Transcripts For CSPAN3 William Werkheiser Testifies On Falsified Geological Data 20161222

Engineering as a focus area or something we should spend more time on. Im actually going to go to rob first just from an industry perspective, i mean, thats i will give you the first crack at it and if anybody else wants to weigh in briefly, happy great. I will be quick. Cyber security is a top priority and security across the board for that matter, but cyber is one of the big big issues we are paying a lot of attention to. Its a continuous, you know, challenge because the enemy gets better, weve got to get better, they get better, weve got to get better and we are continuing to try to keep that advantage versus what our adversaries are doing to basically steal our technology. So its at the forefront of what were doing every day. I would also say that theres an element of taking the fight to the enemy, if you will, that offensive cyber. So you dont want to just be playing defense all the time. And there are things that are happening that will keep them playing some defense. I will leave it at that. But great question and at the top of the list for things that were paying attention to. Do you want to i think very briefly i agree with everything that rob said. Also we need to assume that these things are going to keep happening, even if they are not happening from espionage the people will figure out the technology were using or who can develop something similar. We cant let the features be the key different operator for our technology. We need to be able to pair those technologies with technology. Even now they can reverse our technology we can still kill them 27 different ways. Next question, gentleman with the glasses. Right there. Weve heard today quite a bit about acquisitions and engineering but one of the other things that the dod does is research. So i want to ask what your view is the role of research in the mixture of, you know, funding and especially with regards to the new Administration Im speaking specifically about basic research that aims to yield capabilities 10 to 20 years down the line. Basic research by definition occurs in academia and outside of industry. I think its balance and there does need obviously to be funding in it the basic research which is going on. Some of it in the skunk works and advanced development programs, we do some of that work. We tend to be in more the 62, 63 arena versus earlier technologies. There are parts of our corporation that are doing it as well as the rest of industry. But what we are trying to figure out is, you know, with limited resources is where is the balance. So when you invest in these early technologies you want to see them mature and then as the mature technologies that are available, you want to transition those into the Program Record. The way i have our organization set up, we have a Technology Arm, we have a Program Record arm and im always looking for challenging the Technology Arm on how were going to advance it to the programs of record. So great point and i think, you know, again it comes to finding that right balance of resources but we definitely need to continue to invest in basic research. The only thing that i would add, too, is we for the last several years we have a lot of technologies that have been sort of in limbo in research and development that really, again, are ready to move beyond. So though im a huge proponent of investing in research for the next generation because you have to continually look ahead, weve got plenty of really good stuff, we talked about lasers, directed technology, but we always talk about how its five years away. Well, get some people who are serious about it for a matter of policy and get some money behind it and see what happens to these programs that are really have been continually five years away and i think we will start seeing them up close. Remember, the Airborne Laser program, right before it was cut up into many pieces and sent away. It shot down a missile. Now, some people had some problems, it was directed energy on a 747 so we had some questions about the concept of operation but it proved the technology was what we wanted it to do. Now we want to look at that directed energy and see how we can get on a more useful platform but thats just one example that we really are ready to go with these technologies that weve been sitting on for a whil while. I would say the United States basic research capability, especially through the d. O. D. Lab network, is one of our key differentiators. I worry in the next four to eight years that fund willing get cut in a search for, like, stuff we can have immediately and well be eating our own seed corn and that will be dangerous for the future. At the same time, we do need to have better methods by which we can harvest the great work thats done and move those things forward but that shouldnt be at the extense of that fundamental research because other people cant do in the the way we can. I think the sign of any good panel is we leave questions on the table. I see a number of hands up but in the interest of keeping us unscheduled that will be the last question. I want to ask you to join me in thanking our panelists and thank you for the discussion. [ applause ] u. S. Geological survey Deputy William work heizer testified on cases of data pla nip lags at the agency between 1996 and 2014. An internal investigation confirmed the misconduct and also identified personnel and management problems. The subcommittee on oversight and investigation will come to order. The committee is meeting to hear testimony examining decades of data moo nip lags at the United States at the Geological Survey. Any hearings are limited to the chairman and the ranking minority member therefore i would ask unanimous consent that all other members Opening Statements the be made part of the hearing record if theyre submitted by 5 00 p. M. Today. Hear nothing objection, so ordered. I will recognize myself for five minut minutes. Today were examining the decades of data manipulation that occurred within the u. S. Geological survey as well as the agencys failure to take appropriate and corrective measures. The usgs has been considered by many to be the Gold Standard of scientific integrity and reliability. That image has now been indelibly stained, at least, or at best profoundly shaken by the revelation of deliberate decadeslong data manipulation this committee has learned the u usgs shut down the lab from the ig months after it happened. In 2015, a department of the interior Scientific Integrity Review Panels investigating this matter concluded there was a chronic pattern of scientific misconduct at the Inorganic Laboratory in colorado. The panel also concluded the laboratorys chemist intentionally manipulated data. The shocking findings have not only impugn it had integrity of the usgs, theyve impugned the scientific underpinnings of policy decisions that may have been taken as a result of the usgs research. I should note we arent talking a few fudged numbers. This involves research and personnel going back to 1996 when the data manipulation was discovered in 2008 new