The subcommittee on oversight investigations will come to order. Subcommittee is meeting to hear testimony examining decades of data manipulation at the United States geological survey. Under Committee Rule 4 f, any oral Opening Statements at hearings are limited to the chairman of the ranking minority member. Therefore, i would ask unanimous consent that all other members Opening Statements will be made part of the hearing record if theyre submitted to the clerk by 5 00 p. M. Today. Hearing no objection, so ordered. I will now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. Today, well be examining decades of data manipulation that occurred within the the u. S. Geological surveys as well as failure to take corrective measures. Usgs is considered to be the Gold Standard as scientific integrity and reliability. That image has now been indeliliably stained. Incredibly, this committee has learned usgs had shut down the lab from the i. G. Months after it happened. In 2015, the department of the interior Scientific Integrity Review Panel haviinvestigating matter concluded there was a chronic pattern of scientific misconduct, unquote, at the Inorganic Laboratory in colorado. The panel also concluded that the laboratorys chemist, quote, intentionally manipulated, unquote, data. These shocking findings have not only impugned the integrity of the usgs, but theyve impugned the under pinnings of policy decisions that may have been taken as a result of the usgs research. I should note that we arent taking just a few fudged numbers here and there. This involves research and personnel going all the way back to 1996. When the data manipulation was discovered in 2008, new employees were shuffled in and yet the fraud continued tainting thousands of sample results. You might wonder how no one in usgs management noticed the junk science coming from the lab. Investigators offered one explanation pointing to the conscien conscience and inattentiveness in the laboratory and or the centers management. While longterm costs to usgss reputation may be incalcue babble, 20082014, it represented 108 million. This does not include a prior decade of data manipulation. Were still trying to find out the extent of the projects that were affected and any policy decisions that were executed with falsified data. Liability of data we are provided as lawmakers across a spectrum of issues is now called into question. Usgs is likely going to assure us that we will never it will never happen again, that new procedures are in place, manuals have been rewritten, new positions have been created and on and on with solutions to make us just want to forget all of this and get back to blind faith and federal science. However, in the discussion with 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 still do not know why this occurred. Usgs is said it was the lab, then account for variable calibrations and then said that wasnt it. Finally, usgs offered up the excuse 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 pinned on just one incompetent employee, who was remarkably replaced by another incompetent employee. Not to mention, the fact that the recent fall guy sterling evaluations. The primary concern isnt just the mechanics of this fraud, there should be a clear explanation for why it happened. Any proposed solution is meaningless without it. The first hearing in this newly created subcommittee was on the lack of accountability of federal science, and the consequences of politically driven side. Lives have been destroyed by the federal employees, garbage science. Let this hearing serve as a warning of in order to advance some agenda. The subcommittee will not tolerate such actions, hold accountable those who act in such a manner, and turn a blind eye. And i would just point out, as we said, the problems go back to 1996, and first discovered in 2008. This goes across republican and Democratic Party lines. This is a matter we need to get to the bottom of why it happened. So i appreciate your indulgence. At this time the chair reng recognizes ms. Dingell. Thank you 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 of unparalleled insights into everything from earthquakes to clean drinking water, Climate Change to fossil fuel reserves. I also know how important the work is, because of the usgs great lakes Science Center, which is in my district, has played an Important Role to adopt the spread of asian carp in the great lakes. The effect of asian carp, if they become fully established in the great lakes, is enormous. Which is why we requested that this subcommittee hold a hearing on just one aspect of the damage. The effect on great lake 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 hardpressed 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 i small lab in colorado intentionally manipulated some of the data that they were hired to produce. None of the data was used to support any state or federal regulations. Seven papers were delayed and one had to be retracted. Usgs had the chance to correct it, when the data man place was first uncovered in 2008. But after they cleaned house, and hired new analysts and management, the same data manipulation continued, unaba d 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 sample 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 investigation also found that management was asleep at the wheel. Not only did management fail to catch the problem, one manager looked the other way for a few months. Making matters worst, they presided over and may have facilitated a toxic Workplace Environment. Offensive language and behavior created an atmosphere that was so intimidating, a scientific body concluded that it contributed to the substandard performance. Indicating when 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 is 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. They shuld be held to a higher st standard and the closure was the right decision. 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, well organized Structure Laboratory that is conducting important scientific research. Of course, the remainder of the agency continues to turn 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 scientific integrity investigation. At this point, there have been more investigations than the number of analysts that were in the lab. Ill be interested to know what my colleagues on the other side think this hearing will add to the pile, and more specifically, how we can 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 and ensure they wont be repeated. And lets focus on building the agency up, rather than tearing it down. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. It this time, the statements are limited to five minutes. The 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, yellow light comes on. Time expired, red light comes on. Ill ask you to conclude your statement. At this time, the chair recognizes mr. Werkheiser for his testimony. Chairman, Ranking Member dingell and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am bill werkheiser, 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 for everything we do. Thats why im here today. To address a serious breach of scientific integrity. It is not a proud day of our agencys employees. In my 30 years of federal service at usgs, this is my lowest moment. In 2014, usgs identified a potential incident of scientific misconduct at the Inorganic Chemistry Lab in lake wood, colorado. A scientists had been making improper adjustments used to measure heavy metals and coal. All work in the laboratory was stopped, and an internal investigation was initiated. Usgs also promptly reported the possibility of scientific misconduct to the office of Inspector General. Our investigation into the incident confirmed this data manipulation constituted scientific misconduct. This closely res resembled an occurrence that happened in 2008. Personnel problems, including 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. Laboratory effective march 1, 2016. All the employees in the scientific incidents are no longer employed by the usgs. We posted Public Notice of the 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 is a serious matter. Misconduct and mismanagement will not be tolerated. 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. Fr first, investigate the programs, data Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures. Secondly, i established a Strategic Lab committee to ensure all the Laboratory Assets are managed to best sport Science Mission of the usgs p. Third, the Energy ProgramQuality Management system to replace current procedures. Will will include external review and international benchmarking. Fourth, weve hired a manager that reports to headquarters to avoid conflict of interest, as well as two quality specialists. Taken together, these steps will ensure that any future data quality problems are identified quickly, and dealt with immediately. In our 137 year history, the usgs has built a strong reputation on providing information critical to the nation. For example, our sciences help protect communities in the lava flows and prevent catastrophic rupture along the alaska pipeline. Most recently, an assessment that 20 billion barrels in west texas. We do and have done important work in this nation. But none of that excuses or explains this incident. Im committed to upholding the reputation for scientific integrity. We will continue to address the issues. Well make all changes necessary to prevent it from happening again. Throughout these incidents, 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 prioritize a delivery of the most critical documents to assist in your oversight. To date, we have provided 270 documents consisting of 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. All right, thank you, mr. Werkheiser. It this time, we do appreciate your testimony. We appreciate you being here. I know it is not the most fun to do. But we will begin the questioning, and ill recognize myself for five minutes. Youve talked about the troubling aspect of this issue, but like i mentioned in the opening statement, i mean, going back to 1996 . Thats during the clinton administration. Through 2008, thats the bush administration. To 2014, thats the Obama Administration. I have to tell you, mr. Werkheiser, when i first got elected, i can remember going, walking around, Steven Foster university and theyve done some great work in conjunction with the u. S. Geological society, i looked at the stuff from the usgs, and my thought, i mean, going back to high school, wow, usgs, this is really quality stuff. And i got the high 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 it is really hearbreaking to think about all of the great work that has been done to build this phenomenal reputation of the Us Geological society that, to come around to the point where we are now, 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 somebody is 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. So to what end, why the continued falsification and manipulated manipulation of data . Do you have an answer to the why . I mean, as a lawyer, i was taught never answer the question why. But i really, truly want to know. 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, usgs best at what it does in the world. That made me want to become part of usgs. So i was deeply, deeply appalled when i learned about this incident. While i cant look into the minds of the analysts involved, what i can say is that with this instrument, when the raw information comes off, it often needs to be adjusted to comply with standards that are run mr. Werkheiser, we heard that originally. 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 i appreciate that position, but we heard that before. And then it turned out that really wasnt the proper explanation. So lets try again. Do you have some other explanation . Why . So the issue is that those adjustments were well outside of established standards. So the while i cant look into the mind of the person 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 we looked at, to see if there was a pattern of that manipulation. It was consistently high, higher than the value should it have been, lower than the value, trying to drive some agenda to falsify that. There was no consistent bias in that information. Sometime it is was high, sometime it is was low. And in fact, the way the samples are submitted, there is no way for them to know what the samples will be used for, the project is not identified. So i cannot explain exactly why, except for what they tell us. It was an effort to inn 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. That is totally in congruent. Well, what do you believe the longterm effects of usgss reputation in the Science Field . I mean, 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. Absolutely no doubt about that. And so all i can do is to ensure that we rebuild and regain the reputation. The four steps i outlined before, bringing the National Academy of sciences to evaluate our protocols to help us into the future. The establishment of our stlaty gick laboratory committee, to look at all our assets, every lab, the im plplementation of a Quality Management system. Has that been done . Quality Management System is under yea. My