[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING MISCONDUCT AND INTIMIDATION
OF SCIENTISTS BY SENIOR DOE OFFICIALS
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT &
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
September 21, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-94
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
00-000 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
STEVE KNIGHT, California PAUL TONKO, New York
BRIAN BABIN, Texas MARK TAKANO, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Oversight
HON. BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DON BEYER, Virginia
Wisconsin ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
BILL POSEY, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
STEPHAN KNIGHT, California ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
September 21, 2016
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Don Beyer, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
Dr. Sharlene Weatherwax, Associate Director, Biological and
Environmental Research, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 19
Dr. Noelle Metting, Radiation Biologist, U.S. Department of
Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Discussion....................................................... 75
Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 106
Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 109
Document Submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 110
Documents submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 118
Document submitted by Representative Don S.Beyer, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 127
Report submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 139
Document submitted by Representative Randy Weber, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 178
EXAMINING MISCONDUCT AND INTIMIDATION
OF SCIENTISTS BY SENIOR DOE OFFICIALS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in
Room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barry Loudermilk
[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Loudermilk. The Subcommittee on Oversight and
Energy will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Examining Misconduct
and Intimidation of Scientists by Senior DOE Officials.'' I now
recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
Good morning, and welcome to today's Oversight and Energy
Subcommittee hearing examining the intimidation of scientists
at the Department of Energy.
Congressional oversight and authority to access information
is a constitutional authority granted to Congress. Without open
dialogue with the federal agencies, Congress cannot gather the
information needed to effectively legislate. Today, we will
examine a clear case of this committee's request for
information directly related to the legislative process and the
executive branch's actions to block Congressional access to
federally funded research.
Unfortunately, what we will learn at today's hearing is not
an isolated incident. It fits a pattern of intentional
misinformation from the Obama Administration officials, ranging
from FDIC to NIST to EPA, and now the Department of Energy.
While today's hearing is disturbing in many ways, I am most
concerned with this incident because it appears that unelected
DOE officials sought retribution against a DOE scientist simply
for respecting the constitutional authority of Congress in
order to advance political priorities.
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is the
authorizing committee for scientific research and development.
In order to fully inform the legislative process, committee
staff must be able to engage in open discussions with federal
researchers to fully understand the scope and value of existing
programs. In fact, this open dialogue is protected in each
annual appropriations act we pass in the House.
Federal law prohibits department and agency officials from
stifling communications with Congress and penalizes those who
seek to silence federal employees by prohibiting the payment of
their salaries by the U.S. Treasury. I would request unanimous
consent that this provision of law be included in the record.
[The appears in Appendix I]
Chairman Loudermilk. Transparency from executive agencies
is necessary to ensure Congress' ability to carry out our
oversight and legislative responsibilities effectively. In this
case, communications with DOE are central to the Committee's
oversight of accountable use of taxpayer funds in scientific
research. Sadly, it appears that politics has disrupted this
important dialogue between Congress and the Department of
Energy, and derailed important scientific research in the
process.
When DOE decided it wanted to redirect funds to support
President Obama's Climate Action Plan, the Department
sacrificed the Low Dose Radiation Research Program to achieve
this goal. This program is the federal government's only
program to investigate whether the types of radiation received
by Americans every day are dangerous. This research is vital to
understanding radiation doses to patients undergoing CT scans
or PET scans, or the hazards of radiation to workers in the
nuclear industry.
The Low Dose Program is also crucial to understanding the
effects of a dirty bomb or nuclear accident on potential
victims, so it is a key research program to protecting our
homeland. This is clearly science in the national interest.
But when this committee took steps to specifically
authorize this important research, DOE pushed back. When Dr.
Noelle Metting, the DOE scientist in charge of this program,
provided honest input on the merits of the Low Dose Program,
she was subsequently fired by DOE senior management, all for
the ``crime'' of working to conduct what is clearly important
research and explaining that research to Congressional staff.
I want to make absolutely clear that Congress is not
directing the technical experts on how to specifically carry
out research. Instead, Congress decides the broad priorities
and policy goals, and makes sure that taxpayer funds are spent
responsibly on research with the greatest potential, while DOE
carries out research at Congressional direction. It is
disappointing that DOE's senior management would attempt to
usurp this process and silence a federal researcher to advance
political goals in violation of appropriations laws.
This Administration's bullying and intimidation must stop.
I hope at today's hearing we will get to the bottom of the
intimidation, deception, and misinformation conducted by the
DOE officials for political priorities.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Loudermilk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Loudermilk. I now recognize the Ranking Member,
the gentleman from Virginia, for an opening statement.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And later
on, I'm sure we'll have a chance to distinguish between
political priorities and scientific priorities because they are
different.
I want to thank the Chairmen Loudermilk and Weber for
today's hearing and thank you, Doctors, for testifying.
In February this year, the Science Committee began
investigating the Department of Energy's attempt to stop
funding the Low Dose Radiation Research Program and the related
personnel action that resulted in the removal of longtime
Program Manager Dr. Noelle Metting.
As a businessman, as a former Ambassador, as someone who's
been involved in transition of federal agencies and for
presidential elections, I think I know what good and bad
management looks like. I also represent many federal employees,
and they often call my office when they see evidence of
mismanagement or are treated poorly or unfairly themselves.
From everything I know, it seems to me that in this
instance the Department of Energy was a bit overzealous in the
removal of Dr. Metting and badly mishandled this case. This all
stems from a briefing October of 2014 requested by a majority
staff member, and I'd like to note that the Democratic
committee staff members were not present, nor were they invited
to the meetings so we can't attest firsthand to what actually
happened. We can only rely on the accounts given during the
formal transcribed interviews with only two of the four DOE
officials that were present.
On that note, I'm disappointed that yet another
investigation by the committee's majority appears incomplete.
To my knowledge, the committee's majority never formally
interviewed Dr. Metting or the other DOE staff member who was
present during the October incident. And, in addition, Dr.
Weatherwax, who is also testifying today, was not even present
for the meeting or post-meeting discussion that resulted in the
removal of Dr. Metting. So good luck today, Dr. Weatherwax.
While I don't believe that Dr. Metting's actions at the
briefing should be characterized as that of a whistleblower, I
do strongly support the right of federal employees to petition
their government and speak openly about their work without fear
of retaliation. As a federal employee, Dr. Metting should have
felt unbridled in her answers to and interactions with
Congressional staff.
I certainly know as a sometime boss and manager I always
want to hear all sides of an issue, yes and no, to make good
decisions. I would strongly recommend that the Department take
a closer look at how they handle situations like the one we're
talking about today.
On that point, the scientific integrity policy that the
Department released in 2012 could certainly use a second look
or potentially an update. The policy leaves gray areas that can
create confusion and misunderstanding, and relative to other
executive agency branches, DOE's scientific integrity policy is
not nearly as robust. Agencies like the Department of Interior,
NASA, NOAA have led the way in this effort. And given the
quality and the quantity of scientific research at DOE, I'd
really expect more from DOE leadership on this front.
I also look forward to learning more about the future of
low dose radiation research today. I'd urge the Department to
be more clear with Congress about their intentions and
rationale for changes in research priorities to make sure
they're based on science and not, as our Chair suggested, on
politics.
There's been a general lack of communication from DOE on
these particular research activities involving low dose
radiation research. I hope we can avoid similar occurrences in
the future. The clearer the communication early on, the better
off.
Before I conclude, I'd also like to add that I find this
halfhearted investigation especially ironic, given that the
committee's majority is engaged in clear intimidation of
government scientists that are conducting client change
research at NOAA, including a issuing a subpoena to NOAA
Administrator and former astronaut Dr. Kathryn Sullivan for
emails of the scientists all because the majority disagreed
with the results of a twice peer-reviewed scientific study.
And I'd point out that I don't believe the majority has
ever produced a shred of evidence that would have justified the
subpoena, although they made numerous unsubstantiated
allegations of scientific misconduct by NOAA scientists.
I think if we're going to talk about chilling effects on
scientists, we need to look across the complete board.
I think we can all agree that all scientists--government,
academia, private sector--should be free of undue influence, be
it politics or profit. Our policy decisions should be guided by
our research by our world-class scientists. When they speak
loudly in unison, we should listen. I don't think that's always
been the case in this Congress or on this committee.