employees were shuffled in yet the fraud continued, tainting thousands of sample results. You might wonder how no one in the usgs management noticed the junk science coming from the lab. Investigators offered one explanation pointing to the conscience conscious acquiescence and inatentativeness of others in the laboratory and or the centers management. While the longterm cost to usgss reputation may be incalculable, the Inspector General reported that from fiscal year 2008 through 2014 effective projected representative 108 million. This does not include a prior decade of data manipulation. Were still trying to find out the extent of the projects affected and any policy decisions that were executed with falsified data. The reliability of data we were provided by as lawmakers across a spectrum of issues is now called into question usgs is likely going to assure us it will never happen again, that manuals have been rewritten, new positions have been created and on and on with solutions to make us want to forget and get back to blind faith in federal science however with the discussion in our witness, i want one basic question answered why. Why did this happen with all the briefings held with Staff Reports and audits written we did not know why this occurred. Usgs told us it was the labs lousy air conditioning but then said that was not it. Usgs told us the data was changed to account for variable calibrations and then said that wasnt it. Finally usgs offered up the excuse that it was plain incompetence. I still dont buy it. Nearly 20 years of fraud, more than 100 million flushed down the toilet, this shouldnt be penned on just one incompetent employee who was remarkably replaced by another incompetent employee. Not to mention the fact the most recent fall guy had sterling evaluations. Primary concern isnt just the mechanics of this fraud, there should be a clear explanation as why it happened. Any proposed solution is meaningless without it. Its an unfortunate coincidence that our first hearing was on the lack of accountability of federal science and the consequences of politically driven science. Things have been employed through the actions of federal employees motivated by entrenched ideologies and use of manipulated data or just garbage science. Let this hearing serve as a warning, any federal employees who harbors thoughts of them eschewing scientific integrity and transparency in order to advance some agenda. This subcommittee would not tolerate such actions. Well hold accountable to those in such a manner who turn a blind eye. I would point out as we say the problems go back to 1996 and first discovered in 2008. This goes across republican and Democrat Party lines. This is a matter we need to get to the bottom of why it happened so appreciate your indulgence. The chair recognizes ms. Dingle for five minutes of the opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman, thank you, Deputy Director work heizer for testifying today. The United States Geological Survey or usgs is one of the most esteemed scientific organizations in the world. The agency earned its reputation through 137 years in insights to earthquakes, clean drinking water, Climate Change to fossil fuel reserves. I also know how important the work is because of the usgss Great Lake Science Center which is in my district has played an Important Role in helping to adopt the spread of asian carp in the great lakes. The affect of asian carp, if they become fully established in the great lakes, is enormous, which is why i requested this subcommittee hold a hearing on one aspect of the damage, the affect on great lakes fisheries. In order to effectively protect that 4. 5 billion in Economic Activity in the great lakes fisheries, we must have the best possible science from the best possible scientific institutions. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find a Congressional District that hasnt benefited from usgss work, which is why it is so disappointing that you have been dealing with the scientific integrity issue. For 18 years, chemists at a small lab in colorado intentionally manipulated some of the data that they were hired to produce. Though none of the data was used to support any state and federal regulations, seven papers were delayed and one had to be retracted. Usgs had the chance to correct it when the data manipulation was uncovered in 2008 but after they cleaned house and hired new analysts and management, the same data manipulation continued unabated until it was discovered again in 2014. The investigations that followed uncovered other disturbing things. The lab was found to be slow. They took seven times as long to analyze their samples as they should have, they were slow to identify the manipulation, they were slow to act to correct it and prevent the problem from happening. They were slow to notify the customers. The investigations also found that management was asleep at the wheel. Not only did managements fail to catch the problem, one manager looked the other way for a few months. Making matters worse, they presided over and may have facilitated a toxic Workplace Environment. Offensive language and behavior created an atmosphere that was so intimidating a scientific integrity investigative body concluded it contributed to the labs substandard performance. The report indicated with a female employee tried to blow the whistle on it, management failed to support her. Any organization that devalues women in their workplace will not last. The scientific integrity report cited this failure as one of the main reasons it recommended that the lab close permanently. The closure of this lab is a fair outcome. The usgs got a Second Chance to correct the problem and they didnt. I believe the usgs should be held toll a higher standard and that the lab closure was the right decision. Fortunately, all signs point to this problem being isolated to the organic lab. The closest comparison to the inorganic lab at usgs is the organic lab which is reputable and in demand. The report by the Scientific Integrity Review Panel concluded that the organic Laboratory Section is an extremely productive wellorganized Structure Laboratory that is conducting important scientific resear research. Of course, the remainder of the agency continues to churn out science. That is essential to the nation. At this point, there have been two Inspector General reports, a number of external audits, a number of internal reviews and a scientific integrity investigation. At this point, there have been more investigations in the number of analysts that were in the lab. I would be interested to know what my colleagues on the other side think this hearing will add to the pile and more specifically how this new information will help the usgs become a stronger agency. After all, thats one of the primary functions of oversight, to improve the effectiveness of the agencies that serve the American People so i hope we can focus today on making sure we can learn from the welldocumented mistakes, ensure that they wont be repeated and lets focus on building the agency up rather than tearing it down. