[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE ACTIONS, INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE
ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, August 2, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-123
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-493 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC Betty Sutton, OH
Scott R. Tipton, CO Niki Tsongas, MA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Raul R. Labrador, ID John Garamendi, CA
Kristi L. Noem, SD Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Steve Southerland II, FL Paul Tonko, NY
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, August 2, 2012......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.............................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Kendall, Mary L., Acting Inspector General, U.S. Department
of the Interior............................................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Additional materials supplied:
Capital Press article entitled ``Dam removal `extreme,' says
fired scientist,'' dated June 7, 2012, submitted for the
record by The Honorable Tom McClintock..................... 29
The Daily Caller article entitled ``Former Interior Dept.
adviser: Administration's report on dam removal
`intentionally biased' '' dated April 5, 2012, submitted
for the record by The Honorable Tom McClintock............. 30
Houser, Dr. Paul R., Science Advisor, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Memorandum to the Office
of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, U.S.
Department of the Interior, dated February 24, 2012,
submitted for the record by The HonorableTom McClintock.... 62
Kendall, Mary L., Acting Inspector General, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Letter to The Honorable Doc Hastings dated
July 20, 2012, submitted for the record by The Honorable
Tom McClintock............................................. 27
redding.com article entitled `` `Whistleblower' will speak
about Klamath dam removals; scientist's advice opposed
their removal'' submitted for the record by The Honorable
Tom McClintock............................................. 31
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``OVERSIGHT OF THE ACTIONS, INDEPENDENCE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR.''
----------
Thursday, August 2, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastings, Gohmert, Lamborn, Broun,
Fleming, McClintock, Thompson, Duncan of South Carolina, Noem,
Southerland, Flores, Landry, Markey, DeFazio, Holt, Grijalva,
Bordallo, Sablan, and Lujan.
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order, and the
Chair notes the presence of a quorum, which, under Rule 3(e) is
2 Members. And I appreciate your being here.
The Committee on Natural Resources is meeting today to hear
testimony on an oversight hearing on ``Oversight of the
Actions, Independence, and Accountability of the Acting
Inspector Genera l of the Department of the Interior.'' Under
Committee Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Committee. However, I
ask unanimous consent that any Members that would wish to have
a statement in the record have it by close of business today.
[No response.]
The Chairman. And without objection, so ordered. I will now
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
The Chairman. Two years ago, members of this Committee
called on the Department of the Interior's Acting Inspector
General to conduct an investigation into the Department's May
2010 Drilling Moratorium Report Executive Summary that was
edited to appear as though the 6-month drilling moratorium was
supported by engineering experts, when it was not.
After initially declining, the IG ultimately agreed to
conduct an investigation. An 8-page report was issued 5 months
later that confirmed that White House officials were
responsible for editing the report's Executive Summary, but the
IG was unable to independently verify whether the authors
intended to mislead the public.
Since becoming Chairman, this Committee has been conducting
an investigation into the editing of this report and how the
moratorium decision was made. Along the way, troubling
questions have arisen about the thoroughness and independence
of the Acting IG's investigation, as well as the IG's
unwillingness to fully cooperate with the Committee's
investigation.
The Inspector General Act of 1978 requires the IG to be
independent, to cooperate with and provide information to
Congress, and to protect whistleblowers. Essentially, an IG is
to be an independent watchdog of the Executive Branch. There
are legitimate questions that this independence in this case is
being compromised. This includes the refusal of the Acting IG
to provide documents subpoenaed by the Committee based on the
perceived grounds that the Administration may exert Executive
Privilege to withhold these documents. This was done without
the Acting IG's office ever being informed by the
Administration of its intentions to assert actual Executive
Privilege, or ever inquiring if the Administration had any such
intentions.
In addition, the documents obtained by the Committee raise
red flags about the IG's investigation into the Drilling
Moratorium Report. Emails from the IG's investigators detail
how they were not able to obtain all DOI documents that may
have been relevant to their investigation, and they were not
allowed to interview Secretary Salazar or White House staff
involved in editing the report.
To quote one such email by a lead investigator--and I am
directly quoting now--``I am deeply concerned that this is yet
another example of how a double standard is being followed in
this investigation in granting great deference to the
Secretary's office that would not be granted to any other
department bureaus or employees.''
Another email the lead investigator wrote--and I again
directly quote--``I truly believe the editing was
intentional.'' Let me start over again. ``I truly believe the
editing was intentional by an overzealous staffer at the White
House. And, if asked, I, as a case agent, would be happy to
state that opinion to anyone interested.''
The thoroughness of the IG's investigation is very
important. The IG report is being used by the Obama
Administration as a defense that this matter has been
investigated and resolved. In reality, the Department has never
had to disclose key documents or answer questions on how and
why this report was edited.
Finally, it is important to learn more today about the
Acting IG's exact role and the participation in a board and the
process that produced the Drilling Moratorium Report. In
testimony before this Committee in 2010, Ms. Kendall stated
that she was not involved in the process of developing this
report. However, this statement appears inconsistent with
documents showing that she attended meetings with senior
Department officials developing the report, receiving drafts of
the report in advance of its release, and accepted an
invitation by the Department to serve on the Secretary's OCS
Safety Oversight Board.
I have to question the ability to be impartial in
investigating a matter that one admits to having direct
knowledge and involvement with, including direct interaction
with the very political appointees on the matter being
investigated. This does not strike me as the type of
independent role that IGs are expected to serve.
This raises a bigger question about the role of an Acting
IG. The question is whether an IG in an acting capacity can
truly be impartial investigating an Administration while openly
expressing the desire to be the permanent IG--and, of course,
that position is nominated by the President.
To be clear, these are not questions broadly about the
employees and investigators in the IG's office, but rather
about the leadership and administration of the office. The
written testimony of the Acting IG seeks to provide a defense
and explanation of certain actions, but in several instances it
raises yet more questions.
It is hoped that direct answers will be forthcoming, though
we are prepared to take the necessary steps, including those
that extend beyond today's hearing, to ensure we receive all of
the facts.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources
Two years ago, Members of this Committee called on the Department
of the Interior's Acting Inspector General to conduct an investigation
into the Department's May 2010 Drilling Moratorium Report Executive
Summary that was edited to appear as though the six-month drilling
moratorium was supported by engineering experts when it was not.
After initially declining, the IG ultimately agreed to conduct an
investigation. An 8-page report was issued five months later that
confirmed that White House officials were responsible for editing the
report's Executive Summary, but the IG was unable to independently
verify whether the authors intended to mislead the public.
Since becoming Chairman, this Committee has been conducting an
investigation into the editing of this report and how the moratorium
decision was made. Along the way, troubling questions have arisen about
the thoroughness and independence of the Acting IG's investigation, as
well as the IG's unwillingness to fully cooperate with the Committee's
investigation.
The Inspector General Act of 1978 requires an IG to be independent,
to cooperate with and provide information to Congress, and to protect
whistleblowers. Essentially, an IG is to be an independent watchdog of
the Executive Branch. There are legitimate questions that this
independence is being compromised.
This includes the refusal of the Acting IG to provide documents
subpoenaed by the Committee based on the perceived grounds that the
Administration may exert Executive Privilege to withhold these
documents. This was done without the Acting IG's office ever being
informed by the Administration of intentions to assert actual Executive
Privilege or ever inquiring if the Administration had any such
intentions.
In addition, documents obtained by the Committee raise red flags
about the IG's investigation into the Drilling Moratorium Report.
Emails from the IG's investigators detail how they were not able to
obtain all DOI documents that may have been relevant to their
investigation, and they were not allowed to interview Secretary Salazar
or White House staff involved in editing the report.
To quote one such email by a lead investigator, ``I am deeply
concerned that this is yet another example of how a double standard is
being followed in this investigation in granting great deference to the
Secretary's office that would not be granted to any other department
bureaus or employees.''
In another email, the lead investigator wrote, ``I truly believe
the editing `WAS' intentional--by an overzealous staffer at the White
House. And, if asked, I, as the case agent, would be happy to state
that opinion to anyone interested.''
The thoroughness of the IG's investigation is very important. The
IG report is being used by the Obama Administration as a defense that
this matter has been investigated and resolved. In reality, the
Department has never had to disclose key documents or answer questions
on how and why this report was edited.
Finally, it is important to learn more today about the Acting IG's
exact role and participation in a Board and the process that produced
the Drilling Moratorium Report. In testimony before this Committee in
2010, Ms. Kendall stated that she was not involved in the process of
developing the report. However, this statement appears inconsistent
with documents showing that she attended meetings with senior
Department officials developing the report, received drafts of the
report in advance of its release, and accepted an invitation by the
Department to serve on the Secretary's OCS Safety Oversight Board.
I have to question the ability to be impartial in investigating a
matter that one admits to having direct knowledge and involvement with,
including direct interaction with the very political appointees on the
matter being investigated. This does not strike me as the type of
independent role that IG's are expected to serve.
This raises a bigger question about the role of an Acting IG. The
question is whether an IG in an acting capacity can truly be impartial
investigating an Administration while openly expressing the desire to
be the permanent IG, which is nominated by the President.
To be clear, these are not questions broadly about the employees
and investigators in the IG's office, but rather about the leadership
and administration of the office. The written testimony of the Acting
IG seeks to provide a defense and explanation of certain actions, but
in several instances it raises yet more questions.
It is hoped that direct answers will be forthcoming, though we are
prepared to take necessary steps, including those that extend beyond
today's hearing, to ensure we receive all of the facts.
______
The Chairman. And with that, I will recognize the
distinguished Ranking Member.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am giving my remarks
today while playing the BP Spill Cam. I am doing this not
because I like watching millions of barrels of oil gush into
America's waters and pollute our shores, but rather to help my
Republican colleagues remember the disaster they now seem to
have completely forgotten.
It is bad enough that the Republican House has not passed a
single piece of legislation to improve the safety of offshore
drilling. Last week Republicans passed two bills that would put
the American people at greater risk of another devastating oil
spill. One bill would force us to rush new drilling off the
beaches of California, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and
other States, all without any new safety reforms. The other,
the Republican Regulatory Freeze Act, would block all manner of
health, safety, and environmental protections, including new
safeguards being developed by the Department of the Interior to
improve the safety requirements for offshore blow-out
preventers, cementing, casing, and well design.
