weapon depending on his assignment. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you have 640 sworn officers, who have three 

weapons each, that is close to 1,900. 

Chief CHAMBERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How do you account for the other 600 weapons? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Sir, many are for training purposes. They include things like simunitions guns that you point at a screen, 

Tasers, things that—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When can you provide to this committee—when 

I say ‘‘this’’ committee, both committees, Oversight and Natural Resources, the actual inventory? 

Chief CHAMBERS. I’m sorry, you are asking for—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. A copy of the inventory. 

Chief CHAMBERS. Yes, sir, I would be glad to. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When will I get that? 

Chief CHAMBERS. If I could have a week that would be appreciated. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. One week sounds reasonable. 

Chief CHAMBERS. All right, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. By next Friday, we look forward to seeing that inventory. I asked you if you took any issue with the idea with the 

findings of the OIG. He found that you had 1,400 extra weapons. 

Do you take exception to that? 

Chief CHAMBERS. I do, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Why didn’t you say that before when I asked you? 

25 

Chief CHAMBERS. Sir, I didn’t want to interrupt. Others were 

speaking. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. No. I asked you that question. You weren’t interrupting. How is it that there is such a disparity—how did you come 

up with the number 1,400 extra weapons? 

Mr. KNOX. Chairman, during our assessment we physically examined over 1,350 or so weapons on hand. At the same time the 

force firearms custodian provided us a list indicating he had 1,450 

essentially weapons on hand. There was a disparity in those numbers, and even as I listened to the Chief testify today, if each officer 

has a weapon and we have 1,920 weapons therefore issued, that 

would leave only 600 on hand for a total count of 2,500. But we 

counted twice that many. And granted they are a collection of—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Let me understand that. You counted how many 

weapons? 

Mr. KNOX. 1,350. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But when you said twice that many, twice of 

what? Explain that to me. 

Mr. KNOX. If three weapons are issued to each officer, meaning 

a total of 1,920, and if 2,500 is the total sum of weapons in possession of the Park Police, we should have only been able to count 600 

weapons when we went through the various facilities. But, in fact, 

we counted 1,350. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Chief? How do you answer that? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Sir, many of those are patrol rifles that have 

not yet been issued. The patrol rifle program, it takes 40 hours for 

an officer to get fully certified. And at this moment, we don’t have 

a range to use so we use those as we can get it. It will take several 

more years until every officer is certified to carry a patrol rifle. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Jarvis, do you concur with everything the 

Chief is saying? 

Mr. JARVIS. I do, I do. I want to add one other factor though that 

they are in possession of some 500 weapons that are scheduled for 

disposal—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Would any of those disposals include the sales of 

those weapons? 

Mr. JARVIS. I do not believe so, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Why not, why not sell the weapons? They are of 

value. 

Mr. JARVIS. I think our policies are that those weapons go to disposal. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. That is a policy we need to revisit. My time is expired. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Knox, just for the sake of definition, it is my understanding 

that what triggered your investigation and your recommendations 

and findings was an anonymous tip or an anonymous complaint. 

That anonymity, is it for the sake of protecting a whistleblower 

under the statute, or is it indeed anonymous as the definition 

would be of anonymous? 

Mr. KNOX. Congressman, in this instance, the complaint was received anonymously. We have no knowledge—— 

26 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Was it in writing, a phone call? 

Mr. KNOX. The complaint was received in writing. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Excuse me. I don’t have that here with me. That 

particular complaint, that has been made available to the committee in writing? 

Mr. KNOX. No, sir, I believe I don’t believe it has. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, could we have that complaint in 

writing as part of the record? 

Mr. KNOX. Are you asking me for the complaint? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yeah. 

Mr. KNOX. I will have to consult with the Deputy IG on our policy relating to release. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. The committee would certainly appreciate that, 

not just the consultation but to comply with the ranking member’s 

request. 

Mr. KNOX. I understand. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And excuse me. I keep and to all the witnesses— 

I keep asking the same question to people because I keep looking 

for a smoking gun, and I can’t seem to find one. Pardon the pun. 