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. At this time pursuant to committee rule, statements are limited to five minutes. Your entire written statement will appear in the hearing record. When you begin the light will turn green as it is now. When you have one minute remaining, the yellow light comes on and time expired red light comes on and ill ask you to conclude your statement. This time the chair recognizes mr. Work heizer for his testimony. Chairman gohmert, Ranking Member dingell and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am bill work heizer, Deputy Director of the u. S. Geological survey. The u. S. Geological survey has served the nation for 137 years, providing unbiased science for use by Decision Makers covering a wide range of policy issues. Our reputation for scientific integrity is central to everything we do. And thats why im here today, to address a serious breach of scientific integrity at usgs. This is not a proud day for my employees. This is my lowest moment. In 2014 usgs identified a potential incident of scientific misconduct at the inorganic geo Chemistry Lab in lakewood, colorado. A scientist had been making improper adjustments to data from a machine used to measure heavy metals in coal and water sample s samples. All work in the affected section of the laboratory was stopped and internal investigation was initiated. Usgs promptly reported the possibility of scientific misconduct to the office of the Inspector General. Our investigations into the incident confirmed this data manipulation constitutes scientific misconduct. This closely resembles a similar instance at the inorganic section that occurred from 1996 to 2008. The investigation identified additional management and personnel problems, including indications of a hostile Work Environment. I suspect your questions are the same as mine why didnt we know of it sooner . How could it have happened in the first place . How did it go on for so long without being detected . Following the recommendations of the investigation, the usgs closed the inorganic section of the energy geoChemistry Laboratory march 1, 2016. All the employees implicated in the incident are no longer employed by the usgs. We posted Public Notice of this incident, contacted customers of the inorganic lab and carefully reviewed work products that could have been made use of manipulated data from the lab. All failure of scientific integrity is a serious matter. Misconduct and mismanagement will not be tolerated at usgs. My job is to ensure a situation like this is never able to occur again. We are undertaking significant steps to enhance data Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures. First, ive asked the National Academy of sciences to assess all the bureaus laboratory programs, data Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures. Secondly, i established a Strategic Lab committee to ensure all of our Laboratory Assets are managed to best support the Science Mission of the usgs. Third, the Energy Program is developing a comprehensive and rigorous Quality Management system to replace current procedures. This will include periodic external review and international benchmarking. Fourth, we have hired a permanent Quality Management system manager who reports directly to headquarters to avoid potential conflict of interest as well as two laboratory Quality Assurance specialists who will oversee data quality and usgs energy Science Centers. Taken together, these steps will ensure that any future data quality problems are identified quickly and dealt with immediately. In our 137year history, the usgs has built a strong reputation on providing quality scientific information critical to the nation. For example, our science has helped protect communities in the path of lava flows and prevented a catastrophic rupture along the alaska pipeline. Most recently, we released an assessment that identified 20 billion barrels of technically Recoverable Oil resources in west texas. We do and have done important work in the service of this nation but none of that explain this is incident. Im committed the upholding the long standing usgs reputation for scientific integrity. We will address the issues that led to the misconduct at this usgs lab and will make changes necessary to prevent it from happening again. Throughout these instances, we have tried to be accountable and transparent to the committee and the public. We have worked with your staff to provide briefings, documents and other relevant information as quickly as possible and to prioritize a delivery of the most critical documents to assist in your oversight. To date, we have provided by more than 4,000 pages responsive to 27 of your 30 specific requests. We anticipate supplying the remaining outstanding documents as soon as possible. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. Im here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, mr. Werkheiser, we appreciate your testimony, i know its not the most fun thing to do but we will begin questioning and ill recognize myself for five minutes. You talked about the troubling aspect in this issue but like i mentioned in the opening statement, going back to 1996 . Thats during the clinton administration. Through 2008, thats the bush administration. 2014, thats the obama administration. And ive got to tell you mr. Werkheiser, when i first got elected i can remember going Walking Around Boston University and theyve done some great work in conjunction with the u. S. Geological society and i looked at the stuff from the usgs and my thought i mean, going back to high school, wow, the usgs this is quality stuff. And i got the higher grade in science in my high school for well i remember seeing usgs, wow, this is really impressive this is really quality stuff as we talked about the Gold Standard. So its really hard breaking to think about all of the great work thats been done to build this phenomenal reputation of the u. S. Geological society to come around to the point where we are now where weve had years of just falsity and fraud manipulating data. You get rid of one employee and really it doesnt sound like there were a lot of consequences there, thats deeply troubling. If somebodys falsifying data, it ought to be a blight on their total reputation and their professionalism. But i come back to the question i mentioned in my opening statement. To what end . Why the continued falsification and manipulation of data . Do you have an answer to the why . I mean as a lawyer i was taught never ask the question why, but i really truly want to nose. I share your concern, i was appalled and devastated when i learned of this incident. Like you, when i was in school, i learned of the usgs through an article that said that usgs was the best at what it does in the world. That made me want to become part of usgs. So i was deeply appalled when i learned about this incident. While i cant look into the mind of the analysts involved, what i can say is that with this instrument, when the raw information comes off of it, it often needs to be adjusted to comply with standards that are run. Mr. Werkheiser, we heard that originally that you have to change it