Lastly, this incident highlights the necessity of basic due
process requirements, appeals, and federal employee
protections, as well as the right of federal employees to have
the right to union representation. If my friends on the
majority are sincere about their concern for federal employees,
and I hope they are, I'd encourage them to keep this hearing in
mind next time Congress considers legislation intended to erode
due process and collective bargaining rights for federal
employees.
My dad spent a year in Eniwetok 1956, '57, as provost
marshal when they were testing nuclear weapons, so I'm very
interested in what the impact of low-dose radiation is because
he's only 92-1/2 right now.
So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beyer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. And for the
record, I agree with you. It is very important that we have the
true testimony from the others that were in that meeting. And
for the record, this committee did invite Dr. Julie Carruthers
and Dr. Todd Anderson, who were present during the briefing
October 16, 2014, but the Department of Energy chose not to
provide those witnesses for today's hearing.
At this point I'd like to recognize the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy, Mr. Weber, for his opening statement.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
And good morning. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Energy, I have spent this Congress focusing on basic research
that can benefit our nation by enabling technology
breakthroughs.
Throughout its history, the Department of Energy (DOE) has
conducted research in support of nuclear energy and nuclear
weapons complex. It has also explored the impact of radiation
so that our nation's researchers, industry, and military can
safely handle nuclear material--I bet you're all about that,
Dr. Metting--also maintain the nation's nuclear weapons
program, and dispose of that same nuclear waste. In my opinion
not only good energy policy but good national security policy
that the Chairman alluded to. This use-inspired basic research
leads to scientific discoveries and long-term benefits for the
energy industry and for our national defense.
Today, we will examine the Department's decision to
terminate the Low Dose Radiation Research Program, and may I
add the only federal program currently conducting research in
this area.
This program does three things. It provides research that
can inform authorities setting nuclear safety standards for the
public. Low dose research can also provide, number two, new
data to enable federal emergency response agencies to more
accurately set evacuation zones from radiological incidents.
And number three, it provides research to enable practicing
physicians to decide when and how to use diagnostics to detect
cancer in patients. The research conducted in the Low Dose
Program can also facilitate, I guess a fourth thing, medical
research efforts to even combat cancer. Other than that, the
research is really not useful.
I'm being facetious obviously. When DOE chose to close down
the Low Dose Program, this committee began to examine this
research program. Why was that? Committee staff contacted DOE
specifically to hear from technical experts about the broad
impact of this basic research program and the potential value
this research could yield for domestic energy, medical
discovery, and national security to put it in a nutshell. And
as this committee took steps to authorize the Low Dose Program
through the legislative process, we relied on these open
conversations with DOE researchers to draft legislation that
would prioritize this important research and responsibly invest
American tax dollars.
These kinds of frank discussions between researchers and
Congressional staff are absolutely vital in this legislative
process. Members of Congress must be able to trust that the
information they receive from DOE is nonpartisan and, quite
frankly, is delivered without political bias. Congress must get
access to these facts. We have to make good policy. There's no
way around that.
Unfortunately, the Department violated Congressional trust
by attempting to censor information provided to committee
staff. And what's worse, a DOE scientist was punished for
speaking to Congress. That is simply unacceptable.
Congress must be able to expect a high standard of
accountability and honesty from federal agencies to effectively
legislate and fulfill our constitutional duty to the public.
When scientists get fired for speaking honestly about their
work, it is clear that politics are negatively impacting the
work of Congress and stifling public dialogue, not to mention
stifling research in those key areas that I alluded to.
I want to thank our witnesses for testifying today,
particularly Dr. Metting for being willing to share her
unfortunate experience with the committee. I hope that by
exposing DOE's misconduct in this case, we can prevent this
kind of inappropriate action in the future and preserve
scientific integrity and transparency at the Department.
American taxpayers deserve nothing less.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Loudermilk. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
And now, I'd like to introduce our witnesses. Our first
witness today is Dr. Sharlene Weatherwax, Associate Director
for Biological Environmental Research at the U.S. Department of
Energy. She has previously served in a number of different
positions within the DOE, including as the Division Director
and Program Manager for the Biological System Science Division
of the Office of Biological and Environmental Research, and
Program Manager in the Office of Basic Energy Sciences.
Dr. Weatherwax received her bachelor of science in
biochemistry from the University of California at Los Angeles
and her Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of California
at Berkeley.
Our final witness today is Dr. Noelle Metting, Radiation
Biologist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of
Environment, Health, Safety, and Security within the Office of
Public Radiation Protection. Dr. Metting previously worked in
the DOE's Office of Science, Office of Biological and
Environmental Research where she managed the DOE's Low Dose
Radiation Program. In addition, she worked for 20 years as a
laboratory research scientist at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory.
Dr. Metting received her master's degree in radiological
sciences from the University of Washington and her doctor of
science in cancer biology from Harvard.
I now recognize Dr. Weatherwax for five minutes present her
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SHARLENE WEATHERWAX,
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Weatherwax. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members, and Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the Department of Energy's Low Dose
Radiation Research Program and the decision to end the program
in fiscal year 2016.
My name is Dr. Sharlene Weatherwax, and I'm the Associate
Director for Science and Biological and Environmental Research,
or BER, in DOE's Office of Science. I have earned my Ph.D. in
biochemistry from the University of California at Berkeley, and
I have research expertise in microbial enzymology and plant
molecular biology.
I joined the Department of Energy in 2001 as a career
federal employee and--first as a Program Manager for the Office
of Basic Energy Sciences and then in BER. I rose to the Senior
Executive Service position of Biological System Science
Division Director in 2008 and became the Associate Director for
BER in 2011. I am responsible for strategic program planning,
budget formulation and execution, and coordination with other
DOE program offices and other federal agencies.
BER supports fundamental research in scientific user
facilities to support DOE's energy, environment, and basic
research missions, drawing upon the scientific expertise of
researchers at academic and industrial institutions and the DOE
national labs.
The BER Biological Systems Science Division supports a
diverse portfolio of fundamental research and technology
development, serving as the basis for the competent redesign of
microbes and plants for sustainable biofuel production,
improved carbon storage, and controlled biological
transformation of materials such as nutrient and contaminants
in the environment.
There is a very competitive environment for funding within
BER with exciting new scientific opportunities due to the
rapidly changing nature of biological science. Since completion
of the human genome sequence in 2003, the genome sequencing and
analysis tools at the DOE's Joint Genome Institute have enabled
BER's Genomic Science Program to be at the forefront of
developing the scientific basis for translating genetic parts
list for plants and microorganisms into scientific knowledge
about biological system functions.
This research is exemplified in the Bioenergy Research
Centers, which were started 2007. The centers continue to
produce the innovative science needed to foster production of
fuels and chemicals from renewable biomass and are working to
translate these basic science results to practical outcomes for
industry and society.
BER is also at the forefront of deciphering the underlying
principles of genomic expression in order to design new
biological functions. With continued understanding of the
genomic potential of plants and microbes comes the ability to
manipulate and design new pathways into plants and microbes
work. Biosystem design concepts are at the heart of the ongoing
biotechnology revolution and key to maintaining international
leadership.
In addition to these major efforts in bioenergy-related
research, BER has managed a basic research program in low-dose
radiation research since 1998. Over the past 18 years, the
program has provided new type technological advances and
fundamental scientific understanding of the mechanisms cells
use to sense, repair, and adapt the impacts of low-dose
radiation. Research investigations have included a number of
critical biological phenomena induced by low-dose exposure,
including adaptive response, bystander effects, genomic
instability, and genetic susceptibility.
The program was not intended to address regulatory policy
but rather to advance the fundamental science of radiation
impacts on biological processes. To date there are no studies
that have been able to establish with sufficient certainty a
threshold level of radiation below which the risk for cancer is
zero despite decades of research in this area. Any changes to
the current protection standards would require strong and
compelling evidence that a higher amount of radiation exposure
is safe.
The low-dose--the DOE Low Dose Radiation Research Program
is ending in fiscal year 2016 as BER's biology portfolio
continues to shift more towards bioenergy, biodesign, and
environmental microbiology research missions. Funding levels
have been steadily decreasing since 2012 with $1 million
appropriated to complete the program in fiscal year 2016.
The total amount of appropriated funding that the DOE
Office of Science has devoted to the Low Dose Research from its
inception is over a quarter of $1 billion, and the program
outcomes and data are available to the community and other
interested agencies through peer-reviewed scientific
publications.