The Fraternal Order of Police has concerns with the methodology 

and the allegations made in the IG report. They believe that law 

enforcement best practices were not followed and that the report 

unjustly put, places blame on the current agency administration for 

the failure of previous chiefs of police and that the report undermines the credibility of this and future IG assessments and indeed 

the credibility of the force itself. 

Chief, your reaction to that assessment. And I will ask the same 

of you, Mr. Knox, if you don’t mind. 

Chief CHAMBERS. The Fraternal Order of Police’s communication 

with you is, of course, on their own volition. The fact that one 

agrees or disagrees with how the IG’s report may have been conducted is not as important to me as the value I find and I did find 

it valuable and the 10 recommendations are a great road map for 

us and I intend to see that they are fully implemented. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. Knox. 

Mr. KNOX. Congressman, I received a copy of the Fraternal 

Order of Police letter just moments before while we were in recess. 

I’ve read it. I’m not sure what information they might be referring 

to. I take exception to their statement about undermining the value 

of OIG activity. In fact, our recommendations have been received 

well by the National Park Service, and we’re pleased that they intend to implement them. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And I agree. I think that the fact that the reaction 

from the administration and the Department has been to be 

proactive and say, okay, let’s look at these and make corrections 

and adjustments. But we keep looking for the root cause of all this. 

And so that is why I’m assuming we are having this hearing rather 

than giving it ample time for the recommendations to be implemented, to be corrected, and then to have a hearing on the assessment toward the end of the line as opposed to making some judgments now that are probably I think patently unfair when the 

process isn’t done yet. 

27 

But given all that, there was a transition going on, Ms. Thorsen, 

from one system to another dealing with a reliable weapons inventory. 

Do you believe that that transition to a new system is one of the 

reasons the Park Police could not provide the IG at that moment 

of the snapshot with the records upon request? 

Ms. THORSEN. Without understanding the thorough assessment 

process that the IG used, they have their own methodologies in 

which they follow when they do their assessments, it appears that 

when they were looking for records and talking to the Chief they 

were unable to bring up records in the FBMS system. So that may 

have very well played into the fact that they could not produce at 

the time the electronic accounting records needed for verification. 

FBMS is the financial and business and management system for 

the Department. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Not by act of Congress and by unfortunately a signature of the administration, we have guns in the 

parks, and the public can have that access. And I would suspect 

that maybe our committees’ time would be well served to assessing 

how that’s going, what stress is put on Park Police and employees, 

and what, if any, backlash has been in terms of public acceptance 

of that. 

With that, I yield back. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I now recognize Chairman Bishop for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Ms. Thorsen, you’re the person who oversees all the law enforcement programs in the Department. What is your responsibility to 

ensure the Department firearm policies are known and followed? 

Ms. THORSEN. The office of law enforcement security in the Department is part of the tiered responsibility in the Department for 

firearms accountability. It starts with the officer supervisory chain, 

the Chief in this instance, the director of the particular bureau that 

the law enforcement program resides in. We have seven—— 

Mr. BISHOP. So is it your responsibility to make sure she knows 

what she’s supposed to be doing? 

Ms. THORSEN. We do that through compliance evaluations periodically, yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. So if the Chief claims that she didn’t know about 

some of these things, is that your responsibility for making that 

known? Is that your—has it been your office’s failure in her not understanding what she was supposed to be doing? 

Ms. THORSEN. No, I do not believe it is our office’s failure. 

Mr. BISHOP. That’s your responsibility. 

Ms. THORSEN. Our responsibility is to issue departmental policy, 

which we did after the 2009 report was issued. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How do you follow up on that? 

Ms. THORSEN. We follow up with periodic compliance evaluations 

and we are in the middle of doing a firearm assessment right now 

in all seven law enforcement programs in the Department. 

Mr. BISHOP. The report—they started looking at this thing in 

February. You started counting in July. Why was there that disparity of time? Why did you wait so long to try and find out what 

the answers would be? 

28 

Ms. Thorsen, I’m still coming at you. 