some because of the calibration. But then it turned out we heard from usgs, well, that really doesnt explain all of the falsification that we got here. So appreciate that position that we heard that before and it turned out that wasnt the proper explanation. So lets try again. Do you have some other explanation . Why . The issue is those adjustments were well outside of established standards so the and while i cant look into the mind of the person now youve said that twice now. But the fact is, you can ask the scientists why. Did you ever ask these people why did you do this . Yes. They were asked why. Their explanation was that they felt those manipulations were justified when, in fact, they were not. And they looked at to see if there was a pattern of that manipulation. Was it consistently higher than the value should have been . Was it lower than the value could have been . Were they trying to drive an agenda to falsify those data . There was no consistent bias in that information. Sometimes it was high, sometimes it was low and in fact the way the samples are submitted theres no way for them to know what those samples will be used for. The project is not identified so i cannot explain exactly why except from what they tell us and it was in an effort in their minds to provide more accurate information, which is absolutely not the case. Thats total irony. You manipulate data in order to make it more accurate. Thats totally incongruent. Well, what do you believe the longterm effects of usgss reputation in the Science Field . You got University Students that are now going what are we supposed to do . This is totally bogus science here. This is damaging to our reputation, theres absolutely no doubt about that. And so all i can do is to ensure that we rebuild and regain that reputation. The four steps i outlined before bringing in the National Academies of sciences, a very prestigious organization, to evaluate our protocols to help us into the future, the establishment of our Strategic Laboratory committee to look at the all our assets, every lab we have and the implementation with Quality Management system that will eventually encompass all of our laboratories across the usgs will help to rebuild that reputation. Has that been done . The Quality Management system is under way. Okay. Well my time has expired. I recognize ms. Dingell for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Is. Debty director werkheiser, because i so value usgss work that it does and the people that work there, i want to ask you about the Workplace Environment at the lab. As you know, the Scientific Integrity Review Panel was appalled to learn there was a toxic Work Environment characterized by use of offensive language and behavior. That appears to be created at least in part by lab analysts that was flippant and difficult to work with. When a female staff member brought the issue to the attention of two levels of management, management and human relations appeared to have failed to adequately address the harassment. She was reportedly one of the several recipients of bullying behavior in the lab. While this sounds like its not a case of Sexual Harassment because it happened to men and women, its a case of harassment that apparently also, and for a very long time without being addressed. In fact, it might not have been discovered at all or paid attention to even though it was being reported if not for this particular scientific integrity investigation. I want to know how in the absence of this kind of investigative report and other parts of usgs can we know that such a hostile Work Environment has not taken root elsewhere in the agency . Thank you for the question. I also was deeply disturbed to learn of the hostile Work Environment at play here. I was appalled at that environment. So the main question of how can we be assured that this doesnt happen elsewhere in the agency is one of great importance to me. Ill point to two things where ill say im confident is not a culture within the usgs and the two things ill point to, if you look at our Sexual Harassment claims, they are the lowest in the department of interior and we look at our federal Employee View Point survey results, we consistently score higher and these results are used to evaluate employee engagement, employee satisfaction. Those results are consistently higher than the department and consistently higher than the government overall. However, those are just statistics. Even one incidence of hostile environment or Sexual Harassment is one too many. So our job is how do we ensure that we have a workplace where people feel safe and are comfortable bringing issues forward of this nature and not be afraid of any type of retaliation or retribution . So in doing that, we take very seriously and are undertaking a number of things that is happening. First is that all the executives within usgs have attended training on Workplace Environment workplace culture. That training will be cascaded through the organization and until every employee has received that training, is made aware. The other thing we have done is in looking at this case in particular its clear that the employee did not feel comfortable coming forward so we need to have advocates for employees who represent their interest and that they can go to confidentially and not be concerned about any retribution or any type of stigma attached to coming forward. So were working with the department of interior to make our employees have access to an omsbuds person to ensure that advocacy. The other thing i will say is that our director takes this issue very seriously. She has issued several memos and communications with employees on the issue. She has developed a work group to look at and workplace issues and reaching out to organizations such as the American Geosciences Institute and the American Geophysical institute or union to look at the processes and the lessons learned, the best practices, from those very large institutions and bringing those into usgs. So let me quickly ask you two questions. I worked there and i want to report a harassment. How can i do that, be assured that my whistle blowing will remain confidential to all, including my supervisor, and how do i know it will be investigated fairly, thoroughly, and promptly . We have worked with our office of diversity and equal opportunity. Thats where those claims are looked at and investigated. Weve and weve had that looked at by the eeoc and several i guess several years ago now they determined that our systems were not totally adequate to ensure just what you had asked, that confidentiality and that ability to look investigate an issue fully without without any type of stigma attached to it. So we are revising our policies in our office. Were working with the department to do that. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Dingell. I really do appreciate your getting into that issue like that and i was reminded in very recent years we actually impeached a couple of judges and one of them was about the Workplace Environment, harassment of the women on his staff and he should have been thrown out of office for the things he was doing. Im wondering out loud here, maybe we need to encourage people that work in the federal government, if youve got a hostile Workplace Environment, maybe we need to know and drag those people up here and over the coals so people can feel if theyre tempted to abuse people working for them, particularly women working for them, maybe youll get a chance to come up here and be totally humiliated in front of the whole world. So well have to keep that in mind. At this time i would recognize mr. Labrador for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Werkheiser for being here today. In reviewing some of the facts of this case, do you believe that the chemist most directly involved with the data manipulation was qualified for the job . When the using the instrument that he first started on in 2010, i believe it was, 2009, yes. New instrumentation was a was procured in 2012 and evidence indicates he was not qualified to operate that instrument. It appears that other employees of the inorganic Chemistry Lab were aware that the chemist in question didnt have sufficient database experience to do his job. They described his microsoft excel knowledge as rudimentary, i. E. Freshman college level. The sirp report team called this incomprehensible that this chemist in question was hired to work within this facility without possessing adequate Data Processing skills. This man was a 30year employee of the usgs working with expensive equipment, handling projects with a value of an excess of 100 million. How did he maintain his employment . He most of his career was working in a different lab doing different things. He was transferred to the inorganic geoChemistry Lab, i believe, in 2009 or 2010 when he took over those new duties. So the it was clearly a management failure and a management failure at several levels and we again, through these procedures and through this Quality Management syste m implementation was intend to make sure it doesnt happen again or if it does happen we catch it quickly and take appropriate action. Im trying to understand because you, mr. Werkheiser, youve one of the best witnesses that ive ever seen in congress. I really want to praise you for taking responsibility. So you seem to really care about your job so im trying to understand how this happened. With somebody that really cares about what theyre doing, you have so much pride in the work that you do, how did this happen . Have you thought about that . Ive thought about it often, long and hard. And the responsibility for ensuring that our employees are doing their jobs and are accountable for doing their jobs resides in all levels of management, from first line of supervisor up to the director of the u. S. Geological survey. Failures along that way are inexcusable and we need to i need to do a better job of holding my supervisors accountable and that will trickle down through the organization. Im concerned by this and i think everyone should be concerned, as you are. Here we have employees of what has already been described as the Gold Standard of scientific institutions and they do not have the basic knowledge necessary to enter data into a computer. How do we know this is not happening in other labs in denver or in every other federal lab in the country . We have a number of lance througho labs throughout the country and one of the labs in denver you mentioned is our National Water quality lab. Whereas the lab in question, the inorganic geoChemistry Lab processed 575 samples a year. The National Water quality labs 35,000 samples a year so the throughput employs a much larger staff. The Quality Controls at the National Water quality lab are stringent. Its best practice, recognized and reviewed often by external agencies and there are other labs, most labs across usgs that have that type of volume and stature have similar Quality Management systems in place. We have other lance that are research lance, those are staffed by one or two people, they do work for their project. They may be developing methods that dont exist at this time. They may be looking at very unique types of constituents. Those Quality Management systems are not as robust because they dont exist. This will eventually encompass all of those lance. So can you give us reason to have faith in the research produced by the usgs . As i said, i am confident this was an isolated example. Many of the projects that use this lab have their own procedures in place and they actually caught a number of the issues and did not use that information in their because they have those Quality Assurance procedures. Does the Energy Resources program at lakewood facility have a fully functional Quality Management system in place . Not at this time. Thats whats being implemented now. So how is it possible that its taken this long to still not have a Quality Management system . Weve had Quality Management systems. They were not effective as we mentioned in the opening statement. There had been a number of reviews and particularly in this lab there were after the 2008 incident there was an internal review by a team from outside the lab. There was an external review in 2012 that had 29 recommendations that were implemented. But it was a responsibility of the local Management Team implement those recommendations and they were slow to do that. So those previous efforts were not successful so we need to ensure that this future effort is successful and we believe that the robust system that were putting in place, even though it will take some time to put in place, is the way to go. Its the right way to do it and weve tried other ways that have not been effective. Like i said, ive really enjoyed you as a witness but i and i want to believe you, but the fact that we dont have this system in place is very concerning to all of us. Thank you, mr. Labrador. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and mr. Werkheiser thank you for your pretty much raw testimony today. I know this is not the first time this issue has been discussed in this committee. The last time there was only a little bit of smoke and we thought there was probably some fire and i think youve verified that there was wrongdoing and and definitely Fire Associated with this, figuratively speaking, obviously. I would like to commend the chairman and the Ranking Member and i think this is a sign of the seriousness of this issue that scientific intellectual integrity is an important thing to everyone. It crosses party lines and its something we simply cannot tolerate. If you look at the founding of our greatest educational institutions in this country that even predate the constitution the motto of harvard is verita, which means truth, yale is transparency and truth. This nation has held that to be paramount for a long time and when issues like this happens, it troubles us. Personally i worked as an engineer for over 20 years and i used usgs data and it makes me think that i make professional decisions that im accountable for based on flawed data even though it wasnt this data but it was usgs data and there are thousands and thousands of people across the country that have experienced that. So