Compared to these bills, the investigation we are dealing
with today has the advantage of being trivial. But it is no
less misguided. We should be thanking today's witnesses for
helping to highlight important safety reforms at the Interior
Department and prevent another catastrophic spill from every
happening again. But the Committee Republicans aren't
interested in looking at reforms to improve the safety of
offshore drilling. Instead, we are here to investigate the
investigation of a 2-year-old copy-and-paste mistake.
Nearly 30 days after the BP spill, with oil still gushing
into the Gulf, Administration officials worked late into the
night on a report from the Secretary of the Interior set to be
released the next day that offered recommendations to the
President on how to respond. Between the hours of 11:00 p.m.
and 3:00 a.m., text was moved around in the Executive Summary
in a way that created ambiguity about whether the report's
external peer reviewers, many of whom consulted for the
offshore drilling industry, supported a 6-month moratorium on
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The reviewers endorsed an
undefined temporary pause in deepwater drilling, but did not
review the recommendation of a 6-month moratorium.
When some of the external reviewers expressed concerns
about the Executive Summary, Secretary Salazar immediately sent
public apology letters to them, clarifying that their
recommendation for a 6-month moratorium was his alone.
Secretary Salazar.
Congressional Republicans, including our Chairman, then
asked the Interior Department's Office of Inspector General to
investigate whether the edits were intentional and politically
motivated. The OIG reviewed drafts of the report, emails
exchanged between the Department of the Interior and the White
House, and interviewed peer reviewers, as well as Department of
the Interior employees involved in the editing. The conclusion?
There was no evidence of wrongdoing.
Not satisfied with this conclusion, the Committee Majority
has responded by turning its investigation to the Acting
Inspector General, Mary Kendall. But the Majority's problem is
not really with Ms. Kendall. And it is not with the White House
or the Interior Department, either. The Majority's problem is
with the facts. The facts don't show what the Majority wants
them to show. So, now, all that is left is to investigate the
investigation.
I want to close again by reminding the Majority of what was
happening at the time. Look at these monitors. This is what
Secretary Salazar and the others in the Administration were
trying to stop. This is what they wanted to prevent from ever
happening again. And this is what we in this Committee should
be working to prevent. This is under the jurisdiction of this
Committee, to put the safety measures in place to make sure it
does not happen again. And this is what this Committee has
avoided doing for 2 years to protect against a repetition.
Instead, the Majority is wasting the Committee's time on
this trivial and baseless investigation of an investigation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
I am giving my remarks today while playing the BP spill cam. I am
doing this not because I like watching millions of barrels of oil gush
into America's waters and pollute our shores, but rather to help my
Republican colleagues remember the disaster they now seem to have
completely forgotten.
It's bad enough that the Republican House has not passed a single
piece of legislation to improve the safety of offshore drilling. Last
week, Republicans passed two bills that would put the American people
at greater risk of another devastating oil spill.
One bill would force us to rush new drilling off the beaches of
California, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North and South
Carolina and in Bristol Bay off Alaska, all without any new safety
reforms. The other, the Republican ``Regulatory Freeze Act,'' would
block all manner of health, safety and environmental protections,
including new safeguards being developed by the Department of Interior
to improve the safety requirements for offshore blowout preventers,
cementing, casing and well design.
Compared to these bills, the investigation we are dealing with
today has the advantage of being trivial. But it's no less misguided.
We should be thanking today's witness for helping to highlight
important safety reforms at the Interior Department and prevent another
catastrophic spill from ever happening again. But Committee Republicans
aren't interested in looking at reforms to improve the safety of
offshore drilling. Instead, we are here to investigate the
investigation of a two-year-old copy-and-paste mistake.
Nearly 30 days after the BP spill, with oil still gushing into the
Gulf, Administration officials worked late into the night on a report
from the Secretary of Interior--set to be released the next day--that
offered recommendations to the President on how to respond. Between the
hours of 11:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m., text was moved around in the
executive summary in a way that created ambiguity about whether the
report's external peer reviewers--many of whom consulted for the
offshore drilling industry--supported a six-month moratorium on
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The reviewers endorsed an undefined
``temporary pause'' in deepwater drilling, but did not review the
recommendation of a six-month moratorium.
When some of the external reviewers expressed concerns about the
executive summary, Secretary Salazar immediately sent public apology
letters to them clarifying that the recommendation for a six-month
moratorium was his alone.
Congressional Republicans, including our Chairman, then asked the
Interior Department's Office of Inspector General to investigate
whether the edits were intentional and politically motivated. OIG
reviewed drafts of the report, emails exchanged between DOI and the
White House, and interviewed peer reviewers as well as DOI employees
involved in the editing. The conclusion: There was no evidence of
wrongdoing.
Not satisfied with this conclusion, the Committee Majority has
responded by turning its investigation to the Acting Inspector General
Mary Kendall. But the Majority's problem is not really with Ms.
Kendall. And it's not with the White House or the Interior Department
either. The Majority's problem is with the facts.
The facts don't show what the Majority wants them to show. So now
all that's left is to investigate the investigation.
I want to close by again reminding the Majority of what was
happening at the time. Look at the monitors. This is what Secretary
Salazar and others in the Administration were trying to stop. This is
what they wanted to prevent from ever happening again. And this is what
we in this Committee should be working to prevent.
Instead, the Majority is wasting the Committee's time on this
trivial and baseless investigation of an investigation.
______
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his statement. And
I want to welcome the Acting Inspector General of the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Ms. Mary Kendall. Thank you very
much for being here.
You have been in front of the Committee before, so you know
how the lights work. But let me remind you again. Your full
statement will appear in your record, and we all have your
extensive full statement. When the green light comes on, the 5-
minute clock starts. And when the yellow light comes on you
have 30 seconds. And I would ask you to keep your remarks
within that timeframe, if you could.
And so, with that, welcome. And you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARY L. KENDALL, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Kendall. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
good morning and thank you for holding this hearing today. As
you know, Inspectors General are appointed or designated
without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis
of integrity and demonstrated ability in a number of fields,
pursuant to Section 3 of the IG Act.
Section 2 of the Act establishes independence and
objectivity expectation. Although neither appointed nor
designated, Acting Inspectors General are expected to conduct
themselves with integrity, independence, and objectivity in a
non-partisan manner.
For the past 4 months, I have weathered the scrutiny of
this Committee, which has used a unilateral approach to
investigate me by requesting select documents from the Office
of Inspector General, drawing conclusions from those documents
without all the facts, and presenting those conclusions to the
public via press releases, challenging my integrity,
independence, and objectivity. Therefore, I welcome the
opportunity to testify today, respond to questions, and present
all the facts as I know them.
The letter requesting my attendance at this hearing said I
should be prepared to answer questions about my role relative
to the 6-month drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico
following the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the OIG investigation
into perceived representation that the moratorium decision had
been peer reviewed, my response to a Committee subpoena for
documents, the independence and effectiveness of an Acting
Inspector General, and my previous testimony before the
Committee. In short, I can answer these issues as follows.
I stand behind the OIG investigation into the allegation
that DOI senior officials, in an effort to help justify their
decision to impose a 6-month moratorium on deepwater drilling,
misrepresented that the moratorium was reviewed and supported
by the National Academy of Engineering Scientists and industry
experts. This alleged misrepresentation was contained only in
the Executive Summary of a report commonly called the 30-Day
Report. Therefore, the Executive Summary was the focus of the
OIG investigation.
The question of whether there was intentional
misrepresentation came down to a review of emails exchanged
between DOI and the White House in the late hours of May 26th
and early hours of May 27, 2010, in which the Executive Summary
was being edited. These emails revealed no evidence that the
Executive Summary was intentionally edited to lead readers to
believe that the moratorium recommendation had been peer
reviewed.
This Committee has posted on its website a number of emails
from the case agent who investigated the peer review issue that
suggest he was not allowed to conduct every investigative step
he wanted to take. None of the agent's complaints was made
known to me during the course of the investigation. Had they
been brought to my attention, I would have addressed them
directly with the case agent. But in the end, based on what the
case agent presented to me, I was confident that our
investigation was well done, thorough, and to the point, which
is precisely what I expressed to the case agent directly in
email.
Until this matter, in my 26 years with the Federal
Government, I have never experienced an instance in which
Executive Privilege came into play. We have since learned that
the process by which such differences of position between the
legislative and executive branches are resolved is both lengthy
and complex. I reiterate my position that the dispute between
this Committee is between this Committee and the Department.
The documents are not the OIG's, neither is the privilege the
OIG's to either assert or waive.
As Acting Inspector General, I have exercised all the
independence and objectivity necessary to meet the OIG mission.
I have elected to exercise this independence and objectivity in
a way that maintains a healthy tension between the OIG and the
Department we oversee. I believe, however, that independence
and objectivity are not compromised by a respectful
relationship with both the Department and the Congress, the two
entities we are charged with keeping fully informed, pursuant
to the IG Act. As a result, we have affected a great deal of
positive change over the past 3 years, by working with the
Department in a spirit of respect to achieve such change.
Although I have testified before this Committee numerous
times, I assume that the questions relate to my testimony on
June 17, 2010 about which the Committee has said it has serious
questions. I addressed those questions in my letter of June 27,
2012 to the Committee, and in my formal statement today.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we can adjourn today having addressed
all the questions the Committee may have about me. Although the
questions you have raised about me reflect on the OIG, it has
become clear that your questions are really about me--if
nothing else, from the title of this hearing today.
Mr. Chairman, I have been an attorney and a member of the
bar in good standing approaching 30 years. I have been a public
servant for over 26 years, all but 3 of those years in the law
enforcement arena, without blemish to my record. And I was born
and raised in the Midwest, where one's honor and word are
sacrosanct.
The past 17 weeks have been the most painful and difficult
of my entire career, not only because it taxed on my personal
integrity, but because this has eclipsed all the outstanding
work that the OIG has done and continues to do.
This concludes my remarks. I request that my corrected
formal statement be accepted into the record. And I am prepared
to answer any questions the members of the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kendall follows:]
Statement of Mary L. Kendall, Acting Inspector General,
U.S. Department of the Interior
This hearing is the result of a subpoena and a series of letters
sent by this Committee to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the
Department of the Interior seeking documents concerning an OIG
investigation conducted in 2010 regarding the drilling moratorium
imposed in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
The subpoena was dated March 30, 2012; the letters were dated April 6,
May 2, May 10, May 22, May 30, and June 25, 2012. On May 24, 2012,
another letter was issued from Senators Jeff Sessions, David Vitter and
John Cornyn, to the Integrity Committee for the Council of Inspectors
General for Integrity and Efficiency citing documents obtained by this
Committee from the OIG and press releases issued by the Committee.