Biology is rapidly transforming to a more quantitative and
predictive science, and the BER biology portfolio continues to
extend its genome science efforts to plants and microbes to
develop the fundamental scientific understanding needed for
solutions to energy challenges of the future.
Thank you for inviting me to speak about the Low Dose
Radiation Research Program. I look forward to answering the
committee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Weatherwax follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Loudermilk. I now recognize Dr. Metting for five
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. NOELLE METTING,
RADIATION BIOLOGIST,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Metting. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members,
and other Members of the Subcommittees on Energy and Oversight.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify at the hearing this
morning.
I'm a scientist, a radiation biologist currently working
for the Department of Energy Office of Environment, Health,
Safety, and Security. I'm actually on detail from DOE's Office
of Science and BER where from the year 2000 until December of
2014 I had, among other duties, been tasked with managing DOE's
Low Dose Radiation Research Program.
Over the previous 20 years, I was a laboratory research
scientist, an experimentalist working in Pacific West--
Northwest National Lab. I have a master's of science from the
University of Washington and a doctor of science from Harvard
University.
In my remarks today I will share my personal experience of
being fired by DOE and suffering long months of unemployment
that occurred as a direct outcome of my participation in a
briefing for Congressional staff.
In a nutshell, the circumstances surrounding this
intimidation and retaliation are these: Congressional staffers
requested an overview of the Low Dose Program so my immediate
supervisor, Dr. Todd Anderson, asked me to prepare a PowerPoint
presentation. It was duly reviewed, amended, and finalized.
In a pre-briefing meeting attended by myself and Drs.
Anderson, Carruthers, and Huerta, it was decided that for the
Congressional staff briefing I would present my slides and
handouts and respond only to the scientific questions, while
Drs. Anderson and Carruthers would handle the budget and policy
issues.
During the Congressional briefing the following day on
October 16, I presented the agreed-upon material and answered
accurately the many scientific missions directed to me by House
staff member Dr. Aaron Weston and Senate fellow Dr. Ron
Faibish. The staffers were very knowledgeable in the science,
their questions thorough and comprehensive, showing real
interest in the subject. In fact, this deep knowledge was
unexpected by all of us.
After the briefing ended and the Hill staff had left, Dr.
Carruthers accused me of advocating and lobbying for the
program and of being too enthusiastic about research results. I
was shocked. During the briefing, I had answered all the
questions based on my knowledge as a scientific subject matter
expert, all the questions based on--with no intention of
lobbying for the program itself. My only motivation was to
fully and truthfully inform Congress about the state of DOE's
Low Dose program research.
Drs. Carruthers and Anderson repeatedly accused me of
lobbying. Confronted with this unwarranted and unjustified
onslaught, I reminded them that they had already--that they
already knew I disagreed with their plan to end support of the
program. I also mentioned my concern as to how SC management
had handled a specific Congressional directive to designate an
extra $16 million to the fiscal year 2012 budget for Fukushima-
related low-dose research.
Thus began an unjust and painful saga of unrelenting
intimidation. In just over one uncomfortable month--week after
the briefing--one uncomfortable week Dr. Anderson removed me as
Manager of the Low Dose Program and detailed me to unclassified
duties. My management obviously did not want me answering any
more questions, scientific or--the questions about the Low Dose
Program.
A month later on December 4, 2014, a notice of proposed
removal was issued, charging me with insubordinate defiance of
authority and inappropriate workplace communication. I was put
immediately on administrative leave, subsequently denied access
to the contents of my former office. There followed a very long
period of stressful activity at my home, alone during the usual
workweek, cut off from my peers, trying to build a defense to
the charges, guided by my NTEU representative.
In early January, I filed a disclosure and complaint with
the Office of Special Counsel regarding the $16 million budget
directive, also sending information to DOE's Inspector General.
Five months later, a final decision of removal was issued by
the deciding official Dr. Steven Binkley and effective May 16
of 2015.
I'm sorry I'm going over. Shall I continue?
On the next business day, Dr. Sharlene Weatherwax,
Associate Director of BER, was seen rolling a dumpster to my
old office, and thus began or perhaps continued the removal of
the contents, including irreplaceable hardcopy notes, files,
and documents and some of my personal possessions. You may now
appreciate that intimidation and retaliation in this case is
somewhat self-evident.
It's revealing that after an appeal to the Merit Systems
Protection Board and just before the appeal hearing started,
DOE reached settlement with me. I'm currently employed but feel
there's continuing intimidation of scientists.
To this day I've not been granted the right to inspect
remaining materials from my old office or to retrieve missing
personal items.
I suggest it's unacceptable that scientists are put under
pressure to espouse views that are not their own and that
federal scientists are persecuted for presenting accurate
information, professional opinion to those charged with
providing funds for this research.
Now, in my written testimony I have a lot of information,
timeline, and information about the Low Dose Program.
Thank you for inviting me to share this experience.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Metting follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Loudermilk. And thank you, Dr. Metting. I now
recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
Dr. Metting, I appreciate your testimony. In your
testimony, as well as your written testimony, I believe you
stated that when you were confronted by the Department of
Energy management that they accused you of lobbying on behalf
of the program, is that correct?
Dr. Metting. Yes.
Chairman Loudermilk. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Weatherwax, was one of your goals for the October 16,
2014, briefing with the Congressional staff to dissuade the
Senate from offering a companion bill to the House bill?
Dr. Weatherwax. Chairman Loudermilk, I had no explicit
goals for the briefing other than to provide information that
was requested at the briefing. The briefing--I did not
personally attend the briefing.
Chairman Loudermilk. So if the intention would have been to
dissuade the Senate from introducing their own bill, then would
you consider that a form of lobbying?
Dr. Weatherwax. I am not aware of the official definition
of lobbying, but since I had no intention of doing any of that
activity, I can't really answer to it.
Chairman Loudermilk. Well, someone in the DOE must know
what the official definition of lobbying is since they accused
Dr. Metting of doing the same.
Could we bring up the slide, please?
[Slide.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Loudermilk. Dr. Weatherwax, in this email from you
to Todd Anderson to whom I understand--and according to Dr.
Metting's testimony--was the one that you preferred to speak to
the Congressional staff. In this email you directed Dr.
Anderson to conduct the briefing so that he would dissuade the
Senate from offering their own bill with regard to low-dose
radiation research.
Now, that seems contrary to what you just told me in
answering that question. In fact, the email says, ``That's why
you need to brief the Senate folks so they don't develop their
own bill. These are technically different staffers than the
ones who introduced the bill. Yes, when it was officially
introduced, it had sponsors.''
Can you explain the purpose of this email if it wasn't to
lobby Congress to do something?
Dr. Weatherwax. So in the body of the email the question
arises around a House bill, so my understanding is that the
briefing was designed to inform the staffers about the Low Dose
Radiation Program in general. So my understanding is that
scientific issues are presented by the Program Manager, but the
responsibilities of the Division Director, who was Dr.
Anderson, are to communicate the strategic direction and the
portfolio balance that he has developed so----
Chairman Loudermilk. Well, I appreciate that but that is
not what the text of the email says. The text of the email
says, ``That's why you need to brief the Senate folks so they
don't develop their own bill.''
Dr. Weatherwax. So since it's Dr. Anderson's responsibility
to communicate what is in his portfolio and to convey the
program priorities that he has balanced for all of the
competing scientific opportunities, his job was to present that
to House and Senate so that they can see how he arrived at his
conclusions for presenting his particular portfolio.
Chairman Loudermilk. Okay. I'd like to go to Dr. Metting
now. And I think it's clear that--and I think that's why you're
having a hard time answering the question is that this was
indeed an intention of going and persuading Congress to do
something, which is a practical definition of lobbying, which
Dr. Metting was fired for doing. I think there's some hypocrisy
here.
Dr. Metting, is the narrative that Dr. Weatherwax
instructed Dr. Anderson to lobby against H.R. 5544 consistent
with your memory of how the briefing went?
Dr. Metting. Actually, the briefing--it wasn't. It wasn't
because I believe that my management--and Todd is my--Todd
Anderson is my manager and with the help of Dr. Carruthers, I
think they were trying to inform--they were trying to lobby
against this bill itself. They were trying to--they told me
to----
Chairman Loudermilk. Okay. To make clear that you were
directed to basically lobby against the Senate introducing
their own bill? Are we clear? Or that was the intention?