Ms. THORSEN. Actually we started our assessment in April and 

we are still in the middle of that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Knox, you didn’t do a baseline accounting, did 

you, of how many guns ought to be there, what is the number that 

should be? 

Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, we could not do that. The records were 

not available. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Ms. Thorsen, what has your office done to 

provide an accurate baseline accounting for firearms, not just within her department but across the Department? 

Ms. THORSEN. With the park police we are part of the team that 

is actually out doing a physical inventory right now regarding the 

Park Police. 

Mr. BISHOP. Are you doing a baseline? 

Ms. THORSEN. We are doing a physical inventory at this point 

and—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Is somebody going to come up with how many weapons should be out there? 

Ms. THORSEN. That’s the next phase. As talked about earlier, we 

will be looking at, the Park Service in particular will be looking at 

purchasing records, transfer records and comparing those to the 

physical inventory and—— 

Mr. BISHOP. When is that going to happen? When will that be 

done? 

Ms. THORSEN. I don’t have an exact date but I’m hoping in the 

next couple months or two. 

Mr. BISHOP. So are we. The Department’s testimony says—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Recommendation Number 6 says reduce the firearms inventory to no more than the minimum necessary to equip 

law enforcement, and that is to be done by October 2013. If you 

don’t have a baseline, you don’t know how many you’re going to reduce it by, I worry that, do you even know what the recommendations are? 

Ms. THORSEN. Yes, I do, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, the Department testimony says the Office 

of Law Enforcement and Security will work with the Park Service 

to provide additional oversight. That suggests that OLES has not, 

in the past, been conducting adequate oversight of the department’s law enforcement units in their firearm inventory? Did you 

or OLES conduct any oversight in response to the allegations of the 

2009 report to ensure that recommendations were implemented? 

Did you do anything for the 2009 report? 

Ms. THORSEN. We issued a variety of policies in our firearms policy, and then we have since also looked and compared policies at 

the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement to ensure 

that they had policies in place that we, we in the Department, 

identified from the 2009 report. 

Mr. BISHOP. So why wasn’t he able to find any of that stuff? 

29 

Ms. THORSEN. Well, those were three different bureaus. The Park 

Police, the process for the Park Service and the Park Police with 

them, and that follow-up is scheduled in the next couple of months. 

We have, the capacity we have in the Department with seven law 

enforcement programs we are going through them systematically. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. So they are different than the others and 

I get that. But in 2009, it was supposed to be, the recommendation 

was OLES should revise existing policy to direct that lost or missing cached firearms must be reported and investigated similar to 

lost or missing assigned firearms. That was the responsibility in 

2009. Why didn’t you do it? 

This is now 4 years later we find out it hasn’t been done. Why 

wasn’t it done? 

Ms. THORSEN. We did issue policy, Chairman, to ensure that 

weapons lost, missing weapons were reported. Those are required 

to be reported up in to our interior operations center on a serious 

incident report. 

Mr. BISHOP. But what good are those policies if no one knows 

about it and no one is following up on it? You have no follow-up 

on what you said you did after the two—there is no reason that 

this IG’s report should have come out. There was already a problem in 2003 when all of you were involved. There was a report in 

2008, and another one in 2009. It told you to do this. You say you 

issued policies but no one knows about them and no one followed 

up on them. Why not? 

Ms. THORSEN. The bureaus do know about the policies we issued. 

We issued them to all seven law enforcement programs once they 

are issued from the Department. We also have ongoing conversations with the bureaus, the Bureau of law Enforcement Programs, 

in fact, while we are developing those policies and when we issue 

those policies. So they are aware of those policies. 

Mr. BISHOP. Then why didn’t you have the data? Why were these 

things missing? Why did the IG report find out so many problems 

that they labeled also as a lackadaisical action and a culture that 

takes place? Why wasn’t this thing solved in 2009 if you actually 

did your job in 2009? If you actually followed the policies that were 

requested, and you say you do, why do we still have this problem 

4 years later? And it was a perfect question by Mr. Duncan. Are 

we going to have the same thing happen in 5 years because of the 

attitude, lackadaisical attitude we have in the Department? Ms. 