Inspectors General, are appointed or designated ``without regard to
political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and
demonstrated ability'' in a number of fields, pursuant to Section 3 of
the IG Act. Section 2 of the IG Act establishes the independence and
objectivity expectation. Although neither appointed nor designated,
Acting Inspectors General are also expected to conduct themselves with
integrity, independence and objectivity in a non-partisan manner, and I
have conscientiously adhered to these principles during my tenure in
the OIG as Deputy Inspector General, General Counsel and Acting
Inspector General.
For the past four months, I have weathered the scrutiny of this
Committee which has used a unilateral approach to ``investigate'' me by
requesting select documents from the Office of Inspector General (OIG),
drawing conclusions from those documents without all the facts, and
presenting those conclusions to the public via press releases,
challenging my integrity, independence and objectivity. Therefore, I
welcome the opportunity today to testify, respond to questions, and
present all the facts, as I know them.
Background
On April 20, 2010, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil
drilling rig resulted in the tragic deaths of 11 rig workers and
injuries to 17 others. After burning for two days, the Deepwater
Horizon plunged to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, causing the drill
pipe to rupture, resulting in the largest marine oil spill in the
history of the United States and an immediate environmental disaster in
the Gulf, spilling 4.9 million barrels of oil over a nearly three-month
period.
In the wake of this disaster, the President directed the Secretary
of the Interior, Ken Salazar, to conduct a thorough review of this
event and report within 30 days on what short-term ``precautions and
technologies should be required to improve the safety of oil and gas
exploration and production operations on the outer continental shelf.''
This was officially titled, Increased Safety Measures for Energy
Development on the Outer Continental Shelf, but became commonly known
as the ``30-Day Report.''
Nearly contemporaneously with the President's directive, Secretary
Salazar created, by Secretarial Order (Attachment 1), the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) Safety Oversight Board (OCS Board). The OCS
Board consisted of the Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals; the
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget; and the Acting
Inspector General. The Deputy Secretary, on behalf of the Secretary,
appealed to me personally to participate on the board as an independent
and objective member. I agreed to do so, but made clear that I would
conduct myself independently and objectively, and that I would not be a
part of any policy decisions.
The OCS Board was charged to:
1) provide oversight, support, and resources to the then-
Minerals Management Service regarding its responsibilities in
the Joint Investigation into the Deepwater Horizon disaster;
2) provide the Secretary with periodic progress reports
regarding the Joint Investigation;
3) make recommendations on measures that may enhance OCS
safety; and
4) make recommendations to improve and strengthen the
Department's overall management, regulation and oversight of
OCS operations.
Informational Meetings in the Wake of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster
When the President directed Secretary Salazar to recommend short-
term actions to improve industry practices and standards for deepwater
oil drilling, Steve Black, Counselor to Secretary Salazar, was placed
in charge of a team responsible for producing the 30-Day Report that
contained these short-term recommendations. I was not a member of that
team.
In order to fulfill my role on the OCS Board, however, I needed to
gain a basic understanding of deepwater drilling. Therefore, I attended
a number of information-gathering meetings, organized by Steve Black,
with representatives from industry, government, and the engineering and
scientific communities. I viewed these meetings as both educational, in
terms of learning about myriad aspects of deepwater drilling, and
helpful, in terms of navigating the role of the OCS Board. In none of
these information-gathering meetings that I attended was the substance
of the 30-Day Report discussed.
On May 25, 2010, two days before DOI issued the 30-Day Report, I
was invited, as a member of the OCS Board, to attend a conference call
intended to provide the National Academy of Engineers (NAE) Peer
Reviewers an opportunity to comment on the draft 30-Day Report. I was
invited to this conference call for informational purposes only. A copy
of the already-written draft 30-Day Report was attached to the email
invitation (Attachment 2). Neither the OCS Board collectively nor I
individually commented on the 30-Day Report.
The 30-Day Report, containing 22 recommendations, was issued on May
27, 2010, together with an Executive Summary (Attachment 3), the latter
of which was still being drafted by Steve Black between 11:38 p.m. on
May 26 and 2:13 a.m. on May 27. The Executive Summary also included the
Secretary's recommendation for a drilling moratorium in the Gulf of
Mexico. This moratorium recommendation was not contained in the 30-Day
Report itself. Upon reading the published report and the Executive
Summary, the scientists and industry experts who peer reviewed the
safety recommendations contained in the 30-Day Report expressed concern
that the Executive Summary was worded in a manner that implied that the
experts had also peer reviewed and supported this policy decision,
when, in fact, they had not and did not.
The allegation that certain emails (See Attachment 2 and Attachment
4) suggest that I played a significant role in developing what the
Committee calls ``the Drilling Moratorium Report'' (but which should be
called the 30-Day Report) is not borne out. The subject emails merely
indicated my attendance at informational meetings organized by Steve
Black leading up to the 30-Day Report. I did not, however, participate
in the drafting of the 30-Day Report. Regardless, the OIG did not
investigate the 30-Day Report. Rather, the OIG investigated the editing
of the Executive Summary to the 30-Day Report, drafted and edited by
Steve Black and White House personnel in the late hours of May 26 and
early hours of May 27, 2010, in which the moratorium recommendation was
made (Attachment 5). Therefore, the OIG investigation into the manner
in which the Executive Summary was edited to suggest that the
moratorium was peer reviewed, did not present a conflict of interest
for me, and my testimony on June 17, 2010 was accurate.
OIG Investigation
At the request of multiple members of Congress (Attachments 6 and
7), including the Chair of this Committee, the OIG launched an
investigation into the allegation that DOI senior officials, in an
effort to help justify their decision to impose a six-month moratorium
on deepwater drilling, misrepresented that the moratorium was reviewed
and supported by the National Academy of Engineering scientists and
industry experts. The requests asked that the OIG ``identify when and
how the modification of the report occurred'' (see Attachment 6) and
clarified the scope: ``To be clear, we are not asking you to
investigate the moratorium. We are asking you to investigate the
changes made to the 30-Day Safety Report by political appointees that
were presented to the public as peer-reviewed scientific paper.'' (See
Attachment 7). Therefore, the Executive Summary--not the 30-Day
Report--was the focus of the OIG investigation.
When the OIG opened its investigation, I emphasized to
investigative staff that the scope of the investigation needed to stay
focused on the Executive Summary to the 30-Day Report, where the
moratorium recommendation was made--not the moratorium itself, which
was, at the time, still the subject of litigation, and not the 30-Day
Report. We assigned a senior special agent to this investigation. He
was assisted by, and reported to, then-Director of our Program
Integrity office, who was a seasoned manager and senior special agent.
I did not have significant personal involvement in the direction of the
investigation during its course, as I was focused on the efforts of the
OCS Board, and on the efforts of my staff in Denver, Colorado who were
conducting a massive evaluation of OCS operations on behalf of the
Board. (This evaluation served as the basis for the OCS Safety
Oversight Board Report of September 1, 2010. The OIG continued its
analysis on several other issues the team had identified, and in
December 2010, the OIG issued its own, independent report.)
After conducting interviews of the DOI officials involved in
drafting the Executive Summary to the 30-Day Report, the OIG
investigating agents reviewed the final email exchange regarding the
Executive Summary between DOI and the White House. In the version that
DOI sent to the White House, the Secretary's recommendation for a six
month moratorium was discussed on the first page of the Executive
Summary, while the peer review language was on the second page of the
Executive Summary, immediately following a summary list of the safety
recommendations contained in the body of the 30-Day Report. The version
that the White House returned to DOI had revised and re-ordered the
language in the Executive Summary, placing the peer review language
immediately following the moratorium recommendation. This caused the
distinction between the Secretary's moratorium recommendation--which
had not been peer reviewed--and the safety recommendations contained in
the 30-Day Report--which had been peer reviewed--to become effectively
lost, as detailed in our Report of Investigation (ROI). Although the
Executive Summary underwent some additional minor editing, it was
ultimately published on May 27, 2010, with the peer review language
immediately following the moratorium recommendation, resulting in the
implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed.
All DOI officials interviewed stated that it was never their
intention to imply that the moratorium had been peer reviewed by the
experts, but rather rushed editing of the Executive Summary by DOI and
the White House resulted in this implication. Since the jurisdiction of
the OIG does not extend to the White House, we could not compel an
interview with the White House personnel involved in the editing of the
Executive Summary. The emails exchanged between DOI and the White House
did not reveal evidence that the Executive Summary was intentionally
edited to lead readers to believe that the moratorium recommendation
had been peer reviewed.
Although I was not significantly involved during the course of the
investigation, I was personally briefed by the case agent and the
Director of Program Integrity on their findings at the end of the
investigation. At no time during the briefing did either of the agents
express any concern or disagreement about the way in which the
investigation had been conducted, or about the conclusion that, while
the edits made by the White House to the Executive Summary caused the
perception that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed,
we did not have evidence that this was done intentionally. At the end
of this briefing, I asked the case agent to draft an outline for
approval before he embarked on writing the ROI. Instead, he provided
both an outline and a draft of the ROI contemporaneously within days of
the briefing. Initially, I was quietly annoyed, until I read the draft
ROI, and found that it was very well written by the case agent. This is
to simply say that I had no hand in the initial drafting of the ROI.
I was, however, very much involved in reviewing and editing the
ROI, as I am in all significant reports that issue from our office. As
is my practice, whenever I make changes to a report (be it an
investigation, audit, or evaluation), I always check with the report's
author to ensure that I have not made changes that cannot be supported
by the evidence or work papers (which support audits and evaluations).
I did the same in this case, as is evidenced in a series of emails
between the case agent and me. Again, these emails suggest no
disagreement with the way in which the investigation was conducted or
the way the report was written or edited. In fact, the case agent, in
one email to me, said:
Mary,
Thank you for your comments on the ROI and investigation.
Your email language [about the exchange between DOI and the
White House] was far simpler than my own, yet I believe it
still clearly captured our finding that DOI's draft Executive
Summary had made the distinction between the safety
recommendations that were peer reviewed by the experts, and the
6-month moratorium recommendation, whereas that distinction was
lost in the Executive Summary as a result of the edits made by
the White House.