Dr. Metting. Actually, I don't think anything was mentioned
to me about the Senate in any way. I was told that I would be
doing the science and that's it, but I was told in the pre-
briefing that we are against this bill and we don't want this
bill to pass.
Chairman Loudermilk. So as you stated in your testimony
that the result of you being released--or fired was that you
honestly answered the questions by the staff, which you said
you were impressed that they had the knowledge they had, and
you were not lobbying to--or you--they felt you were lobbying
to keep the program just because you were answering the
questions honestly?
Dr. Metting. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was only answering
the questions.
Chairman Loudermilk. Dr. Weatherwax, Congress relies on
briefings with federal agencies and in particular a scientist
like Dr. Metting to provide candid technical expertise on
matters. Would you agree with that?
Dr. Weatherwax. Yes.
Chairman Loudermilk. It also seems that when it came to a
briefing on the Low Dose Radiation Research project you viewed
this briefing not as an attempt to inform Congress with
technical expertise but an attempt to prevent legislation. Is
that accurate?
Dr. Weatherwax. As I stated previously, our intent was to
provide information about how we develop our budget priorities
to balance the program portfolio that includes many broad
elements of which the low-dose radiation research is one. So we
were there to provide a full accounting of all of the science
that's presented so that Congress can make its own
determinations about how we come to our decisions.
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you. And I have exceeded my
time. I apologize, members of the committee, but I'll extend
that same latitude to the other members because I was not very
well in managing my own time.
I now recognize Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Over 40 years of managing employees, I've had the
unfortunate responsibility of sometimes having to fire people.
Rarely though do I fire people on the spot. It's usually--on
the spot it tends to be because they just got into a fistfight
with somebody or were caught lying outright to a customer.
So, Dr. Metting, we've heard a lot about your firing. Is it
your sense that you were removed because you were advocating
for a program that you lead for more than ten years or were you
removed because of ``insubordinate defiance of authority,''
that you were argumentative, that you called their actions
idiotic? Was it basically because you disagreed with them on
the science or because they saw you as unmanageable?
Dr. Metting. I--at the time I thought that they were
actually reacting to the $16 million question that I talked to
them with after the briefing, but I also knew that they were
very upset with me talking about the science in the briefing
itself, which was a wonderful--actually a good opportunity to
talk about the program and I was--that's why I was just very
surprised when they were upset about that. That was not
lobbying. That was talking to the science.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Weatherwax, it's hard for
us it--for any of us here to know what happened in that
briefing after the fact. We have the transcripts and stuff, but
I'm curious to know what you and others took at DOE to help
mediate this and resolve the tensions between Dr. Metting and
Dr. Anderson and other DOE employees.
You know, it's a big step to take someone out of a career
they've devoted a significant part of their life to. So did you
seek mediation? Was there anything else that attempted to
resolve the bad blood between Dr. Metting and the other folks
at DOE?
Dr. Weatherwax. So, Congressman Beyer, so the process works
to actually defend the rights of the employee and also the
interests of the Department. And in this case, the supervisor,
Dr. Todd Anderson, submitted the proposal to remove Dr.
Metting. So he issued the proposal. At that point, it was
deemed that it had to go for human resources to actually advise
on what the process--what the next steps would be, and so we
followed the process at the Department, which is that the
proposing official submits some kind of request and then the
human resources and general counsel provide advice as to
whether or not there are sufficient grounds to take any action,
any kind of personnel action.
And so in this case it's a process as with all personnel
actions is that it has to be then handed over to HR and GC, and
at that point if they feel that it's--there is sufficient
grounds to warrant further action, then the process--the entire
matter goes to the deciding official, who is a neutral third
party.
Mr. Beyer. Well, let me simplify. Does it seem to you in
retrospect that it's an overreaction to fire somebody for
advocating for a program that she spent perhaps 14 years of her
life working on?
Dr. Weatherwax. So I believe that the proposal to dismiss
Dr. Metting enumerated a number of issues, and some of those
issues obviously--there are a number of those issues which are
not related at all to the briefing. And so I think that that
was something then that the process had to look at, and that's
what the deciding official was viewing. And so I feel it's not
my position to make the determination of what course of action
should be taken on something that is so serious, and so we
relied on HR to advise us.
Mr. Beyer. So who was the deciding official?
Dr. Weatherwax. In this case the deciding official was Dr.
Steve Binkley. He's another Associate Director in the Office of
Science. He manages the Advanced Scientific Computing Research
Office.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Dr. Metting, prior to October 2014,
had you ever been disciplined or reprimanded by your
supervisors at DOE?
Dr. Metting. Mr. Congressman, actually never. I have never
had anything written against me or had any disciplinary action
neither at the--at--as a fed or----
Mr. Beyer. So was the first time in your career then that
any supervisor had sought to reprimand or punish you?
Dr. Metting. Oh, yes. That's the first time. I was shocked.
Mr. Beyer. Do you feel your actions immediately after the
briefing, that heated exchange, were appropriate?
Dr. Metting. The heated exchange was in response to what
they were saying, and after Dr. Anderson had raised his voice
and then we--it was--there was actually some scientific content
there. We were actually talking about the use of the--you know,
of science in BER, so it was under the rubric of a scientific
exchange after everyone was gone in the privacy of the--of BER
really.
And it was--I was--I really actually feel like I was
goaded, and I did say that I thought the--I thought their
decision was idiotic on there and I was--I was also not--I
didn't like the way some of the questions were in the briefing
itself. The question of--well, actually, Dr. Carruthers brought
up the fact that DOE does not have regulatory--does not set
regulatory standards and that was not true. And so I did
correct that in a--kind of a collegial fashion, and I think
that was what Dr. Carruthers was reacting to at the--after the
briefing in the post-briefing.
Mr. Beyer. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
I now recognize the fine gentleman from the great state of
Texas, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Weatherwax, you stated in your discussion with Chairman
Loudermilk that you didn't go there to lobby, you were--you
didn't go there at all to the meeting but that you felt like
your intent was to actually impart the scientific facts. And in
your opening statement, in your testimony you went through a
litany of scientific facts.
But let me ask you this. At what point did you become aware
of the fact that there--this was indeed--there was a lobbying
attempt going on, to use the term ``subtly yet firmly''
dissuade the Senate from filing their companion bill? When did
you become aware of that?
Dr. Weatherwax. I can't recall when I became aware of any--
--
Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, let me help you with that. It----
Dr. Weatherwax. --lobby.
Mr. Weber. Let me help you with that. On your email--can we
put the email back up on the slide?
[Slide.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Weber. It says--Dr. Carruthers writes--and this is, by
the way, October the 4th, 2014. That's the exact date. ``I
think this is an opportunity to subtly yet firmly let the
Senate know'' blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So you did become
aware on October the--you knew at least before October the 4th,
2014, or on that date that there was this effort going on. Is
that accurate?
Dr. Weatherwax. So, yes, I obviously knew----
Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, let me move on.
Dr. Weatherwax. But I don't see the word ``lobby.''
Mr. Weber. Let me move on. Well, to let the Senate firmly
know, I mean that is the definition, as our Chairman pointed
out. Dr. Metting had said she--in the pre-briefing she had been
informed of some things. Did you attend any kind of pre-
briefing?
Dr. Weatherwax. No.
Mr. Weber. Did you have emails about the pre-briefing?
Dr. Weatherwax. I might have been copied on them, but I
don't recall actually engaging----
Mr. Weber. So if we sent you a request for more emails
about this briefing, you could find this for us?
Dr. Weatherwax. Of course. If you inquired about any
emails, we would provide them.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, let me do it this way then. Why was
it thought that Dr. Anderson was better on staying on message
in this particular instance? Do you have any knowledge of that,
email written communication as to why Dr. Anderson needed to be
chosen?
Dr. Weatherwax. So typically, when we have briefings to
Congressional staff, it is the Division Director who usually
attends. And so in this case the Division Director is more
experienced.
Mr. Weber. Okay. That's what I need. So if he's more--and
if he can stay on message, particularly if the message is to
subtly yet firmly--to use the email's terminology--basically
lobby the Senate against filing the companion bill, he was the
logical choice?
Dr. Weatherwax. So he's the appropriate choice to convey
what our program priorities are.