Thorsen, this is your responsibility, why has it not been done? Why 

4 years later are we still in a mess? 

Ms. THORSEN. The responsibility and accountability for firearms 

rests partly with the Department, but also with, as I said earlier, 

the officer, supervisory chain, the Chief and the director of whatever particular bureau the law enforcement program falls in. And 

as the director spoke earlier to, they do regular inventories, yearly 

inventories and information assurances statements every year to 

ensure that those accountable property items are tracked. So my 

expectation is that the bureaus and their programs are executing 

those requirements through policies we issue and policies issued by 

the acquisition and property management staff. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, I’m way over time so I will ask this simple 

question. If you did everything right, who screwed up? 

30 

Ms. THORSEN. The Department issued policies for—actually the 

2008 and the 2009 reports. The Park Police did not institute all of 

those policies, which we found out, and we are implementing those 

recommendations as we speak right now from the IG’s report. 

Mr. BISHOP. So Ms. Chambers screwed up? 

Ms. THORSEN. There are many layers of folks that were not taking appropriate accountability. 

Mr. BISHOP. So you all screwed up? 

Ms. THORSEN. No, I would not say everybody screwed up, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. But somebody had to. 

Ms. THORSEN. There are members, members of the force, members of the Park Service as identified by the IG in the report that 

apparently were not able to account for their firearms. So we take 

the recommendations to heart, we are implementing them to ensure that they are trained and that they are well aware of their 

personal accountability requirements when it comes to firearms. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, this is the last statement then. If you ordered, if you did the policies, you took the recommendations that 

go back 4 years ago and you did all of that, this IG’s report should 

not have happened. Somewhere there was a failure. This IG’s report should not have happened at all. Somewhere there is a failure, 

and someone needs to be responsible for that failure. 

I’m sorry. I do have one last question. You said you elevated this 

new position to take care of this problem. 

Chief CHAMBERS. Sir, I have assigned it to rank one rank higher. 

Mr. BISHOP. So someone got promoted to do this? 

Chief CHAMBERS. No, sir. A current lieutenant has now been 

moved into this new position. 

Mr. BISHOP. So someone on staff has been promoted into this 

new position? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Not promoted, sir, moved laterally from his 

other assignment as a shift commander. 

Mr. BISHOP. Was this person responsible for this—oh, never 

mind. I think you understand where I’m coming. Somebody got a 

new assignment because of this but that doesn’t solve the problem. 

I’m sorry for going over. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. One of the challenges is everybody, oh, we take 

responsibility, but nobody is held accountable. Nobody is held accountable. That’s the problem. Is anybody fired? Has anybody been 

fired? No. And we have this persistent problem, we’re dealing with 

weapons. This is not an excusable, oh, sorry, I won’t let that happen again. 

If President Obama wants gun control, he should start with the 

United States Park Police. 

Now a very generous 5 minutes for the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C., Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, the committee is and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, is right to be concerned about the IG report and what looks 

like difficulties of setting up a two system to keep track of guns. 

Anybody who has control of guns has a special responsibility. I’m 

going to say I find it also interesting that this committee is as interested as it is in the question since it has tried in the past to 

wipe out all the gun laws in the District of Columbia which would 

have given the Park Police a whole lot more work than it has now. 

31 

So I’m interested less in beating somebody up and finding out 

how to get this gun given the personnel issues that face every 

agency, including the Park Police. 

Now did I understand you to say that you are not filling vacancies, Ms. Chambers? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Not sworn vacancies, and civilian ones only on 

an as need basis and approved up the chain of command. 

Ms. NORTON. So no matter how low, we have a lieutenant who 

was here in a line position that had to do with patrol of the Park 

Police throughout the region? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Yes, ma’am. He was a shift commander. 

Ms. NORTON. So somebody is going to have to do that job which 

has to do with law and order. 