Obviously, whether that loss of distinction was intentional on
the part of an over-zealous White House staffer/editor, or
simply an honest oversight, the jury will always remain out.
The reader of the ROI will have to make their own speculations
on that topic. (Emphasis added.) (Attachment 8)
In another, the case agent wrote to me, ``Hope the overall ROI/
investigation was up to par,'' to which I replied, ``Other than a few
editing tweaks and trying to simplify the discussion about the e-mails,
I thought it very well done, thorough, and to the point.'' (Attachment
9)
I was, therefore, taken by complete surprise when we discovered
emails authored by the case agent criticizing how the investigation was
conducted, and expressing his opinion that the edits made by the White
House were, indeed, intentionally made to suggest that the moratorium
recommendation had been peer reviewed. For example, in an email to an
OIG colleague, the case agent said:
Salazar's statement that our ROI concludes it was a mistake and
unintentional is a clear attempt to spin our report--I truly
believe the editing WAS intentional--by an overzealous staffer
at the WH. And if asked, I--as the Case Agent--would be happy
to state that opinion to anyone interested. We simply were not
allowed to pursue the matter to the WH. But of course that was
not mentioned in our report. (Attachment 10)
To the extent that this claim is intended to suggest that I took
action to limit the investigation, it is inaccurate. As demonstrated by
my emails to the case agent's supervisor (Attachments 11 and 12), I was
awaiting an answer to my inquiry of whether the White House official
involved in the editing process would be available for an interview or
not. I did not receive a response. The jurisdiction of the OIG for DOI
to compel an interview does not extend to the White House.
If an OIG investigator (or auditor or evaluator) feels that an OIG
report fails to accurately describe the facts uncovered, I expect that
employee to bring such concerns to my attention. The case agent in this
instance had multiple opportunities to do so, when he briefed me,
personally, on his findings at the end of the investigation, as well as
during the email exchanges transmitting edits to the ROI. Since I had
also engaged this case agent in such discussions about previous
reports, in which he had made his position very clear to me, I am
simply bewildered by his silence in this case if he had legitimate
concerns about the investigation or the ROI.
For example, in an email string between the case agent and me, as
the final edits to the report were being made, the case agent expressed
no concerns whatsoever:
From me: (to Case Agent and supervisor) I am attaching language that I
propose to replace the narrative on pp. 8-9 of the draft report
[discussing the email exchange]. I hope it simplifies the
comparison of the draft Executive Summary that was sent by DOI
against the drafts that came back from the White House, but if
I have somehow changed the meaning of anything, please let me
know.
From me: (to Case Agent) Did you have any problems with [my edits to]
the e-mail language?
To me: (from Case Agent) Your email language was far simpler than my
own, yet I believe it still clearly captured our finding that
DOI's draft Executive Summary had made the distinction between
the safety recommendations that were peer reviewed by the
experts, and the 6-month moratorium recommendation, whereas
that distinction was lost in the Executive Summary as a result
of the edits made by the White House. (Emphasis added.) (See
Attachment 9)
I invite the Committee to review the edits that I made to the ROI.
(Attachments 13 and 14--handwritten comments are mine, as is the
typewritten insert with proposed changes to language about email
exchange between DOI and White House). Not only do I believe that the
edits, on their face, made the ROI more objective and easier to read
and understand, but I made sure the case agent had ample opportunity to
challenge, object to, or change any edit I proposed before it was
incorporated into the ROI. The case agent did not challenge, object to,
or change any edit.
Subpoena
This Committee has been in discussions with DOI for an extended
period of time over access to certain documents. Some of the documents
at issue are those that relate to the communications between senior DOI
and White House officials regarding the edits made to the Executive
Summary to the 30-Day Report, which include the email exchanges
referred to above. When this Committee first requested documents from
the OIG relating to our investigation, we provided all relevant
documents except those documents that DOI's Office of Solicitor advised
may be subject to a claim of executive privilege. I say ``subject to''
because, as we learned from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC), only the President can assert executive privilege.
We went on to explain that the claim of privilege is DOI's to
assert (on behalf of the President)--not the OIG's. Therefore, we
suggested that the Committee attempt to resolve the issue with DOI. We
also explained that we had a long-standing written policy agreement
(Attachment 15) with DOI that it would not decline to provide
privileged documents to the OIG so long as we gave DOI an opportunity
to claim a cognizable privilege, as it did here. We also explained that
in the absence of such an agreement, the OIG may face difficulty in
gaining unfettered access to all documents we request.
The Committee next attempted to obtain the 13 documents withheld
through a subpoena issued to DOI. We learned that DOI was in the
``accommodation'' process with the Committee--an established process
used in resolving executive privilege issues between the Executive and
Legislative Branches--when on April 11, 2012 the Committee issued a
subpoena to the OIG for the very same documents (Attachment 16).
In our April 18, 2012 response to the Committee (Attachment 17), we
reiterated our belief that the documents were DOI's to claim or waive
privilege, not the OIG's, and declined to provide the documents. On
April 26, 2012, we met with the Chair and Committee staff to again
explain our position that the OIG could not usurp the President's
prerogative to assert executive privilege and that the Committee needed
to pursue the documents through DOI.
Independence and Objectivity of an Acting Inspector General
As Acting Inspector General, I have asserted all the independence
and objectivity necessary to meet the OIG mission. I have elected to
assert this independence and objectivity in a way that maintains a
healthy tension between the OIG and the Department we oversee. I
believe, however, that independence and objectivity are not compromised
by a respectful relationship with both the Department and Congress, the
two entities we ``generally report to'' pursuant to the IG Act. As a
result, we have affected a great deal of positive change over the past
3 years, during my tenure as Acting Inspector General, by working with
the Department in a spirit of respect to achieve such change.
As for the question of whether an Acting Inspector General is
capable of asserting the necessary independence and objectivity, the
answer is yes. Acting Inspectors General are fully capable of asserting
the necessary independence and objectivity, as most are long-time
career civil servants, many having a long history with and
understanding of their departments and agencies, and have the
protections afforded all civil servants.
Conclusion
This Committee has repeatedly said that it has questions about me,
my independence and objectivity, and my integrity. I hope we can
adjourn today having addressed all such questions that the Committee
may have. I have been an attorney and member of the bar, in good
standing, for nearly 30 years; I have been a public servant for over 26
years, all but three of those years in the law enforcement arena,
without blemish on my record; I was born and raised in the Midwest,
where one's honor and word are sacrosanct. The past 17 weeks have been
the most painful and difficult of my entire career, not only because of
the attacks on my personal integrity, but because this has eclipsed all
the outstanding work that the OIG has done and continues to do.
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your statement. And,
as I mentioned earlier, your full statement will appear in the
record. And I too hope the outcome that you expressed as an
outcome that we can have with the Members here. But there are
concerns, as I had mentioned. Let me recognize myself, then,
first, for 5 minutes.
You know, Ms. Kendall, that I have significant concerns
about how the IG's investigation was handled, and about your
conflicting participation on the OCS Safety Oversight Board.
The IG was designed to be an independent watchdog. Your
involvement in the Safety Oversight Board, a policy body,
changes that role, in my view. In that role, you became an
appointed policy maker. In this capacity, you repeatedly
interacted with the political appointees who wrote the report
and the Executive Summary. You were a first-person witness to
that process.
It is very difficult to understand how you cannot see how
the dual roles are in conflict. You are supposed to be the
independent and objective investigator. You stated that in your
statement. But when you are participating in meetings or
conference calls, and receiving draft documents on these very
same issues that your office may be asked to investigate--and,
of course, then did investigate--it is clear your primary
function was compromised. That you did not see this
participation is an apparent conflict of interest, or something
that would raise questions about your independence, it is that
action or those actions that trouble me the most.
So, my questions are: Why didn't you decline the
Administration's request to serve on the Safety Oversight Board
when it was clear that it would place the integrity and the
independence of the IG's office into question?
Ms. Kendall. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the potential for an
apparent conflict of interest at the outset of my acceptance as
a member of the Safety Oversight Board. But the Department was
responding to a crisis. I did not think it appropriate for me
to say, ``No, you go ahead and deal with this crisis, and I
will just stand by and critique you if things go wrong.''
The Chairman. Well, I have a short time here. But by your
own admission, you were unfamiliar with the details of what
this oversight--and by your own admission, one of the reasons
that you wanted to be involved in the whole process was to
bring yourself up to date. Is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. I participated in informational meetings to
bring myself up to date.
The Chairman. Up to date on issues you didn't really know
anything about.
Ms. Kendall. I didn't know anything about them.
The Chairman. You didn't know anything about it, and yet
you were accepting a policy position within the Administration.
Let me ask this----
Ms. Kendall. I made it clear that I would not participate
in policy decisions----
The Chairman. This is a policy board. It was----
Ms. Kendall. It was not a policy board, sir. It was a board
asked to bring safety recommendations----
The Chairman. Right, which is policy. That is policy. That
is policy.
Can you provide an example of prior times when IGs have
participated in policy groups like this?
Ms. Kendall. I do not have an example on the top of my
head, but I would like to note that the IG became one of the
most effective tools the Department had because of my
participation on this board. In our massive evaluation of the
Outer Continental Shelf operations, which served as the basis
of both the OCS board report in September of----
The Chairman. Right, exactly. That is exactly the point.
You were working side by side and, in other words, you were
working on policy.
Now, since there were some questions raised on the Summary,
which we asked you to look at, and considering that you worked
right alongside the people that are being investigated, why
didn't you recuse yourself after we had asked you, and knowing
that your participation earlier--why didn't you recuse yourself
from the Executive Summary, and the editing, and so forth?
Ms. Kendall. I did not participate in either the 30-Day
Report or----
The Chairman. I know you didn't. But you----
Ms. Kendall [continuing]. The Executive Summary.
The Chairman. But there were people that were involved with
that.
Let me ask this question, then. Did the people that were
investigating, your IG inspectors, did they know that you had
participated prior to the Executive Summary, and had
conversations and documents? Did they know that?
Ms. Kendall. I don't know that.
The Chairman. Well, now, you are the----
Ms. Kendall. Oh, wait. I do know that, sir. I actually had
an email that I received from the case agent, who said, ``In
your role as a member of the Safety Oversight Board, if there
is anything I can do to help, I would like to.''
The Chairman. Have you provided----
Ms. Kendall. So he did know.
The Chairman. Have you provided that to the Committee?
Ms. Kendall. I would think so.
The Chairman. But you don't know?