Mr. Weber. Okay. It's my understanding committee staff
meets with technical experts all the time. Our gentlemen over
here on the other side of the aisle said it was unusual or the
Democrats weren't--but I'm sure that they've met with
committee--their staff has met with technical experts, too. In
your opinion is Congress entitled to the opinion of experts or
just the ones that maybe Dr. Todd Anderson and the others in
this instance agree with? Are we entitled to the opinions of
experts or just the ones that you all agree with?
Dr. Weatherwax. Congress is entitled to what they ask for.
Mr. Weber. Okay. So you would agree with me, then, that
this lobbying effort--apparent lobbying effort to subtly yet
firmly dissuade the Senate was inappropriate?
Dr. Weatherwax. I don't believe that's what my statement
says.
Mr. Weber. Well, I wasn't asking you about your statement,
Dr. Weatherwax. I'm asking you about what occurred in the email
and your obvious apparent attempt to convince the Senate--
dissuade them from not filing their companion bill. That is
lobbying in its truest form. Do you think that's inappropriate?
Dr. Weatherwax. So since I never actually said that Dr.
Anderson should lobby, his job is to provide----
Mr. Weber. But that's--I didn't ask--that's not my
question. My question is this attempt to subtly yet firmly
influence the Senate, is that not improper to you? Yes or no?
Dr. Weatherwax. Dr. Anderson was there to convey the
overall program priorities.
Mr. Weber. You're not going to answer the question. I'm
going to move on.
Dr. Weatherwax, it appears that you and other DOE officials
wanted to ensure that Congress would not receive information
about the Low Dose Radiation Program in an attempt to prevent
legislation, and thus, that's the subject hearing matter for
this hearing. Is that accurate to say? It at least appears that
you all wanted to dissuade this Congress from getting--Senate
particularly from getting that information. Would you agree
that it appears that way?
Dr. Weatherwax. The Senate--if the Senate asked us to
provide information, we provided the briefing.
Mr. Weber. Well, according to this, you have to have
someone staying on message to subtly yet firmly let the Senate
know. You did read that in the email, I take--you do read your
emails?
Dr. Weatherwax. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Weber. Okay. That did not raise a red flag for you?
Dr. Weatherwax. If the intent is to provide information
about the science, we did not interfere with that whatsoever.
Mr. Weber. All right. Let me do it this way real quick. On
your testimony--you referred to your testimony on page one. You
say competitive funding on their BER--I'm going from memory
now--programs. Was is so competitive that it seemed to justify
an attempt to lobby the Senate not to file a companion bill and
in order to direct that funding that Congress was seeking to
establish? Is it that competitive?
Dr. Weatherwax. It is a very highly competitive funding----
Mr. Weber. So it sounds like that you all might have
thought it was justifiable. I get that. And then on page three
you go into the technical stuff and you say that a lot of the
things that you all do is to ``provide an analysis'' and then
you list some groups that can draw their own conclusions. And I
won't go through it and bore you. It's on page three if you
want to read it.
So my question is should Congress be allowed to draw
conclusions as well?
Dr. Weatherwax. Of course.
Mr. Weber. So you admit that. And so--but you don't say
that the attempt to subtly yet firmly dissuade the Senate was a
contravention of that idea that they can draw their own
conclusions?
Dr. Weatherwax. No.
Mr. Weber. Wow. Okay. Very good. Let me go to you very
quickly, Dr. Metting. You said that somebody was your boss.
``Todd Anderson is my manager.'' Is that still true today?
Dr. Metting. Well, he's not supervising me today. I'll just
say that I'm still a member on--of BER in Todd's--in Dr.
Anderson's division----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Metting. --but I am on detail with the Office of
Environment, Health, and Safety.
Mr. Weber. Okay. And you still as of this date have not
been able--allowed to get your personal effects back?
Dr. Metting. No, not at all. When I--the second day after I
got back--actually finally got back to DOE I asked--I called up
BER. I was calling Kathy Holmes, Dr. Weatherwax's admin person,
to see if I could go--come in finally and get my things.
Mr. Weber. Okay. And I don't mean to pry but do you have
grandchildren?
Dr. Metting. Yes, I do.
Mr. Weber. Were there pictures of your grandchildren
included in that?
Dr. Metting. There could have been some pictures. There
could have been so----
Mr. Weber. Yes. Yes. Okay. So you mentioned that somebody
was seen pushing a dumpster into your office to get rid of this
stuff. And who was that?
Dr. Metting. I'm sorry, that--I have to admit it's hearsay
but I have the email from a colleague----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Metting. --in BER who watched my Associate Director
actually personally pushing a dumpster----
Mr. Weber. Is it the norm that they push around these
dumpsters and do these kinds of things?
Dr. Metting. I have never heard of such a thing.
Mr. Weber. No? Okay. Thank you, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Loudermilk. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
I find it very interesting that the statement was that it
was appropriate for Dr. Anderson to brief Congressional staff,
but the DOE did not find it appropriate for Dr. Anderson to be
here for the Full Committee.
At this point I'd like to recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. Rohrabacher, five minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. And so you do have
grandchildren? You know, I have children and I got married
later on in life and one of my daughters has had some health
problems. And I just want you to know that this research on
low-dose radiation is vital to a lot of people's grandchildren
and children, including my daughter. And I thank you for your
dedication to finding out about this issue because it is just
essential for the health of so many people. And thank you very
much for--my daughter had leukemia so we know what that's
about.
And I am very, very honored and pleased that we have
someone like yourself that is going to withstand pressure to go
beyond your scientific responsibilities but to basically try to
achieve a political end, meaning that they--trying to stop
someone from achieving a political end by compromising your
scientific commitment because that's what it sounds like to me.
And what this whole thing sounds like, Mr. Chairman, to me
is that what we have here is an example of where scientists are
feeling, at least in the Department of Energy and this Office
of Science are feeling that they have to go in a certain
direction in order to placate the--basically the priority of
the Administration and--which obviously did not--was not
holding low-dose radiation research as a priority.
I am a cosponsor of the legislation that would have
basically formalized that the money being spent--this money
that's being spent be spent there in the Department of Science
on low-dose radiation research.
Dr. Weatherwax, could you tell me, do you agree that those
of us who are elected officials have the right to have those
kind of--set those type of priorities with the spending--with
money that's being spent on federal research?
Dr. Weatherwax. Congress certainly has the right for----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. So we have the right----
Dr. Weatherwax. --generating legislation.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And so we do and it's recognized, yet we
have someone here who has dedicated her life to a specific
research area that is being talked about now and she is being
given direction beforehand as what direction her answers should
be to the people who constitutionally have responsibility of
making the decision.
This type of--you know we hear all the time from our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we because we
have doubts about manmade CO2 warming the planet
that we are politicizing science, and I will have to tell you
my feeling here is what we've got is an example of politicizing
science. Someone there in the Department in your Office of
Science, although not a political appointee, feels compelled to
try to placate the rest of the Department of Energy's
commitment to global warming as being a manmade situation that
they're going to--and that goes all the way down that--what I
call fanaticism on the global warming issue is being felt the
effects of that all the way down to this very honorable
scientist who spent 14 years of her life trying to do something
that would be important for her grandchildren and my children
and children all over the United States.
This is--and I realize that you're trying to be as honest
with us as you can, but it also--quite frankly, your answers
indicate to me that there's a lack of willingness to take on
other people in the Department of Energy who would be upset if
you said anything to back her up.
And, Mr. Chairman, this type of politicization has impacts
not only in our responsibility because what we're talking about
now today is our responsibility as elected people in a
democracy, the people elect someone to make major decisions as
to how money will be spent. Not only does it undermine
democracy, but in the end it hurts people. In the end this
research, which we believed was vital, much more vital than
proving that CO2 causes the earth to get warm, that
we felt that that money should go to low-dose radiation
research. And instead, someone in the Department of Science
tried to pressure her so that we couldn't back up that concept
that we have, that that scientific investigation is more
important than spending it on manmade global warming.
So with that said, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
hearing, and I would like to compliment Dr. Metting for your
courage, for your willingness to say the truth as you see it
which is what all science has to be. And undermining that and
having someone trying to tell you what you should emphasize and
shouldn't emphasize in order to obtain a political goal, which
is basically to influence the decision-makers who are elected
to make the decision, you showed great courage and great
patriotism. Thank you very much for being with us today.