So I’m concerned that at a time when even officers of the Park 

Police when they leave the Park Police and create a vacancy cannot 

be replaced that we are talking about why people aren’t doing what 

clearly they should have been doing in this climate. 

All I can say, Chief Chambers, is in trying to get ahold of this 

inventory, an important responsibility of the Park Service and of 

the Park Police, I certainly hope that because you have heard so 

much at this hearing from Congress and that can always be intimidating, you will bear in mind that the public wants our monuments 

to be safe. Our public wants the 20 million visitors who come to 

this city from around the world to be safe, especially since most of 

them go to the monuments and to the Mall. 

So I can only hope that your first priority, whatever the concern, 

and it is a legitimate concern, about these guns does not deflect 

you from the law and order, the law and order mandate of the Park 

Police. 

Mr. Knox, is there any evidence that there has ever been a system to keep control of guns? I mean aren’t we starting from the 

ground up? 

Mr. KNOX. Congresswoman, the current state of accountability 

for weapons at the Park Police is in disarray. 

Ms. NORTON. I understand that. I am saying it sounds to me as 

though no one ever invented one. 

Mr. KNOX. Well there is no, as we say in our report we don’t 

have a baseline from which to start. There’s no point in time where 

we have any confidence in any inventory—— 

Ms. NORTON. So bear that in mind that essentially there is no 

record that the Park Police has ever in any administration at any 

time done anything but keep the guns from getting out of its control and apparently it has done that, but it has never had the kind 

of professional system that we would expect a law enforcement office to have. Of course the Park Police has been among the most 

unappreciated and least well staffed police forces, Federal police 

forces. And you know it shows. 

So I understand this is an important issue. I represent this city. 

If the Park Police don’t keep control of guns then, of course, in no 

small measure this city may be the first to feel the effects of it. 

But we’re asking the Park Police to create, invent a system that 

was never in place at a time when they will not be able to replace 

peace officers no matter how low the number gets when and if they 

leave. So I want to make it clear that there are mandates and 

32 

there are mandates. And I certainly hope nothing in this hearing 

makes you believe that there is any mandate more important than 

making sure that our monuments, our visitors and the people, our 

Federal employees, the people who come to this city in huge numbers every day, are safe. 

Mr. Knox, this may not be done as fast as it should be but I assume you also would believe that their first priority should be the 

protective mandate of any police force. 

Mr. KNOX. Congresswoman, of course we do. I do as well personally. But I would like to say that weapons accountability is a very 

fundamental task of a law enforcement agency and not a difficult 

one to achieve. It just takes leadership. 

Ms. NORTON. Agreed. And I’m the first to agree to that. As I say. 

My district would be the first to feel the effects. But you’re talking 

to people who cannot fill any position at any time and whose budget is going to go lower and lower each year unless we do something 

about it. I think everybody ought to put all the cards on the table, 

and that’s the big elephant in this hearing room today. 

And I yield back the balance of my time and I thank the chairman. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And I thank the gentlewoman. I would remind the gentlewoman that the U.S. Park Service spends some $50 million a year acquiring new properties, acquiring new things. We 

can’t even take care of what we have now. So if you share my commitment that we need the proper personnel, they need to be 

trained, they need to be supervised properly, perhaps the gentlewoman would join me in making sure that rather than acquiring 

new things and spending to the tune of $50 million a year doing 

so within just this one department, maybe we should take care of 

what we have here today. 

Now I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I recognize him for 5—I’m so sorry the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Bentivolio, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 

be perfectly clear. There’s no doubt in my mind that I don’t think 

our officers on the job are not doing that job and protecting the life 

and property of the United States Government as well as our visitors. 

But Ms. Chambers, Chief Chambers, I’m still a little concerned. 

You said something earlier that you did not know what a report 

of survey was, what last year you just learned of it? Is that right? 

Chief CHAMBERS. After the interview with the Inspector General’s investigator, I then inquired of my staff, what is this term? 

What does it mean? And they provided me with all the background. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. And how long have you been in this position? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Sir, I was reinstated in January of 2011. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Reinstated. 