Ms. Kendall. I don't know.
The Chairman. All right. My time is running out here. But
it appears there is inherent conflict when the role of the IG
is expanded to a political policy appointee, which--I think
that has happened.
Congress, I believe, demands that the IG be independent
watchdogs of the administration. That is the intent of the law.
But I think that just clearly, this sort of give-and-take we
had, to me, raises more questions.
But my time has clearly expired. So I will recognize the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Kendall, this
Committee voted yesterday to subpoena five Interior Department
officials. Your office interviewed two of these officials as
part of your investigation: Steve Black and Neal Kemkar. Do you
have any evidence that Mr. Black or Mr. Kemkar were being
untruthful when they told your office that there was no
intention to mislead in the editing of the report?
Ms. Kendall. No, we do not.
Mr. Markey. The remaining three individuals this Committee
voted to subpoena are Mary Katherine Ishee, Walter Cruickshank,
and Kallie Hanley. Is there any reason to believe that any one
of these people has important information related to this
investigation?
Ms. Kendall. I have no information to believe that they
were involved in either the 30-Day Report or the Executive
Summary.
Mr. Markey. The core function of IGs is to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of Department programs, and to
uncover fraud, waste, and abuse. In many ways, IGs look out for
the taxpayer, to make sure they get their money's worth from
the Federal Government.
How much of your office's time and resources have been
consumed responding to the Majority's investigation of this one
issue?
Ms. Kendall. I have not calculated that amount, but it has
been significant.
Mr. Markey. Have the Committee's multiple and extensive
document requests taken you and other senior staff away from
your core work?
Ms. Kendall. I would say yes.
Mr. Markey. Ms. Kendall, your office recently provided the
Committee a list of many important jobs that are either ongoing
or that have been completed over the last 3\1/2\ years. You are
conducting several ongoing investigations related to the BP
spill, including one with the Department of Justice. And you
have already completed five investigations related to the BP
spill, including cases labeled ``Halliburton,'' and ``BP
Scam,'' ``Testing, A Blow-Out Preventer,'' and ``BP Safety
Failures and Policies.'' Can you tell the Committee about your
investigations into the Deepwater Horizon spill, and what you
have found?
Ms. Kendall. The criminal investigation continues to be
ongoing, so I cannot comment on that. We have also----
Mr. Markey. Did you say ``criminal''?
Ms. Kendall. Criminal.
Mr. Markey. Criminal.
Ms. Kendall. Yes. That is the investigation being conducted
with the Department of Justice. We also conducted an
investigation with the Department of Justice on the civil side.
The three that you mentioned are not familiar to me. I am not
sure that those are ones that came from our office. But they
sound like some that have been conducted by some other
agencies.
Mr. Markey. Could you expand a little bit on what this
criminal investigation is looking at?
Ms. Kendall. I really can't, because it is ongoing. But I
am hopeful that it will come to fruition in the fairly near
future.
Mr. Markey. You served on the Outer Continental Shelf
Safety Oversight Board. Can you describe the situation when you
joined that board?
Ms. Kendall. The board was tasked with, basically,
overseeing the investigation into the Deepwater Horizon event,
and to provide the Secretary with safety recommendations to
improve the Outer Continental Shelf operations and oversight by
the Department.
Mr. Markey. So can you describe your role and the role of
the Office of Inspector General in carrying out the mission of
the board?
Ms. Kendall. I offered and then tasked my entire central
region to conduct a comprehensive review of the Outer
Continental Shelf operations that are overseen by the
Department of the Interior. Some 60 people spent 3 months--a
very, very short timeframe--to conduct this comprehensive
review. And they provided findings and recommendations, as we
do as an OIG, to the Safety Oversight Board, which adopted them
for themselves to issue their September report. And then the
OIG issued an almost exact--but a little more detailed--report
of its own in December of 2010.
Mr. Markey. Thank you. Now, in this role, were you in any
way involved in the drafting or editing of the 30-Day Report or
the Executive Summary?
Ms. Kendall. I was not.
Mr. Markey. OK. Do you think your independence was in any
way compromised with respect to your subsequent work looking
into the editing of the Executive Summary?
Ms. Kendall. I do not.
Mr. Markey. Well, we thank you. And we thank you for your
work. You know, your comments about the ongoing criminal
investigation, you know, involving all of those companies--and
we saw the pictures of what they did in this crime against the
environment, the greatest in the history of our country--that
is where the work should be of this Committee.
We should find out who did it. We should have them sitting
here under oath, the CEOs of each of those companies. That has
not happened in a year and a half. And we are waiting for that,
and the American people are waiting for this Committee to do
their job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Kendall, I want
to take us back to a June 17, 2010 Subcommittee oversight
hearing in this room that we had. I asked you if the Office of
Inspector General was investigating the circumstances
surrounding the editing of the drilling moratorium report. You
said no, and went on to add that you were not involved in
developing the report.
I would like to show a video clip. Could you please show
exhibit six? Number six.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Lamborn. So, I think you would agree an Inspector
General needs to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of
interest.
Since that hearing there have been significant questions
raised about whether you crossed that line. And, in turn,
whether your June 2010 statement might have been misleading.
For example, a number of emails and calendar entries have come
to light showing that you had access to drafts of the drilling
moratorium report in the days before it was finalized. You also
attended meetings with both the peer reviewers and the same
senior department officials who were later subject of the IG's
investigation.
But only 3 weeks after the report was issued, you said here
in that clip we just saw that you were not involved in the
process of developing the report. After these questions were
first raised in May of this year, you wrote to the Committee to
say that you did attend a number of these meetings in order to
learn about offshore drilling and your role as a member of the
Secretary's OCS Safety Oversight Board, and that ``in none of
these information gathering meetings that I attended was the
substance of the 30-Day Report discussed.''
So, I am curious. What happened in these meetings? For
example, there was a meeting on May 17th of that year that you
were invited to with Steve Black, Counselor to the Secretary
and lead author of the report. One of the people who is part of
this investigation.
Could you show exhibit seven, please?
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Lamborn. So, on the agenda you will see in the red box
to the right, ``Walk-Through Document to be Reviewed,'' and
also ``Discussion on Document.'' And then there is a follow-up
email from Mr. Black to you and others sending a draft of the
report's recommendations and asking for comments and suggested
changes ``based on your own work to date and today's
conversation.''
Exhibit eight, please.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Lamborn. And then, ``Thank you for participating on the
call today with the NAE-identified experts. I would be grateful
for your comments and any suggested changes by close of
business tomorrow, based on your own work to date and today's
conversations.''
And then, last, there is another email from Mr. Black to
you where he thanks you for your participation.
Exhibit nine, please.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Lamborn. ``And thank you for your kind words, Mary, and
for your participation in so many of the meetings and
interviews leading up to this report. Your effort has been
enormously impressive, by the way.''
OK. My questions. Do you still stand by your June 2010
testimony that you were not involved in the process of
developing the drilling moratorium report?
Ms. Kendall. I do.
Mr. Lamborn. And would you agree that an Inspector General
needs to avoid any--this is just a rhetorical question--any
appearance or actual conflict of interest and lack of
independence?
Ms. Kendall. I do.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Considering your significant role in
working closely with members of the Safety Oversight Board, do
you think you should have recused yourself from investigating
the moratorium and the editing of the report to avoid any
suggestion that the investigation was compromised?
Ms. Kendall. To this day I do not.
Mr. Lamborn. When you testified before the Committee that
you were not involved in the ``process of developing the
report,'' do you believe that the process of developing that
report includes meeting with the peer reviewers, which you had
done before your testimony?
Ms. Kendall. I attended that meeting for informational
purposes, as I did with very many others, where I learned about
deepwater drilling, blow-out preventers, drilling margins,
drilling mud, pressure testing, negative pressure testing,
complexities in orchestrating rigs worldwide. These were the
things that I attended these meetings for. I did not
participate in developing the 30-Day Report or the Executive
Summary.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, I would have done it differently. I
would have met with experts who were not subject to the
investigation and gotten briefed by them on the technical
issues.
Finally, do you see how people can raise questions that you
have been too close to the Department to be objective, and that
you were actually able to aggressively investigate the
moratorium decision and editing?
Ms. Kendall. In the context of the crisis in which the
Department was responding at the time, I do not.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt.
Dr. Holt. Thank you. Well, evidently, the Majority here
does not--did not--like the conclusions of the report. And so
they turned this into an investigation with a number of
subpoenas, and now the testimony of the Acting Inspector
General.
As I said here yesterday, it is ludicrous. It must look
really silly to people outside looking at this. So, here we are
spending Committee time subpoenaing people, calling them in
because, in the preliminary edition of the report the word
``pause'' was used. And in the final report a more official
sounding word, ``moratorium,'' was used.
You know, yesterday I went through, at great length, the
various synonyms for moratorium, which would include ``pause''.
I don't see anything nefarious here. It is simply that the
Majority did not like the conclusion, and they want to
discredit the report and, unfortunately, try to discredit some
hard-working, contentious, altruistic public servants. And I
am--I thank you for coming, Ms. Kendall, I am sorry that you
have to go through this.
Let me run through a few questions. When the case agent
finished a draft of the report, you reviewed that and with an
eye toward editing it. Is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. I edit almost every report that leaves our
office.
Dr. Holt. And so this was standard, as you always do?
Ms. Kendall. Absolutely.
Dr. Holt. And after you finished editing, you sent your
revisions back to the case agent and ask him if he had any
issues with your changes. He responded, ``Your email language
about the exchange between the Department of the Interior and
the White House was far simpler than my own. Yet I believe it
clearly captured our finding.'' Is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. That is correct.
Dr. Holt. If the case agent had concerns, he didn't
communicate them to you at that time, which was the obvious
opportunity for him to do that.
Ms. Kendall. The case agent never communicated any concerns
during the course of the investigation. And I met with him at
the very end to talk about his findings. He did not express any
concerns at that time.
Dr. Holt. OK. There is now a discussion by my colleagues
and others about whether the editing was intentional by an
overzealous White House staffer. Do you think that there is
evidence to be gained if we conduct a more thorough
investigation? Is there more to be brought to light, or do you
think that all the facts that are out there have been
considered in your investigation?
Ms. Kendall. We received and reviewed the email exchange in
which the editing was done where the moratorium appeared to
have been peer reviewed. We reviewed those. They did not
indicate anything that it was intentional. The case agent has
an opinion, apparently now, that it was. The evidence did not
show that.