when we think about whats happened and how to move forward why we as members of congress and keepers of the taxpayers dollar, why should we continue to invest in usgs, it i think we need a better answer. I know that this data may not have been used directly in policy, but how much of this data was used by people in industry, people in research . How much of it i mean, talking about testing coal and heavy metals, were there bad decisions made that resulted in somebody doing something in a process that harmed the environment . Were there decisions made that prevented someone from using something in a process that caused the economic damage . I think we need a better explanation that you go back and find out exactly why this data was manipulated, what the farreaching effects are. Theres a proverb that says that if a thief is caught he should repay it seven times over and i think usgs needs to do a more indepth investigation so that we feel comfortable that the problem has been rectified and it wont happen again. So are there any efforts under way to go back and trace the knowledge trail to see where this data might have been used and even Public Opinion may have been influenced by articles that were written based on this research which actually could affect policy decisions. So where are you in the process of going back and uncovering the real damage that was done . Were continuing to investigate the original information. Part of the issue and part of the reason that makes this so bad is that good records standard procedures for keeping records were not kept so the raw data that came off was not necessarily archived. However we have gone back and weve retrieved a number of that a significant amount of that information from other sources. And were evaluating what that manipulation looked like, how severe was it, can we recreate what the values should have been . We didnt have that information when we first started this investigation. We have some of that now so were hoping to go back and learn from that. We were also making an effort to go back and, as you say, look at the stakeholders that may have used products from this lab. Most of this were internal and we feel confident that none of the data used from this at least this latest incident made it into the public domain. That the projects that had those only ease run were able to capture it. It was inefficient and cost money and they were able to use other means to reach their conclusions, multiple lines of evidence. So 20 years of research and none of this ever got outside of the usgs . I should have been clear. It was this latest incident from 2009 to 2014. We cannot evaluate the previous 1996 to 2008. That information doesnt exist. However we have talked to scientists who used that information who had projects back in that time frame and were evaluating the potential impacts from that. The other thing were doing is were looking at those 33 projects that use the information from this latest incident and are trying to backtrack that to look at all stakeholders so even if the data did not make it in the public domain, there may have been Informal Communications with others and were trying to back that also. So you could maybe do a research on where the lab was sited back as far as 20 years ago in other Research Papers and also im out of time but when do you expect to have that report to us on the effects of the manipulated data . It will take several months to do that investigation. But certainly as soon as we have what we have well be happy to come and talk to you about it. I yield back, mr. Chairman. The chair recognizes mr. Hice for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman and mr. Werkheiser, thank you for being here to try to answer some pressing questions. Obviously its disturbing to all of us, disturbing to you as well. Im sure youve communicated that but when youve got decades of falsified manipulated data we all recognize its inexcusable. As phenomenal to me that Something Like that can take place for so long and either not be checked or overlooked. Which ever the case was. Its inexcusable. Then we find that as you mentioned, i believe 2008 when a new scientist was brought in, he immediately begins doing the same thing. And earlier, in fact, this year receives a 30year service award. It sounds like you almost its like a resume enhancer to come in and be involved in data manipulati manipulation. But the fact that it was intentional, the fact that it was continuous is very difficult to wrap my mind around and im sure others feel the same way. Now, lets go to this second chemist, the new chemist that came in. Wed already had from 1996 to 2008 a long period of manipulated data. We finally have a new chemist chem in and in 2014 discover that that chemist, as i mentioned earlier, and the chairman as well, had also been manipulating data. Now, how long did that chemist stay on the payroll after his fraudulent activity was discovered. So the in october of 2014 a stop work order was issued and that chemist was involved in trying to recreate the work he had done. Personnel actions were started, were initiated and i i believe it was june, 2016, is when the separation took place. June, 2016, after he had received a 30year length of service award, did he retire . Get full benefits . Id be happy i cant please provide that information. Id be curious to know. So two years he was still remained on the payroll. What was he doing . So trying to recreate the information that was in question. Trying to recreate the falsified information. Trying to justify his actions to the investigative bodies, the various bodies that went through that lab. So we were we, taxpayers, were paying for a guy who manipulated data to justify why he manipulated it, is that what youre telling us . Well, to look at the questions you had asked. Why did this happen . How did it happen. That sounds to me like it could be done through interrogation rather than giving him two years on the payroll. Our personnel processes are complex. So did not one interrogate him im going to use that word interrogate, did no one try to just sit down and have get the facts on the table . Did it take two years of him doing it on his hone being paid . I dont understand this. It sounds like theres a brief slap on the wrist and he continues on the payroll until hes ready to retire after he receives an award. So the length of service is thats what it says. You work for 30 years around you get recognized for that i dont think it was lets no go on. What disciplinary actions do you have against employees who commit data manipulation and fraud . Or commit something against supervisors. There were various penalties including suspension without pay up to separation from the agency. But that obviously didnt occur in this case . The action was initiated, yes. After two years . No, it was initiated right away but what discipline did he encin . The investigation is complex and takes time. My question has to do with what discipline action was taken . Again, i would be happy to provide that information. Provide the information, mr. Werkheiser, it seems like that would be something you would