Chief CHAMBERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. That means you held this position before? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. What years was that? 

Chief CHAMBERS. 2002 and 2003, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. So you held this position before and you didn’t 

find out what a report of survey was? 

33 

Chief CHAMBERS. I had never heard the term, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Do you have any military experience? 

Chief CHAMBERS. No, sir, I don’t. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Okay. You know, I could pretty much ask most 

privates and corporals and surely an E5 sergeant what a report of 

survey is and they will be able to tell you. And I’m a little bit surprised and disturbed that somebody at your rank doesn’t understand that. 

Now let me ask you another question real quickly. If I went and 

just stopped in one of your field offices where there were some rifles or pistols and I asked you and read the serial number, would 

you be able to tell me where it was acquired, when it was acquired, 

who had it or a chain if you will or, yes, somebody signed for it, 

a hand receipt for it, anything like that? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Not knowing the capabilities of the financial 

business management system that we just got access to, I don’t 

know that answer today, but I’d be glad to find out for you. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. So—let’s say I’m an officer. Do I come in and 

say hey I would like to check out a rifle, I’m qualified, I was a master gunner for my unit, I’m SWAT trained, former military policeman, I know how this works. 

How do I get that weapon? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Actually we’ve got such a request right now. An 

officer would request to have one assigned to him so that he doesn’t 

have to go to an arms room. It would be assigned to him each and 

every day to take out on patrol. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. What do you mean you don’t have an arms 

room? If he signs it out every day you have to have a secure—— 

Chief CHAMBERS. It would be a secure area for him, yes, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. So these are locked up overnight when he is not 

on duty? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Correct, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. And then he shows up in the morning, he is 

going on duty, does he sign for that weapon? 

Chief CHAMBERS. He better. I don’t know the answer—— 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. He’d better? 

Chief CHAMBERS. There are sign-out procedures. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Okay, well, there should be an armorer or 

somebody that hands that weapon over to him and he signs for it. 

Is that correct? 

Chief CHAMBERS. That’s correct, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. All right. Now if you’re not doing that, I’m going 

to highly recommend U.S. Army veterans. Do you hire any veterans? 

Chief CHAMBERS. We do, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Well, you know, they know this stuff backwards 

and forwards. They know the procedure. Maybe you should consult 

somebody who has experience in this area other than somebody 

who, well, apparently doesn’t know. Because there should be a 

chain of title or a chain that I can look at right now and see a serial number and ask you where that weapon is or find out immediately where that weapon is and who had it at all times at any 

moment. 

34 

And you know in the Army if you didn’t do that in my unit, you’d 

be relieved on the spot, there would be a report of survey on the 

spot, five or six officers would have their heads rolling if they didn’t 

get it fixed within hours. 

Chief CHAMBERS. And that’s certainly the ultimate goal. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. But nobody’s head’s rolling. Nobody understands. And I keep hearing 5 to 10 years, and apparently you didn’t 

know what a report of survey was even back in 2002 when you 

held this position. 

Chief CHAMBERS. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

I will recognize myself as we wrap this up. I do have a few more 

questions. 

Chief, how is it that somebody could walk up to the Lincoln Memorial, throw green paint on it, and walk away without anybody 

noticing? How does that happen? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Sir, if a criminal is intent on committing a 

crime in the presence or outside the presence of a police officer’s 

view, he or she can do it. Fortunately, we have got technology that 

has helped us gather the evidence needed in this case. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Why wasn’t that person apprehended on the spot? 

Is there not a person there patrolling at the time? 

Chief CHAMBERS. There is, sir. And he had just left that side of 

the statue and was actually on the back side at the moment that 

it occurred. I’m confident that it happened very quickly based on 

other witness statements. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I find it totally and wholly unacceptable that we 

don’t have the adequate control on something so precious and so 

visible, so close to the White House as the Lincoln Memorial. It is 

just stunning. We will have to get into that further. 