Dr. Holt. And the case agent has actually stated that he
has an opinion, and that----
Ms. Kendall. Well, he has stated his opinion.
Dr. Holt. Yes, and that he calls his position an opinion.
Is that right?
Ms. Kendall. I don't know that he calls it an opinion.
Dr. Holt. OK.
Ms. Kendall. He states it. It is an opinion, however.
Dr. Holt. Again, a few more questions. Did you interfere
with the work of the case agent?
Ms. Kendall. I did not.
Dr. Holt. Was the investigation, in your opinion, thorough?
Ms. Kendall. It was.
Dr. Holt. Did you find any evidence of wrongdoing?
Ms. Kendall. We found no evidence that the changes to the
Executive Summary to make it look like it was peer-reviewed,
the moratorium was peer-reviewed, was intentional.
Dr. Holt. And in the preparation of your report, were you
pressured, asked, directed, in any way influenced to go easy on
the Administration?
Ms. Kendall. I had no conversations with the Department
about the report until it was issued. I mean, I let them know
that we were doing it, but I did not talk to the Department
about the report itself until it was issued.
Dr. Holt. In your 26 years as a public servant, is this the
first time anyone has questioned your impartiality or
professionalism or completeness?
Ms. Kendall. Yes.
Dr. Holt. Well, I wish I had a little more time now to let
you say what I think you are entitled to say about these
allegations that your work is not reliable or without
integrity. I hope this Committee will give you a full
opportunity to address these allegations. And I thank you for
your work. And I yield back my time.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have had the
question asked a couple of times. Why are we here? So that my
colleagues will understand why we were here, and so they
understand from somebody that went down all around the coast
area after this disaster, the biggest disaster to the coastal
area came not from the oil that was escaping, it came from the
order of this President to have a moratorium on shallow-water
drilling that put thousands and thousands of people out of
work, put thousands and thousands of people into poverty, put
thousands and thousands of people into needy situations because
this President acted on the recommendations of experts who did
not make those recommendations.
So I think it is critically important that we find out more
about the process. And I appreciate the Inspector General's
position that it is sufficient to ask individuals if they were
involved or if there was a problem. And I think it would come
as great news and comfort to investigators all over the
country, including the criminal investigators that we have been
told are moving forward, if they knew that all they had to do
is not gather evidence, not look at hard drives, as people were
directed not to do in this case, as we see from the emails, and
as they were directed not to review emails of people who were
involved.
And, as we see from the email by Richard Larrabee, where he
says in a letter, actually, ``As you know, I was directed to
not ask for Secretary Counselor Steve Black's emails that
contained the actual drafts sent to and returned by the White
House, even though he told us he had them if we wanted them.''
So, let me ask you. Who directed Richard Larrabee not to
request those emails, and not to review hard drives?
Ms. Kendall. I don't know. But----
Mr. Gohmert. Did you investigate who might have directed
him not to acquire those emails? Wouldn't that have been
important from Inspector General's standpoint?
Ms. Kendall. He did receive the emails. These are the
emails----
Mr. Gohmert. The question was who directed him not to?
Ms. Kendall. Sir, I don't know that.
Mr. Gohmert. So would it be important to know why Richard
Larrabee was lying, if he received emails and he said he was
not? Would that cause you concerns with his inconsistency?
Ms. Kendall. If I may, at Steve Black's first interview
with the case agent, he offered the emails to the case agent.
Mr. Gohmert. He points that out. Ma'am, I have covered
that. I am asking you who directed him--he points out that he
was told by Black that he could have them, and then he was
directed by somebody not to get the emails. Who directed that?
Ms. Kendall. He chose not to accept them at the time.
Mr. Gohmert. So he lied when he said he was directed not to
ask for them. Wouldn't that be worth investigating, why you are
saying Richard Larrabee lied in this letter that he wrote, and
said--where he said, ``I was directed not to ask for them''?
Ms. Kendall. I would be interested in knowing who he said--
--
Mr. Gohmert. Well, don't you have the authority to ask that
question?
Ms. Kendall. Sir, I have not done anything to put this case
agent in jeopardy, because he is, as the----
Mr. Gohmert. Ma'am, I would submit to you that you have
done nothing to put anybody in jeopardy. And your job is to
investigate the facts. And if somebody is worthy of being put
in jeopardy, you do so.
Ma'am, I heard you say that you could not--in fact, you
said, ``Gee, I recognized my potential for a conflict of
interest, but we were in a crisis and I could not sit by and do
nothing.'' So that tells us you did participate. You couldn't
sit by and do nothing. Whereas, ma'am, I would tell you that,
as a judge and chief justice, there were times I saw lawyers
not doing an effective job, or an investigator not doing what
he should have. But I knew I could not compromise my position,
because it was too important. So I didn't jump in and do those
jobs.
That is what an Inspector General is supposed to do, make
sure--as you said, I recognize my potential for a conflict of
interest. And you should have protected that. And so, as a
result, we have a report that cost thousands and thousands of
people more misery than the oil that was coming out of the
floor did. We can't even find most of that now. And I would
submit to you that you should first do no harm, and you could
have avoided the harm if you had helped us get to the truth.
You complained about how long this had gone on. I would submit
to you if you are consistent, it doesn't go on long at all. I
yield back.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Broun.
Dr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In March 2009,
President Obama issued a memorandum expressing how important it
was for the public to be able to trust science upon which
policy decisions were being made, and that political appointees
should not suppress or alter scientific or technological
findings or conclusions.
I am very troubled that the moratorium decision was imposed
without any scientific support, and that political officials at
the Department or the White House altered the 30-Day Report to
incorrectly suggest that peer reviewers had endorsed the
moratorium when they scientifically did not, all to the
contrary of the Obama Administration's own scientific integrity
policies.
The IG's office aggressively investigated scientific
integrity violations of the past Administration, but seems to
have been less aggressive in pursuing this investigation.
So, do you agree that it is inappropriate for political
appointees to alter or suppress scientific findings or
conclusions?
Ms. Kendall. I do.
Dr. Broun. Are there ever any situations where it would be
appropriate for a political appointee to alter technical or
scientific information?
Ms. Kendall. I can't think of any.
Dr. Broun. Ms. Kendall, it has happened. This
Administration's transparency seems to be another word. Their
transparency is opaque.
Ms. Kendall, part of the purpose of this hearing is to get
a better understanding of how the Office of Inspector General
has operated in the past 3\1/2\ years with an Acting Inspector
General. One topic I would like to discuss is the role that the
IG plays in investigating ethics complaints. The IG's office
conducted a number of ethics investigations of officials in the
previous Administration, including a former Secretary and a
Deputy Secretary. And I would hope your office is pursuing
ethics complaints against officials in the current
Administration just as aggressively.
As I understand it, the Department's ethics program
provides ethics advice and tracks conflicts of interest in
financial disclosures for Department officials. But your office
is the one that handles investigations into whether Department
officials have violated the ethics laws. This is one area where
I could see the importance of a strong working relationship
between the Department and the IG.
Does your office get referrals from the Department's Office
of Ethics Programs for further investigations?
Ms. Kendall. We do.
Dr. Broun. When a complaint is received, what is the
process for investigating an ethics complaint? Is it the same
as other criminal or program integrity investigation, meaning
you review the complaint and decide whether an investigation
should be opened?
Ms. Kendall. Yes.
Dr. Broun. What is the process?
Ms. Kendall. The process differs almost every case. But we
will review the allegations and determine whether or not it is
something that falls within the scope of what we have defined
as the high-impact, high-risk cases. And if it does, we will
accept it for investigation. Most ethics cases do fall within
that.
Dr. Broun. Maybe you can let me know how you make those
decisions about which do and do not. But how many ethics
complaints does the IG receive in a given year for
investigation? And how many of these comments/referrals are
from the Department's ethics programs, compared to hotline,
whistleblower complaints, or directly to the IG?
Ms. Kendall. I don't have that answer. I could get it to
you.
Dr. Broun. Oh, I would appreciate that. How often are these
cases referred to the Department of Justice for criminal
prosecution? And have you made any referrals at all within the
past 3\1/2\ years?
Ms. Kendall. To the Department of Justice for prosecution?
Dr. Broun. Correct.
Ms. Kendall. Not that I am aware of, no.
Dr. Broun. How often are these cases referred?
Ms. Kendall. Quite rarely. And they are even more rarely
prosecuted.
Dr. Broun. How about in the previous Administration? How
many were referred to the Department of Justice?
Ms. Kendall. I would have to get back to you on that, too.
I don't----
Dr. Broun. I appreciate that. But you have made absolutely
zero referrals in the last 3 years. Is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. I think that is correct, but I would like to
be able to confirm that with----
Dr. Broun. OK. And how come you haven't referred any? Are
there no ethics violations in this Administration at all?
Ms. Kendall. We have had several ethics cases that we have
investigated. And, actually, as I am thinking about it, most of
the time we will refer them, usually expecting declination. So
we may have referred some of those. I would have to get back to
you.
Dr. Broun. Well, please do. My time is running out. But if
you can follow up and provide this Committee with a list of
complaints of the ethics violations that have been--well, you
haven't referred any, but have been referred to you or
otherwise been received by your office in the past 3 years, as
well as the status of any investigation of any complaint or
referral, and would you do that for us?
Ms. Kendall. We can do that.
Dr. Broun. Can you do that within the next 2 week period of
time?
Ms. Kendall. Next 2 weeks?
Dr. Broun. Two weeks. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Kendall. I think we can.
Dr. Broun. Thank you.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Kendall, the
underlying question here is this 30-Day Report, and whether or
not the text was manipulated to show something that really
didn't exist, which is that this blue ribbon panel, peer
reviewed, as though to make it appear as though they agreed
that there should be a moratorium.
Now, it lacks credibility right on the face of it to
believe that that wasn't deliberately done. And the reason why
is because, after this came out, the President still went on
and issued a moratorium. And then, beyond that, it got into
court. The President failed in court. And then, once the
moratoria ended, the moratorium period ended, then we had a
period of what we call permatoriums, slowatoriums, foot
dragging, and even today we have seen tens of thousands of jobs
lost, rigs that have gone elsewhere, and I would argue have
been at more risk, environmentally, because they are going to
countries that don't have the level of regulations and
oversight that we do.
But I agree with Mr. Gohmert. The real damage here has been
done by the Administration itself to prevent people from
maintaining, keeping, and acquiring good jobs. And we have lost
that, in many cases, forever.
