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 StatesGeological 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