How much ammunition do you have? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Sir, we have approximately 500,000 rounds of 

ammunition, and we will be using about 200,000 of that here in the 

next few months for requalification. That happens twice a year. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So 200,000 rounds for 640 people, I will have to 

work back and do the math, that seems like an awful lot actually 

as I kind of calculate it right off the top of my head here. 

What I would like, and Mr. Jarvis, I would like this from you 

and Ms. Thorsen as well, all seven of the agencies, I hope you find 

it reasonable to ask for the current inventory. We’ve done this with 

other departments and agencies, we did it with the Social Security 

Administration, we have done it with others, it is not a new ask, 

to provide us a listing of how, the current inventory of all the 

weapons broken out by each of the seven agencies, the departments, whatever you want to call them, that would also include the 

inventory of ammunition. 

And if you could also show us the historical purchases of both 

weapons and ammunition for the last 5 years, that would be very 

helpful. 

And the final thing that I would ask is a projection on what you 

anticipate purchasing over the next 24 months. I know that crosses 

35 

a couple different fiscal years and what not but certainly you have 

some sort of projection. And Mr. Jarvis, is that a reasonable ask? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think that the ask for the current inventory is very 

reasonable. I think we can supply that. At least I’m speaking for 

the Park Service, I can’t speak for the other agencies, and also inventory weapons and ammunition. Projections—one caveat I would 

say going back and looking over the past 5 years of procurement, 

that will be, that’s a big lift. As was indicated here a little bit behind the scenes, we have transitioned to a new accounting system—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, what’s a reasonable time that you would get 

that to the two committees? 

Mr. JARVIS. I will have to get back to you on what, how much 

time that will take. I don’t want to overpromise and underdeliver 

on that, so I want to be able to tell you how long it would take. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Could we say September 7th; is that a reasonable 

time, over a month away? 

Mr. JARVIS. That we could get back to you with how long it will 

take? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. No. No. 

Mr. JARVIS. I cannot promise you that I can have 5 years of procurement data to you by September 7th. That is unreasonable. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Let’s say this, by the end of August that you 

would get us the current inventory, which you supposedly have 

right at your disposable at this time, and we will give you an additional 30 days for the projection of procurement. Is that fair, the 

end of September for the procurement projections? 

Mr. JARVIS. I would guess that our projection for procurement is 

probably the next 12 months, because we don’t—fiscal year—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Next 12 months is a start. That gives you almost 

60 days to do the, I think that’s reasonable. Ms. Thorsen, can we 

do that with all the agencies or all the departments under those 

time parameters? 

Ms. THORSEN. Well, I also don’t want to overpromise and underdeliver. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I’m asking you to make a commitment. You are 

the one in charge. 

Ms. THORSEN. I will work with the other directors in the bureaus 

to ensure that they get the direction and that we move forward, absolutely. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And that you will hit those dates. 

Ms. THORSEN. Yes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Now I yield to or recognize the gentleman from 

Utah, Chairman Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. I was just making sure when he said the gentleman 

from Utah he actually meant me. 

Mr. Knox, you didn’t go through an assessment of procurement 

or storage or anything else of ammunition, did you, in the report? 

Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, no, we did not. 

Mr. BISHOP. Were there anecdotal evidences or issues that you 

saw as you were going through the report? 

Mr. KNOX. Anecdotally we observed as we moved through the 

various facilities conditions which could be enhanced for security, 

36 

all of which I should mention, sir, were known by the Park Police 

and something they are dealing with. 

Mr. BISHOP. Ms. Thorsen, you have a policy for missing weapons? 

Ms. THORSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Knox, did Chief Chambers know that policy for 

missing weapons? 

Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell you whether she knew or 

did not know. 

Mr. BISHOP. Isn’t—the claim is that you were not aware of that 

policy, though, is that right, Ms. Chambers? 

Chief CHAMBERS. I believe the report would make one believe 

that I did not know, but that is not accurate, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. You did know? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Of course, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. That means you should have done something about 

it then. 

Chief CHAMBERS. Sir, we have no evidence of missing weapons. 

Mr. BISHOP. Right. There is a couple of last requests I’m going 

to have from everybody here. 