come to this Committee Hearing prepared to answer. I cannot answer. All right, mr. Chairman, i have one further question. Okay, thank you. This subcommittee has repeatedly asked since since september 23 for the performance evaluation of these chemists who committed manipulation. At this point we have still not received those evaluations. When can we expect to receive that . That information has let the usgs is at the department being reviewed at this time. Part of the reason it took so long to produce is that we had to reprieve that information from opm and when the information came, much of that information was nonresponsive to the specific request so we went through it and brought out the information, specific information requested that is now at the department being reviewed. All do respect, sir, we are the ones who want to review that information and we are the ones who requested it. When will we receive that . It is at the department and we have as im sure youre aware can you give me a timeline general. General . Approximately two weeks. Thank you sir. I now yield back, thank you for your indulgence, mr. Chairman. I thank you. At this time you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your appearance today, mr. Werkheiser. I assume the lab lost a significant amount of credibility when the disclosure was made. Whats really amazing and troubling among many details of this case is that the lab went ahead as if nothing occurred and you doubled down on 174,000 piece of equipment that no one either knew how to operate, cared enough to operate correctly or was interested enough to oversea. How do you justify buying a new piece of equipment like a mass spectrometer when no one was willing to verify that it was operated correctly . In any situation, any laboratory situation, upgrades to equipment are a common business practice and we need to stay on the forefront of technology so when new equipment comes out, often times i know in my experience in the quarter Quality Laboratory when those equipments the new generation of equipment comes out, they process more samples in a short amount of time and are more efficient in the processing of that information. Plus they provide information thats more accurate and more reliable. So the zosh the purchase of equipment is a standard business practice that occurs throughout our labs. In this case the critical failure was in not training this individual, not ensuring that this individual had the appropriate training and background to operate the equipment appropriately. Thats a management failure and that is something we recognize and will move forward to correct as part of some of the tasks were taking undertaking to improve the quality of our laboratories. We have one report stating the lab had an average turnaround time of 224 days to process samples. Did the lab have a reputation for long turnaround times to process samples . It did. Much longer than could be achieved in private laboratories so in addition to the scientific misconduct and integrity issues, the decision to close the lap also included those operational issues such as turnaround time and efficiency in value to the taxpayer. So coupled with knowledge that the lab had a history of inaccuracies and slow turnaround, why was management so complacent or, as the Scientific Integrity Review Panel described, characterized by conscious acquiescence and inattentiveness. Didnt that ultimately let the fraud continue until 2014 . Yes, it it clearly was a management failure and as manages and as supervisors we owe it to the taxpayer and to this country to hold ourselves and employees accountable. That did not happen in this case. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you. We do have a few more questions with. For one thing, youve heard from the Ranking Member that the srp reported that a culture of harassment existed at the lab. That is so incredibly serious. And by the way, weve been going through this hearing all this time and i dont believe a single name has been mentioned. We are covered by speech and debate clause privilege regarding things that are said on the record but for the record i would like to have who was the person who was manipulating the data beginning back in 1996 . We havent even heard a name. People need to know. Again, i would be happy to provide that in private. Our advice is that because this is being broadcast that we should not because of privacy concerns i should not oh, well thats just thats the whole reason i ask. If somebody is harassed making an abusive workplace, i want their name out there. They should not be provided by protection from having their name mentioned and with regard to privacy concerns thats what im saying, this is a this is protected, you dont have to worry about lawsuits but if somebody is abusing female employees i think its good to talk about like we did in judiciary when we had a judge doing that. I would like for any man that is tempted to do that to realize that someday his name is going to be brought up in a broadcast. What i can say is those employees are no long we are the u. S. Geological survey. Id be happy to provide the information to you privately. My advice had been not to provide that publicly with because of the public nature of this hearing. I think we need to make the point that this is still under active investigation and that the community probably has right at the end of the investigation to ask for the findings so is that correct that this is still under active investigation therefore yes. Thats the case. Okay, its still under active investigation so the investigations not concluded. Is that right . Well, not the overall investigation is not those employees are no long we are the u. S. Geological survey but there is still an active component going on. An active component to what . To learn exactly what happened, what the nature of the issues were. How severe it was. Its not a formal investigation but we are still investigating the issue. Mr. Chairman, i had had questions about how were they allowed to retire, what were the circumstances, were people held accountable, are we going to ultimately get that report . I shared your concerns so i think i was told they are under investigation but i think this committee would like to see it when you do. We can certainly provide that to the community, yes. Thank you. I would very much like to have that information and if the investigation has formally concluded you say there may be some informality in the continuation. While if its formally concluded, i would like this committee to have access to this information to know who was creating a problem and i dont care if they retired or not there needs to be consequences even if at a minimum its having your name discussed on the record as someone who is abusing the employees under your supervision. So so you are agreeing to get us that information with regard to the investigation. Okay. I do want to follow up with a couple more questions. Did the Lab Management take the discovery of the second instance of continuous data manipulation seriously . Yes. When the second incident was discovered the Lab Management acted