Dr. Metting. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Weber. [Presiding.] The Chair now recognizes
Congressman Randy Neugebauer from also the great State of
Texas.
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, thank you, Chairman.
Dr. Weatherwax, you're a scientist, is that correct?
Dr. Weatherwax. That's correct.
Mr. Neugebauer. At the Department of Energy?
Dr. Weatherwax. Yes.
Mr. Neugebauer. And so I think your title is Associate
Director of Science for Biological and Environmental Research,
is that correct?
Dr. Weatherwax. That's correct.
Mr. Neugebauer. Yes. So when you're doing research or
investigations, are the facts important?
Dr. Weatherwax. Yes.
Mr. Neugebauer. Why are they important?
Dr. Weatherwax. So scientific research is all predicated on
obtaining facts. Facts obtained from experiments, often using
controlled hypotheses, and collecting the facts helps us to
refine our theories and then suggests further experiments.
Mr. Neugebauer. So what if you were working on a scientific
project and you were evaluating some previous projects that had
been done, scientific research, and someone was directing you
as to what science that you were able to view and precluded you
from looking at, say, other experiments that had been done in
the same area? Would that be productive to your work?
Dr. Weatherwax. I don't think that typically that's how
science is done so----
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, no, but I mean answer the question.
I'm not asking your opinion on how you think it's a done or
not. Would that be productive to your scientific research?
Dr. Weatherwax. No.
Mr. Neugebauer. No. So if you're a Member of the United
States Congress and you're trying to evaluate how we spend the
taxpayers' money and what are the things that are in the best
interest of the American people, wouldn't you think the facts
are important?
Dr. Weatherwax. Yes.
Mr. Neugebauer. Now, you know, do you think your opinion on
an issue should influence the facts that you're willing to
share with me?
Dr. Weatherwax. I--if you ask me for a fact, then I'll
provide it. I don't think my opinion----
Mr. Neugebauer. Yes. Yes.
Dr. Weatherwax. --matters.
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, that's what we asked for, and I think
that's what we expect. And I think what members of this
committee find very troubling is that there was an effort here
that we had an oversight committee trying to, you know, do its
job and then we had people within the Administration--and
what's more troubling it's--I expect it from the
Administration, but from professional scientists I don't expect
that.
And I think what's discouraging here is that we had
professional scientists trying to filter or influence the
information and how that was presented to the United States
Congress. And, you know, I find that distasteful, and I also
find it very unprofessional that you, from the scientific
community, don't rely on the facts. It's important to have the
facts because we're counting on you to--both in your research
and in your investigations to make sure that, you know, we are
doing everything we can to keep the American people healthy and
safe and that this kind of behavior is counterproductive to
that.
And so I would say that I'm hopeful that this is not a
pervasive culture within the Department of Energy or any other
department of the United States Government. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Weber. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from California is now recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm sorry
I'm late. The Judiciary Committee is having a hearing at the
exact same time.
You know, I want to explore how we can improve our
scientific integrity policy at the agency. As you know, I'm
sure the Union of Concerned Scientists has made an observation
that the policy is rather short and it's just three pages. And
although I think it hits all the high points, it--compared to
the scientific integrity outlines of some other agencies, you
know, it's on the short side.
And I'm wondering how we might move forward and use this
observation as a way to further improve the agency and whether
you have comments on that, either one of you?
Dr. Weatherwax. I can't comment on how the Department has
developed the scientific integrity policy, but I can certainly
say that as a scientist and the daughter of a scientist who
worked on the space missions, I certainly agree that scientific
integrity is important.
Dr. Metting. I'm just a scientist. I'm not a--in the
management chain, but I would think that management could do
better at Department of Energy.
Ms. Lofgren. All right. So it's not something that you as
scientists would necessarily want to weigh in on. I just think,
you know, the need--when you get to scientific integrity or any
integrity policies, it's important that they be robust, but
it's also important that they be communicated to--not only to
management but to every person in the institution so that
everybody knows what the rules are.
And I think that, you know, I have great regard for the
current Secretary of Energy. I mean, he's a fabulous scientist
and individual. Steve Chu was--and also, I mean, a Nobel Prize-
winner, I mean, was the Energy Secretary when the current
integrity policy was adopted. And I think that to ask--well, I
don't know if there's time left in this Administration, but to
ask that this be reviewed and amplified would be a good outcome
from this hearing, a productive outcome rather than just a
negative one.
And I'm hoping that we might--I'll--if I could, I would ask
unanimous consent that we put into the record the analysis
undertaken. It's entitled ``Federal Agency Scientific Integrity
Policies, A Comparative Analysis'' and it's done by the Union
of Concerned Scientists. It's dated March 2013, but I think
it's still pertinent and would be helpful to be part of the
record.
Mr. Weber. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix I]
Ms. Lofgren. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I think my time
is nearly expired and I'd be happy to yield back.
Mr. Weber. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you both for being
here.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd also ask unanimous consent
to be able to insert into the record three different letters.
The first is dated March 18, 2013. It's from a group of
researchers in Madison, including Columbia University, which
states ``Our limited understanding of low-dose health risks
seriously impairs the nation's decision-making capabilities
both in the short- and long-term after a large-scale
radiological event.''
The next--I'd also like to include letters from the
American College of Radiology and the Health Physics Society
supporting my legislation, which passed the House in January
2015. This bill is H.R. 35, the Low Dose Radiation Research Act
of 2015. This is another quote from the Health Physics Society
letter. ``A greater understanding of the effects of low-dose
radiation on humans will not only add to our body of knowledge
on the subject but it would also enable us to make better
decisions on what are the proper levels, procedures, and
protections needed when our citizens are subject to exposure to
sources of low-dose radiation.''
So I'd ask for unanimous consent to be able to enter those
into the record.
Mr. Weber. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix I]
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you. Questions--if I could direct
initial questions, Dr. Weatherwax, if I could direct it to you.
Was it your intention and the intention of other such as Dr.
Anderson, Dr. Carruthers, and Dr. Huerta to attempt to prevent
the benefits of low-dose radiation research from being
presented to Congress?
Dr. Weatherwax. No.
Mr. Hultgren. Dr. Weatherwax, if Dr. Metting provided that
information in response to questions from Congressional staff,
then why was she removed from her position?
Dr. Weatherwax. So my understanding is that the proposal to
dismiss Dr. Metting details all of the issues, and those were
the issues that were actually reviewed by general counsel and
human resources, and the procedures were followed. The deciding
official is the one who viewed the entirety of all of those
issues and made the decision.
Mr. Hultgren. Dr. Weatherwax, is it the role of the federal
agency officials to prevent information from being accurately
presented to Congress, as it was in this case?
Dr. Weatherwax. I don't believe that the federal government
inaccurately presented information in this case.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, clearly, there was a slide that was
removed and I guess--I think I have a slide that we can put up.
[Slide.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hultgren. Dr. Weatherwax, this is an email from Dr.
Anderson to Dr. Metting, which you were copied. It appears to
suggest that Dr. Metting remove slide 4 from the briefing
documents, a slide that lists all the federal agency uses for
low-dose radiation research. Isn't that precisely the
information that Congress would want to know in a briefing
about the program?
Dr. Weatherwax. So I cannot comment as to why Dr. Anderson
recommended removal of a particular element within a briefing.
It could have been for brevity. I can't actually speak to why
he suggested removal.
Mr. Hultgren. Yes, I wish Dr. Anderson again were here to
be able to respond to that directly.
Also, I guess I think I've got another slide.
[Slide.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hultgren. There it is, the slide that notes the
beneficial nature of low-dose radiation research for Homeland
Security and the Department of Defense in responding to
radiological attacks.
Dr. Metting, in your scientific opinion could the research
developed by the Low Dose Radiation Research Program benefit
federal emergency response agencies?
Dr. Metting. Yes, very much so in setting evacuation
standards, the levels at which we need to address different
types of emergencies, yes.
Mr. Hultgren. Again, it's a great disappointment. I do look
towards these hearings and the requests that we make to
agencies as our ability to be able to be educated on what is
happening, how funding ought to happen, what important programs
ought to continue to be funded. And in this case it seems like
we were not given that opportunity. In fact, very directly
certain things were excluded from our ability to see.
Dr. Metting, last question. Is this the sort of information
that you think DOE management preferred to keep from committee
staff during the briefing? And did the DOE management tell you
to stick to talking points that excluded the sort of
information?