My question for you is you are Acting Inspector General, as
I understand it, is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. That is correct.
Dr. Fleming. Do you wish to actually be an appointee of the
Administration in this position?
Ms. Kendall. I have expressed an interest, yes.
Dr. Fleming. OK. So, in effect, you have the role of
investigating, potentially, this same Administration that would
be potentially selecting you for the job. Is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. Essentially, yes.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Then have you not been really in an
auditioning kind of position to audition for the
Administration? And would that not be a conflict of interest?
Ms. Kendall. I have an interest in being nominated and
confirmed, but I want to do this for the OIG, as an
organization, certainly not because I am having a really great
time----
Dr. Fleming. But it wouldn't make sense to make the
President mad at you. Is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. You know, there is a potential for conflict of
interest, perhaps, here. But I have seen many of my colleagues
rise from the Deputy IG to the position of IG without conflict.
And, in fact----
Dr. Fleming. But not under this President. Now----
Ms. Kendall. Under this President, as well, yes.
Dr. Fleming. Oh. Can you give me an example?
Ms. Kendall. I would say the Department of--well, he went
to a different agency, but----
Dr. Fleming. Right.
Ms. Kendall [continuing]. Department of Justice Deputy IG
who is now----
Dr. Fleming. And do they come out--did this person, before
being promoted or transferred, did this person come out with
some negative finding, or investigate the Administration with
an adverse finding?
Ms. Kendall. I am guessing yes.
Dr. Fleming. You are guessing yes?
Ms. Kendall. I don't----
Dr. Fleming. Yes. It sounds like pure speculation. So I
will accept that, no, we don't have a good example of that
occurring at all.
Also, wouldn't it make sense that, since you were coopted
to be in the policy arm of this, and really disengaged from the
investigation, that really you are part of the policy--from the
get-go what we have learned, in fact, a lot of the facts that
we have come out with now shows that the lead investigator was
the one who had the concern, although we didn't know about this
until we uncovered emails. And so----
Ms. Kendall. And neither did I.
Dr. Fleming. OK. So it sounds--it really appears in your
testimony and the documentation that we have is that while you
were engaged in the policy side of things, that the lead
investigator below you was not in good communication with you,
and certainly not plugged in. You even admit that you didn't
know about that.
And so it, again, leads to the question. How in the world
can you claim to be disinterested and objective, and
potentially one who could bring out the negative activities,
the improper activities of the Administration, which I think is
clear here, with this 30-Day Report? How can you claim to be
objective, when, at the very least, you were a part of the
policy process?
Ms. Kendall. I was not a part of the policy process. I was
a part of the process of reviewing Outer Continental Shelf
operations for safety and operational improvements.
Dr. Fleming. But is that really your job? Your job is to
investigate wrongdoing from the Department of the Interior. Is
it not?
Ms. Kendall. My job is also, in part, to improve the
operations----
Dr. Fleming. But primarily your job is to investigate any
fraud, waste, and abuse--any kind of legal problems that may be
going on. And you have got investigators that are really not in
good communication with you on that.
Ms. Kendall. And to improve the operations of the
Department of the Interior.
Dr. Fleming. Yes. I would say that answer is
unsatisfactory. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Kendall, I
would like to focus on the Klamath Basin studies. According to
your letter to the Chairman of July 20th, you state, ``Given
the comprehensiveness of the governing agreements, the
transparency being given to the process, and the complete
absence to date of any complaints about the manner in which
this effort is proceeding, the OIG does not have any plans to
conduct any additional reviews at this time.'' Is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. That is correct.
Mr. McClintock. That there has been a complete absence to
date of any complaints about the manner in which the Klamath
Basin studies are proceeding?
Ms. Kendall. We have not received any.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Kendall, on February 24th, an 11-page
complaint was filed with the Office of the Executive
Secretariat in Regulatory Affairs of the Department of the
Interior. It documented allegations of systematic, scientific,
and scholarly misconduct relating to the Klamath River Dam
removal secretarial determination process.
And it wasn't filed by some gadfly; it was filed by Dr.
Paul Houser of George Mason University, who was, at the time,
the Bureau of Reclamations Science Advisor and Science
Integrity Officer. Specifically, he documented the intentional
falsification of scientific results contained in the September
21, 2011 summary of key conclusions of the draft EIS/EIR and
related scientific and technical reports, and intentional
circumvention of the policy that ensures the integrity of
science and scholarship and actions that compromise scientific
and scholarly integrity.
Now, given the well-documented complaint of political
tampering with scientific data made by the official directly
responsible for overseeing the scientific integrity of these
studies, your statement that there has been a ``complete
absence of any complaints about the manner in which the Klamath
Basin study is proceeding'' is absolutely stunning.
So, I would ask you again. Have there been, in your words,
``a complete absence to date of any complaints about the manner
in which the Klamath Basin studies are proceeding?''
Ms. Kendall. Perhaps I needed to be more complete to the
Inspector General's office. If that complaint was referred to
our office, I was not aware of it.
Mr. McClintock. Well, wouldn't that be of prime interest to
the Inspector General's office?
Any reasonably competent Inspector General, wouldn't they
be somewhat concerned of such allegations by an official
responsible for protecting the scientific integrity of these
studies?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent
to insert in the record the Inspector General's letter to you
of July 20th, and the complaint filed by Dr. Houser of February
24th.
The Chairman. It will appear in the record, without
objection.
[The letter from the Inspector General to the Chairman
dated July 20, 2012.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Kendall, has the Department of the
Interior received any complaints by that former official or
others alleging scientific integrity violations concerning
removal of the dams?
Ms. Kendall. I would not know what the Department has
received, necessarily. Usually things are referred to us. I
would have to go back and check.
Mr. McClintock. One of the concerns that has been expressed
here at this hearing and elsewhere, Ms. Kendall, is a complete
lack of focus on the principle responsibilities of the
Inspector General.
This report, these allegations of falsification of
scientific data were not exactly a secret. They were widely
reported in newspaper articles across the Pacific Northwest.
Mr. Chairman, I would also ask unanimous consent to insert
in the record articles on this subject from the Redding Record
Searchlight, the Capital Press, and the Daily Caller.
The Chairman. Without objection, they will appear in the
record.
[The newspaper articles submitted by Mr. McClintock for the
record follow:]
Capital Press--California
The West's Ag Website
Dam removal ``extreme,'' says fired scientist
Updated: Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:30 AM
Whistleblower says reports downplayed criticism of Klamath dam removal
option
By TIM HEARDEN
YREKA, Calif.--The former U.S. Bureau of Reclamation senior science
adviser who claims he was fired in February for speaking out about the
Klamath River dam removal process said removing the dams should be an
``extreme'' last resort.
Paul Houser told about 200 people here May 7 that removing the four
dams from the river is ``an uncontrolled experiment'' with impacts such
as poor water quality that could have dire consequences for fisheries.
He said much further study is needed of alternatives such as fish
passage, adding that scientists should truck in fish above the dams to
see if they can find suitable habitat.
``We don't know what would happen if we did nothing, so for me,
taking the dams out is the most extreme option.'' said Houser, 41, a
George Mason University professor and former National Aeronautics and
Space Administration scientist who was hired last year to oversee the
Klamath scientific studies.
``For me as a scientist, I'd like to know more about those less
extreme options,'' he said.
Houser filed federal whistleblower and scientific-integrity
complaints after he says superiors told him his ``skills weren't a
match for the position'' and terminated him, he said in an interview.
He alleges officials wrote a summary and news release to elicit
support for dam removal while downplaying negative remarks from
scientists that were in the full reports. He said superiors told him to
be quiet about his concerns, then he faced increasing scrutiny on his
job.
Interior spokeswoman Kate Kelly said Houser's complaints are still
being reviewed. The Department of the Interior ``has established a
rigorous and transparent scientific process that is ongoing and will
inform the decision about potential removal of the four Klamath River
dams,'' she said in an email May 8.
Work has been proceeding on a final environmental document that
will choose a ``preferred alternative'' among five options, which range
from doing nothing to fully dismantling the four dams in Southern
Oregon and Northern California.
Other alternatives being considered include partial removal of the
dams while keeping some structures behind, removing only two of the
four dams, and installing fish passages around the dams. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service spokesman Matthew Baun has said.
Houser said in his speech that it appears top Interior officials
have already decided they want the dams out and are seeking the science
to back up their decision.
``Scientists often do their work based on who they're paid by.'' he
said, adding that they stop short of examining all available options.
``That happens all the time in science...and you don't get the unbiased
science you need.''
Houser's speech came during a three-day swing through the region,
where he also was slated to address the Siskiyou County Board of
Supervisors on May 8 and a tea parts' meeting later in the evening.
In speaking out. Houser has become a darling of dam-removal
opponents and tea party activists, many of whom attended his speech.
His appearance was sponsored by the Bi-State Alliance, a recently
formed group fighting for water rights issues.
Hearing Houser's story provides ``an assurance that there are
honest people in this world and honest people in government.'' said Leo
Bergeron of Montague. Calif., one of the organizers. ``We've been
dealing with liars and thieves.''
Houser acknowledged in the interview he is concerned that his
message may be co-opted by people with political agendas, but he was
willing to speak to anyone who would listen. He said he did not
initially intend to go public but that others, including Siskiyou
County officials, forwarded his complaint letter to the media.
``I wanted to make sure that by moving forward on this that I
wasn't doing it as a benefit to me.'' he told the audience. ``A lot of
scientists in government are doing good work and are afraid to come
forward with these kinds of reports because the same thing would happen
with them that did with me.''
______
THE DAILY CALLER
Former Interior Dept. adviser: Administration's report on dam removal
``intentionally biased''
By Alexandra Myers--The Daily Caller 11:40 PM 04/05/2012
A former science adviser to the Department of the Interior's Bureau
of Reclamation was fired in February, shortly after he alleged that the
Obama administration intentionally falsified scientific fact in a
proposal for dam removal in the Klamath River.
Professor Paul Houser of George Mason University, in a written Feb.
24 allegation to the Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory
Affairs in the Department of the Interior, said that Sec. Ken Salazar's
determination to remove the dams resulted in ``intentional biased
(falsification) reporting of scientific results.''
He also alleged that when he voiced his concern about the
scientific integrity of the Department of the Interior's decision-
making process, ``[m]y disclosure was never directly addressed.''