Mr. Knox, this is something for which you are not responsible 

but we are going to call for it one more time, Miss Kendall’s title 

is Acting IG, right? 

Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, she uses the title Deputy IG, which is 

the position she held. She did act for a while but the vacancy 

act—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Is there an IG, a permanent IG? 

Mr. KNOX. No, sir, we at the Interior Department do not 

have—— 

Mr. BISHOP. It has been about 4 years since we had one, right? 

I’m going to make this call one more time as our committee has 

previously. There needs to be a permanent IG appointed and it 

would give some more credibility to the reports that are coming out 

of your office. I want—we need to have a permanent IG. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Jarvis, I do have some empathy for the position you have, 

especially when the Park Police has an autonomous streak to it, 

but the responsibility is still to come back with these reports. I notice that many of the recommendations we’re asking to be done by 

October 1st, to be completed by October 1st. 

I would like you to supply our committee with the evidence of 

what you have done by October 1st to implement all these recommendations. And I appreciate that. 

Ms. Thorsen, it would be the same thing, if we can get by October 1st the implementation report from what you have been doing. 

Ms. Chambers, are you a political appointee in this position or 

are you a merit? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Merit, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. So you will stay there until you decide to retire? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. We need a better job. This is not acceptable from 

those who are under you. And that’s all there is. This report should 

never have come out because in 2003 your entity lost 133 guns. 

They found them in pawn shops in Georgia, a couple of them. This 

37 

will not happen again. This should not happen again. It is your responsibility. Make sure it does not happen again. 

And, Mr. Jarvis, we will hold you accountable for that as well. 

Chief CHAMBERS. You have my commitment, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. The gentleman yields back. We’ll recognize the 

ranking member, Mr. Tierney, from Massachusetts. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Jarvis, in this particular instance, following this report, have 

there been any identification of lost weapons? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir, there have not. 

Mr. TIERNEY. No indication of people finding them in pawn shops 

or anything else? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Knox, you did a weapons accountability overview on your report and recommended that they have a better system of weapons accountability, correct? 

Mr. KNOX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And you base that on best practices in the law enforcement field? 

Mr. KNOX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And that’s reflected in your recommendations? 

Mr. KNOX. It is in fact. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Okay. Mr. Jarvis, you have looked at those eight 

recommendations, and you think they are reasonable? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes and there are 10 actually, I looked at all ten. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And Ms. Chambers, you agree? 

Chief CHAMBERS. I do, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And you are in the process of trying to accommodate all of those 10 recommendations, correct? 

Chief CHAMBERS. Some have already been completed. Many of 

the others are well on their way, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And Mr. Knox, you have committed to having a 

constant overview of this progress? 

Mr. KNOX. Yes, sir. As I stated in my opening remarks, we feel 

we must stay engaged and continue some reviews. 

Mr. TIERNEY. How will you do that? 

Mr. KNOX. We will schedule reviews and inspections after we receive results from the National Park Service on the implementation 

of our 10 recommendations. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And if you feel that they’re falling unreasonably behind the schedule for time you said you will notify the committees 

that are here today? 

Mr. KNOX. Yes, sir, we will. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And neither Mr. Jarvis or Ms. Chambers have any 

difficulty with that at all; you’re set on that process? Do you feel 

that each of you has the personnel that’s competent to carry out 

these recommendations? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, and we have drawn from the Department of the 

Interior as well to assist us in that work. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And Ms. Thorsen, you are satisfied with that as 

well? 

Ms. THORSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you all for your testimony. I yield back. 

38 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. We appreciate your attentiveness to 

this matter. We look forward to hitting those dates and those commitments that we have made, and the committee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

(39) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

40 


Insert offset folio 4 here 82717.004
41 


Insert offset folio 5 here 82717.005
42 


Insert offset folio 6 here 82717.006
43 


Insert offset folio 7 here 82717.007
44 


Insert offset folio 8 here 82717.008
45 


Insert offset folio 9 here 82717.009
46 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 10 here 82717.010