Dr. Metting. Yes, it did.
Mr. Hultgren. Again, thank you so much. This is disturbing.
This is frustrating. And I hope we can continue to get to the
bottom of this and make sure that this never happens again but
also that there is justice in this.
So with that, I will yield back. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Weber. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Virginia is recognized. No? You're
good? Okay.
All right. The gentleman from--on my right here from
Virginia, which is not often you're on my right. He wants to do
another round so we will do that.
Let me start by simply saying--I'll tell you what. You go.
Mr. Beyer. You sure?
Mr. Weber. You bet you. You go.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd first like to respond to my friend Mr. Rohrabacher from
California who talked about the fanaticism of climate change
science and just point out that 97 percent of the scientists in
the world--China, India, Europe, et cetera--believe often
reluctantly that climate change is real and that it's manmade
and that we represent an enormous threat to mankind. This is
not fanaticism, nor is it politics. It's just what the science
is.
I know there are three percent that agree that it's--
believe it's not real. Two good friends of mine sent me pieces
that believe that climate change is not manmade or there's
nothing we can do about it. I don't think they're fanatics
either. These are--we should let the science be what the
science is and then together try to make good decisions about
how to move forward.
Dr. Weatherwax, is it the responsibility of the Department
of Energy to communicate the Administration's science
priorities to Congress? And would--it seems like we got off on
the wrong foot when someone accused of Dr. Metting of lobbying,
which then led to lots of accusations of you and Dr. Anderson
of lobbying. Isn't this more just the responsibility to
communicate what the executive branch believes the priority
should be and then the legislative branch can do what they want
to do?
Dr. Weatherwax. Yes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Let me ask this, the same question of
both of you. Dr. Weatherwax, is there obviously more to learn
from the Low Dose Radiation Program after a quarter billion
dollars' worth of research or have we had a plateau period
where we know most of what we think we need to know?
Dr. Weatherwax. So I believe that, as with many scientific
areas, always more can be gained. However, in this case the
program's priorities were certainly shifting more towards large
epidemiological studies, which is studies of humans and
populations and their exposure. And so those kinds of studies
are probably the future of where this research is--field is
going, and I believe that that type of research is ongoing. We
are continuing to support a study, and those studies are being
done by entities such as the National Cancer Institute.
Mr. Beyer. So, Dr. Metting, the same question. Do you
believe that the research had plateaued after a quarter billion
dollars or did you feel you were on the cusp of dramatic new
insights?
Dr. Metting. Actually, I don't believe there was a plateau
at all. We were--we had basically gone through all of what we
could do with cell culture and we were going into whole systems
biology. And when--once we started moving into that, what we
did--what we realized is that for very low doses there's really
not a cancer aspect to it. There is real interesting science
that is asking what is actually--what does the low-dose
actually do. And so we were looking at adaptive responses, we
were looking at really excellent--like the metabolic shift that
occurs at very low doses that actually triggers an adaptive
response.
And it has very exciting directions to go because low
doses--they affect your immune surveillance and at the very low
doses it's much different from the types of mechanisms that
occur at very high doses.
And I'm--I agree with Dr. Weatherwax that we need a new way
to look at the epidemiology. We've been only having the high-
dose epidemiology for so long. Now, we're looking at low-dose
epidemiology, and that is exactly the type of science that we
need to compare our new biology to, that the old--the A-bomb
survivor epidemiologists are still using old biological
assumptions. We have a whole new set of assumptions. The low-
dose area is getting very exciting.
Mr. Beyer. I'm about to run out of time. I'd like to submit
for the record, if there's no objection, the Department of
Energy's response to the Inspector General and the Office of
Special Counsel regarding the $16 million disclosure where the
Department of Energy details how that $16 million was spent
according to the Congressional appropriation if there's no
objection, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Weber. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix I]
Mr. Beyer. And then one last question for you, Dr. Metting.
Is there anything inappropriate with both you for radiation,
the low-dose radiation, Dr. Weatherwax, Dr. Todd Anderson, and
others communicating those understandings to Congress and then
let Congress authorize and allocate the money it wishes to
spend in its legislative wisdom? I mean, shouldn't----
Dr. Metting. I don't----
Mr. Beyer. Is there a reason why it's bad to have the
necessary conflict between the Administration's perspective and
Congress' perspective?
Dr. Metting. Mr. Congressman--Ranking Member, I really
don't think there is anything wrong with a conflict. Both sides
should be looked at. Both sides should be heard but----
Mr. Beyer. And hopefully the wisdom will emerge, right?
Dr. Metting. Yes.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Weber. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Weatherwax, I'm curious what is the process like when
you prepare for meeting for Congress?
Dr. Weatherwax. So typically, when the request comes in, it
will come to the Department's Congressional Affairs and they
will then notify us as to what the request is and direct it to
the appropriate office. If it's a matter of briefing
appropriation staffers, then it would be budget-related and
then the most senior person will typically go, the person has
who has authority to develop the budget priorities and
responsibility for justification.
Mr. Davidson. Okay. So when you come to a hearing before
Congress, do you have objectives for the meeting?
Dr. Weatherwax. So this is actually my first meeting with
Congress, so clearly my objective is just to answer your
questions.
Mr. Davidson. Okay. So how--in the Department of Energy
when you talk about the culture and you talk about--surely
you've prepared others to come and give testimony before
Congress. What's considered success? What's that like in the--
you know, hey, you did a good job or you didn't do a good job?
Dr. Weatherwax. I think if Congress is satisfied with the
information that the Department has provided, then that would
be a successful outcome.
Mr. Davidson. Why then was Dr. Metting's testimony before
Congressional staffers not viewed as success?
Dr. Weatherwax. I don't believe that we actually made any
kind of decision about success or no success after that
particular briefing. I believe that the decision to--the
proposal to remove, as I said, included other aspects that were
not related to the specific briefing to Congress.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you. Dr. Metting, after your October 16
briefing were you officially removed from your position at the
Department of Energy?
Dr. Metting. Yes, I was.
Mr. Davidson. Without objection, I'd like to share an email
exchange between Dr. Weatherwax and Dr. Anderson. They appear
to be debating whether to provide Dr. Metting with an official
notice of proposed removal from federal service on the day of
the office holiday party. So this was December.
Dr. Metting, when were you informed about your dismissal
from the Department, and could you please elaborate on how that
happened?
Mr. Weber. Without objection, so ordered. You wanted that
in the record?
Mr. Davidson. Thank you.
[Slide.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Metting. Yes, Mr. Congressman. I--okay. So it had been
very tense, you know, since the October 16 and then when I was
taken off of my duties as managing the Low Dose Program. And I
had talked to my union representative, and everyone knew I was
a little upset, but then there wasn't anyone who would really--
Dr. Anderson, Dr. Weatherwax would not talk to me about the
subject so it was very tense.
The morning of the--of December 4 we had a big potluck.
It's a lot of fun. We're out in Germantown so we can bring
large amounts of food. And I was tasked--or I volunteered to
bring the turkey dressing, the mashed potatoes and gravy, and
we had our party. And then directly after the party I was
informed that there would be a personnel action in 2 hours and
that--or something like that. I don't really remember the exact
thing I was so shocked, and that you should probably bring your
union representative with you at that time.
Mr. Davidson. Was this consistent with the culture that
something like this would happen or was this kind of a new
trend or new event, new single data point in the culture?
Dr. Metting. Oh, you mean the personnel----
Mr. Davidson. Yes, just the--you know, you're coming right
off of a holiday party, you're coming off of testimony where
you gave----
Dr. Metting. It was shocking.
Mr. Davidson. --testimony?
Dr. Metting. It was shocking and it was out of the ordinary
for me. I mean, I've never, ever had anything even against
anything that I've done. I've always had very fully successful
program reviews.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you. Dr. Weatherwax, in your experience
at the Department of Energy is it general practice for an
agency scientist to be told what they can and cannot say during
their Congressional testimony?
Dr. Weatherwax. No.
Mr. Davidson. Have you ever been instructed to censor
scientific opinions when communicating with Congress or other
agencies?
Dr. Weatherwax. No.
Mr. Davidson. So is it your opinion that this was an
outlier of an event with Dr. Metting?
Dr. Weatherwax. We never told Dr. Metting to--we never
attempted to censor scientific content.