immediate to notify the program, the Energy Resources program at headquarters. They initiated an internal investigation from our office of science quality and integrity. That investigation eventually led to notification of the office of inspect or jor genera the Science Center management was generated all those requests. The reason i ask is the sirp noted that the labs lead physical scientist, Quality Assurance officer asserted, and im quoting, all activities related to the sirp are not necessary and that the situation has been blown completely out of proportion. So that sounded like it was not being taken seriously. So the qaqc person was not in the management chain, they are not a supervisor. The person in the management chain took it very seriously and reported it. Well did the laboratorys culture fostered by the u. S. Geological survey promote an environment where a person would feel comfortable coming forward to expose the wrongdoing . That is our job. That is our job is to create that environment. I know its the job. The question is about whether it was done. In this case i dont believe enough was done to create that environment. The sirp found that whistle blowing related to the second incidence of data manipulation created a feeling of mistrust and resentment present at all levels. So it sounds like there is a lot more work that needs to be done there. I would certainly agree. All right. I yield to the gentleman from arkansas for five minutes. Thank you again, mr. Chairman. Mr. Werkheiser, one thing that still troubles me is something in the response in the letter that you sent to chairman gohmert, it says here that we have been unable to determine either the rationale for the data manipulation or any consistent calculations that the analyst used in performing those data manipulations. Is that still being investigated or that your final say on it . So the analyst has been adjustment to the data, even though its clear that it has not. So i dont think any further questioning of that person is going to yield anything different than that. The investigation of was there a pattern, is there a consistent, as to what, how that manipulation happened, the extent to what it was and the reasons for it is still under investigation, since weve been able to identify some of that through notebooks and those type of things. Some of that information were trying to recreate what exactly happened. So there is still investigation going on to try to determine the rationale . Yes. Okay. The june 2016 department of the interior Inspector General report noted that the second case of continuous data manipulation at the lakewood facility affected at a minimum projects that received 108 million in funding. However, what remains unclear is the dollar value of the projects that were impacted by the data manipulation that occurred at the lab between 96 and 2008. And we talked about that a little bit earlier, about the records. Could you tell the committee what was the aggregate dollar value of the projects that were affected during this earlier 12year course of data manipulation . Weve been trying to assemble that information. Actually, i do not have that information, but i would like to follow up on the 108 million figure. That represents the total funding for those projects that used the lab. The actual value of those samples that were analyzed is much less than that. So, the projects and the results they make, they use many lines of evidence, they use outside labs, they use a number it represents the entire effort to produce a report or assessment. The value of the impacted from the laboratory is probably a tenth of that. Do you know how many projects were in the time period . We have the dollar amount, but what was the number of projects affected . In the second incident, it is 22 projects. We actually do not we do not have the information for that first incident. You dont even know how many projects there were . Not for the first one. Those records just dont exist back that far. We have partial records, but dating back to 96. That was prior to an Automated Laboratory Information Management system. That was put in place in 2010. Do you hopefully, you can understand the heartburn that it creates. I do. That there is a federally funded research lab with no data or no backup. I do understand that on the financial side. We will try to recreate as much of that as we can. Even on the Research Side. Well, certainly on the Research Side i think we can we know that the do we know how many projects . Okay. We do not know. And no way to find out . I will go back and i had a followup question about did any of the data derive from the lab during this period affect any federal legislation or regulation, federal or state. If you dont even know what projects were done, obviously, there is no way to determine if the research affected any state or federal regulations. I cannot address that with any certainty. Thats true. I guess with that, mr. Chairman, im at a loss for words. Mr. Hice, do you have any further questions . All right, i would like to thank the witness, mr. Werkheiser, thank you for being here. And appreciate the participation of the members and the Ranking Member. Obviously, this is a reminder why we must be vigilant and make every effort to hold executive Branch Accountable to the taxpayers. While i hope this revelation of mass data manipulation is limited in scope, its only through careful examination we can learn and move through and move forward with confidence. And you know, its normally an assurance to the public that we have this republican, small r, form of government, where we have representatives. And if one party or one administration is manipulating or providing an abusive Work Environment, then its always been a bit of a comfort, well, that changes, and the next one coming in will surely correct that. We have seen just an outrageous example of how none of those safeguards worked. None of the checks and balances worked. And then we have someone whose name i want to say on the record when we get the information, but youve got people creating a hostile Work Environment, youve got people totally manipulating data, fraudulent activity. A person involved in it is replaced to bring an end only to see that continue on . It just is staggering. And as we said at the beginning, and i think the Ranking Member and i, i mean, we have always thought of the u. S. Geological survey as just the Gold Standard. And now im not even sure it merits a mercury standard. I mean, its changing and moving and doesnt seem to have much of a form. Its like a terrible joke about what would you like the answer to be. I mean, anyway, as much as id like to dismiss this issue, we just cannot. As the facts come out, it seems to just open more and more questions. How did this go on over the span of three decades with the procedures, policy and management over the course of 18 years . How does this happen . I know the u. S. Geological survey wants to put this behind them, but as a committee, we cannot close the books on this when the administration witness shows up with a twosentence explanation. This was a chance to get the