Mr. Davidson. Okay. It does appear that you--you were
dissatisfied with the way the conversation went and took
action, and it seems to have potentially had a stifling effect.
So my time is expired. Thank you.
Mr. Weber. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
Dr. Weatherwax, in your exchange just--the last exchange
with the gentleman from Virginia, he talked about an opinion on
climate change and it's okay if the Administration has an
opinion and you think they ought to be free--he asked you
didn't you think they ought to be free to pursue what they
thought was important. Do you remember that exchange?
Dr. Weatherwax. Yes.
Mr. Weber. Okay. So the gentleman from--well, let me do it
this way. Just hold that thought. Dr. Metting, did you feel
attacked after that meeting and obviously leading up to the
party you were talking about?
Dr. Metting. After the briefing?
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Dr. Metting. I was completely attacked. And at the time it
felt like it was--you know, it was a surprise and it was----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Metting. --unforeseen.
Mr. Weber. Well, I apologize to you for that. And from what
I know, that should not have occurred and you should not have
to endure that. And I hope you get the pictures, if there are
some, of your grandchildren back.
But suffice it to say that I agree with an earlier comment.
Thank you for coming up here because more--as important is the
fact that the process has been attacked, and I think we're
seeing that today.
Now, Dr. Weatherwax, we talked earlier and you--I asked you
a couple questions about the lobbying intent and you said you
didn't have an opinion and you weren't sure that was lobbying,
but we have another email. And I use the word subtle, you know,
to keep the Senate from filing a bill. Can we get that email up
on the screen? Can we get that one up on the screen? The email
I had originally, yes. There you go.
[Slide.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Weber. So, you know, I talked about the subtly yet
firmly, which is the third bullet point, but if you go up to
the second--or fourth bullet point, but if you go up to the
second bullet point, it says ``If the goal is to squash the
prospects of Senate support for the HSST.'' So I want to come
back and say to you now you've expressed an opinion about
climate change and what the Administration ought to be free to
do or not do. Now do you also have an opinion that the goal to
squash the prospects of Senate is inappropriate?
Dr. Weatherwax. Dr. Anderson is responsible for conveying
the program----
Mr. Weber. But I'm not asking about--I'm asking you, Dr.
Weatherwax, do you have--you expressed an opinion with
Congressman Beyer about whether or not we disagree on global
warming. We can get into that later. So there's discussion
about that. Do you have an opinion that the goal to squash the
Senate action is inappropriate? The email--now, this email came
to you, I will remind you.
Dr. Weatherwax. That's correct. The email came----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Weatherwax. --to me.
Mr. Weber. So did you not have an opinion at that point
that this might not be the best policy of this department?
Dr. Weatherwax. So my interpretation of that comment was
that Todd's job was to provide the broad overall context----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Weatherwax. --for how the program priorities within
this area of----
Mr. Weber. Yes, it's not about his--your interpretation of
him. It's about the attempt to squash--it clearly says squash
it. You're a scientist. You have a Ph.D. You know what squash
is. Do you have an opinion on that?
Dr. Weatherwax. I guess----
Mr. Weber. You're just not going to--you're not going to
offer an opinion on that?
Dr. Weatherwax. I think I did not interpret that comment as
squashing any scientific content.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, then, let's--let me move on. So
Congressman Beyer and yourself had the exchange about whether
or not you agree with global warming. I think you said the
fantasism----
Mr. Beyer. Fanaticism.
Mr. Weber. There we go. Thank you. I have to get--according
to Mr. Rohrabacher, yes. But the fanaticism in their opinion--
and there's been some Attorneys General, as you're probably
aware from reading the news accounts, that have gone after
ExxonMobil because in their opinion they think they've
suppressed some things. But isn't the fanaticism of suppressing
what a scientist can say in a Congressional committee meeting
as dangerous as the purported climate change no matter where
you fall on that side of--isn't that fanaticism just as
dangerous? Do you have an opinion about that?
Dr. Weatherwax. I don't see that Dr. Anderson was squashing
the conveying of science.
Mr. Weber. It's interesting that you bring him back up
because I was asking about a broad overall perspective about
the fanaticism of suppressing a scientist from testifying
before Congress committee staffers. That's just as bad as the
purported fanaticism of denying global warming. Wouldn't you
say that's just as bad?
Dr. Weatherwax. I don't believe that we ever squashed a
scientist presenting scientific views to Congress.
Mr. Weber. All right. Well, let's do it this way. There's
another--there's actually an excerpt from Dr. Todd Anderson in
the transcribed interview that the question--and it's up on the
screen that says, question, ``Is President Obama's Climate
Action Plan a priority for the Department of Energy?'' Can you
see the answer there? Are you able to read that? What does it
say?
Dr. Weatherwax. The answer that Dr. Anderson gave is yes--
--
Mr. Weber. Yes, it is. And what's that second question? Can
you read that for us?
Dr. Weatherwax. The second question says, ``And is that a
greater priority than the Low Dose Radiation Program?''
Mr. Weber. And he says, ``To the extent that we align our
basic research efforts toward that goal, yes.'' So clearly
they're prioritizing, right? Now, the question is this. This is
testimony provided by Dr. Todd Anderson in a transcribed
interview with committee staff. Dr. Anderson asserts, if you're
following his question-and-answer here, ``Research that
benefits the President's Climate Action Plan is a higher
priority than low-dose radiation research.'' So here's my
question. Is the DOE ending the Low Dose Radiation Research
Program to divert funds--and I would say to subtly yet firmly
encourage--if that's a better word for you--the Senate to
divert funds towards research in furtherance of the Climate
Action Plan? Does that look like that to you?
Dr. Weatherwax. No.
Mr. Weber. It doesn't? Okay. Well, then, Dr. Weatherwax,
the DOE fired an employee--in your exchange with Mr. Davidson
of Ohio, he said, did you think that the meeting was a success
or a failure? She got fired because of it, so obviously
somebody thought that what occurred in the meeting was bad. Do
you have opinion on that?
Dr. Weatherwax. I believe that the justification for
dismissal was outlined in the proposing documents and that
there were issues greater than----
Mr. Weber. So----
Dr. Weatherwax. --what transpired during the briefing.
Mr. Weber. So the operation was a success but the patient
died. Okay. So you don't have an opinion that that was a bad
meeting.
Is the Department of Energy in this process sending a
message to research scientists that they better somehow tow a
political party--a particular--I'll do it that way--party line?
And if they don't agree, if they express a difference of
opinion, it is in peril of their careers. Would you agree with
that?
Dr. Weatherwax. No.
Mr. Weber. You don't agree with that? Okay. Last question,
that's for you, Dr. Weatherwax. In your opinion is it okay for
the Department of Energy to lobby the Senate to firmly but
subtly prevent them from filing a bill?
Dr. Weatherwax. If the Department of Energy actually
lobbied for something, then I--you know, I don't believe that
that's what happened.
Mr. Weber. Okay. And so to follow up the last email, the
goal to squash the Senate prospects is inappropriate, of filing
that bill?
Dr. Weatherwax. I think that the goal is to convey the
broader context of how we set our budget priorities.
Mr. Weber. Well, there certainly seems to be some control
there. Dr. Weatherwax, I appreciate your testimony but it just
looks like you're more focused on, I guess, the science--your
part of the science research instead of the topics here today
that would say, look, this is inappropriate.
There is some inappropriate behavior going on, as one of my
members over here said earlier, and we want to make sure that
that stops. And the fact that you don't recognize that and
won't provide at least an opinion that it was categorically
inappropriate and that it might need to be a little attitude
adjustment in the Department of Energy is frightening to me.
But anyway, I appreciate you being here.
Dr. Metting, anything you'd like to say before we close?
Dr. Metting. Mr. Chairman, I think you've done a fabulous
job at laying out all of the issues.
Mr. Weber. Well, thank you. How many grandchildren do you
have?
Dr. Metting. I do have two grandsons.
Mr. Weber. Two grandsons. They need a sister.
Dr. Metting. That's what I'm telling my other son.
Mr. Weber. Well, thank you both for being here, and this
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Full Committee
Chairman Lamar Smith
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement submitted by Full Committee
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Document Submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Documents submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Document submitted by Representative Don S.Beyer
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Report submitted by Chairman Lamar S. Smith
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Document submitted by Representative Randy Weber
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]