And, Houser added, ``I faced systematic reprisal.'' He was later
terminated from his government job.
Interior seems poised to go ahead with the project because there is
a possibility it will bring salmon back to the basin. But the loss of
low-cost hydroelectricity and water for irrigation, and the effect
demolishing dams would have on human life, are factors Houser believes
haven't been addressed.
The Interior completed an environmental impact review, but he said
the result of the report was organized in a way that obscures the
truth.
While the Interior said that there would be an 81.4 percent Chinook
salmon recovery if dams were removed, it did not acknowledge that there
are nine factors that could wipe out that recovery even if the dams
were removed.
In his allegation, Houser cited a June 2011 report, in which the
Klamath River Expert Panel--one of the Interior Department's own
scientific advisory groups--concluded that water issues in the lake,
reduction in disease and climate change, among other factors, would
erase any gains in the fish population.
In January, four months after publishing the environmental impact
statement Houser said was falsified, the Interior published a new
report about the effects of removing the dams.
That report estimated a net gain of 1,400 jobs and $60 million in
annual income for workers.
Along with helping the salmon, though, the report acknowledged that
the move would pose a threat to other aquatic species and fisheries as
sediment runs downstream with the rushing water.
There are also risks of short-term flooding to cultural and
historic resources in the area.
And still, the question remains whether the removal of the dams
will impact salmon recovery at all.
``There are no guarantees that removal of dams will solve disease
problems,'' Oregon State microbiology professor Jerri Bartholomew told
The Daily Caller, ``but returning the river to a more natural system is
expected to bring it into better balance.''
If Secretary Salazar decides to remove the dams, it would occur
over a one-year period and would begin no later than January 2020. In
order for the process to begin, the governors of California and Oregon
must agree with the decision.
Kate Kelly, the Interior Department's deputy communications
director, told TheDC that the agency would not discuss personnel
matters. She did say, however, that Houser's allegation ``is being
reviewed under the standard procedures contained in Interior's
scientific integrity policy.''
Kelly said the Department of the Interior examined 50 different
scientific reports to determine the economic and environmental impacts
the dam's removal would have on the surrounding areas.
``The science is high quality, technically reviewed,''' Kelly said.
This story was updated after publication to clarify Houser's
comments about his belief that the Dept. of Interior never acted on his
complaints, and to reflect that the agency s apparent future plans have
not yet drawn direct comment from Secretary Salazar.
Follow Alexandra on Twitter
Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com
URL to article: http://dailycaner.com/2012/04/05/former-interior-
dept-adviser-administrations-report-on-dam-removal-intentionally-
biased/
______
redding.com
``Whistleblower'' will speak about Klamath dam removals; scientist's
advice opposed their removal
By Alayna Shulman
Friday, May 4, 2012
A federal agency's former scientific integrity adviser who filed a
whistle-blower complaint in February, saying he was fired for his
findings on a controversial proposal to remove dams in Siskiyou County,
will speak at a meeting Monday in Yreka.
Paul R. Houser will address his complaint at the meeting of the
Cal-Ore Bi-State Alliance at 6:30 p.m. in the Flower Building of the
Siskiyou County fairgrounds, 1712 Fairlane Road.
Houser filed the complaint with the Department of the Interior in
late February.
This week, Houser, who lives in Maryland and teaches at George
Mason University in Virginia, said the chance of his case succeeding
seems slim, but he's not giving up hope that his complaint will be
acknowledged.
``The success rate of cases like mine is very low,'' he said. ``The
laws are pretty stacked against employees, and even though . . . I took
all this training about the No FEAR Act and whistle-blower protection .
. . when it comes down to it, I'm finding that the protection is much
weaker than they claim.''
Kate Kelly, a spokeswoman for the Department of the Interior, said
in an email to the Record Searchlight that Houser's complaint is still
being reviewed.
Houser said attorneys he has met with have estimated it would cost
at least $50,000 to pursue a legal case if his complaint is denied, and
he's hoping for pro bono legal representation if that's what happens.
He was hired by the Bureau of Reclamation in April 2011 to check
the integrity of studies on the Klamath dam removal.
But Houser said the department didn't like his findings that said
removing the four dams, three of which are in Siskiyou County, wouldn't
be as beneficial to salmon as staff members of Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar made it seem.
Houser also said in his whistle-blower report that the dam removal
and extra environmental work that would go along with it would cost
more than $1 billion.
The dams are owned by PacifiCorp, a private company that wants to
remove them.
Proponents of the dam removal say it will restore salmon habitats
and resolve water conflicts in the region, but those opposed to the
proposal say it will cost too much money and rob area residents of
needed hydroelectric power.
Houser said his complaint is about fixing a corrupted system, not
promoting any political ideals.
``Scientists can do good science, but they're being directed to do
only a certain kind of science,'' he said.
He said he objects to such ``biased science,'' where a scientist is
paid to justify decisions that already have been made.
Houser said his goal in filing the complaint is to promote
integrity, exactly what he was hired to do.
He said he'll discuss his findings and some of the things the dam
studies didn't address, such as the dam removals' potential to release
toxic sediment into waterways.
Frank Tallerico, a Yreka resident and one of the founders of the
Cal-Ore Bi-State Alliance, said the group, which was formed in October,
is hosting Houser because members are focused on standing up to
government corruption.
``I think from our perspective, we need to support someone who is
willing to put his job on the line,'' Tallerico said.
He said the counties in southern Oregon and Northern California
within the alliance--Josephine, Jackson, Klamath, Siskiyou and Modoc--
have similar environmental concerns that are often ignored by the state
and federal governments.
``We're not in any way violent people or anything. We just want to
make sure that all of the avenues that would be more beneficial to
either the fish or man and/or both . . . are implemented, and the law
is followed,'' he said. ``That is our goal.''
He said all are welcome to attend the meeting.
An agreement to study taking down the dams was made between federal
officials, farmers, fishermen, conservation groups, American Indian
tribes, Oregon and California governors and the owners of the dams
about two years ago.
Salazar was given until March 31 to make a decision on the project,
but he said in February he'd have to wait because he hadn't gotten
backing from Congress yet, which still hasn't happened and is needed to
make the final call.
______
Mr. McClintock. Did you not consider--you have said that
you would consider this of interest to the Inspector General's
office, but you have not looked into it?
Ms. Kendall. I do not know that we have looked into it. I
think it is something we should look into.
Mr. McClintock. Why haven't you looked into it?
Ms. Kendall. I am not aware of it, sir.
Mr. McClintock. Have you or anyone in your office, to your
knowledge, had any discussion with the Secretary's office,
including the Chief of Staff, about Dr. Houser's complaint or
your office's investigation of it?
Ms. Kendall. None that I am familiar with, no.
Mr. McClintock. In the list of complaints that you provided
to the Committee, there is one by Kira Finkler. Is that
correct?
Ms. Kendall. If that is in the documents----
Mr. McClintock. What was that regarding?
Ms. Kendall. I don't know.
Mr. McClintock. Well, Kira Finkler was Dr. Houser's boss at
the Bureau of Reclamation. She was the official to whom he
originally brought these allegations. Her response was to fire
him. She is also the person who was overseeing the Klamath Dam
restoration agreement to which Trout Unlimited is a signatory,
and she was employed by Trout Unlimited from 2004 to 2007, but
did not recuse herself from the Klamath project, even in light
of this apparent conflict of interest.
Now, I ask you again. A complaint regarding her was in your
list of complaints provided to the Committee. What is that
about?
Ms. Kendall. You have provided me enough information now. I
do remember that we received this complaint. I don't have
detailed information about what happened to it. We could get
back to you on----
Mr. McClintock. You know, this is absolutely stunning. This
is a significant matter. It involves a proposal that has huge
environmental, fiscal, and economic impact throughout the
entire region. And you seem oblivious to it. I find that
remarkable.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would like us to further this inquiry
at a later time.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. And
that is of interest to the Committee.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Southerland.
I am sorry, I didn't see the distinguished Chairman, the
Subcommittee Chairman, come in. I am sorry about that. Mr.
Grijalva is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Not only distinguished, but a promotion all
in one.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Grijalva. My wishful thinking, by the way. Anyway, Ms.
Kendall, thank you for being here. In listening to this, it is
kind of--not confusing, but just astounding to me that, as we
debate what I think is a point, but a semantical point of
``pause,'' ``moratorium,'' and we call the process right now
worse than the catastrophe itself, even though that cost lives
and millions and billions of dollars in cost, both to clean up
and to the economy of the region. We seem to skirt that issue
as we try to somehow nail down a semantical difference as being
the root cause of everything that happened in the Bay.
But anyway, Ms. Kendall, the Safety Oversight Board report
that you issued to the Secretary, it states that ``The oil
industry must make a widespread, forceful, and long-term
commitment to cultivating a serious approach to safety that
sets the highest safety standards and consistently meets them.
Ultimately, for a new and robust safety culture to take root,
industry must not only follow the rules, it must assume a
meaningful leadership role.''
The Majority of this Committee has refused to invite the
CEOs of the largest oil companies to testify on what changes
they have made to that culture, as industry leaders, to improve
the safety of offshore drilling following the spill. In fact,
BP's CEO has never testified before Congress since assuming
that position.
Don't you agree that the heads of the largest oil companies
should come before Congress so that the American people can
hear what actions they have taken to assume the meaningful role
in developing the new safety culture that was called for in the
report?
Ms. Kendall. I would certainly like to know if that safety
culture has been instituted. I think it was very important to
the Safety Oversight Board at the time, that some of the
responsibility be placed on industry, as opposed to primarily
government being the oversight and the imposer of
responsibility.
Mr. Grijalva. And, Ms. Kendall, in the report it recommends
also evaluating the rates and structure of civil penalties and
possibly initiating the legislative process to ensure that
penalties are appropriately tied to the severity of the
violation.
Right now, the maximum fine the Interior Department can
levy for oil companies that commit violations offshore is
$40,000. That is a slap on the wrist for most companies
operating offshore. For instance, the maximum fine that
Department of the Interior could levy against BP for the oil
spill would be $21 million.
Former Director of the agency and the Director of BOEM have
both said that Congress should increase these penalties
significantly to provide a sufficient financial deterrent to
companies who violate the law.
Would you agree that Congress should look at raising these
penalties significantly, as stated in the report?
Ms. Kendall. Yes. Our recommendation was to work with
Congress to review how these penalties are imposed, and what
the caps are.
If I recall correctly--and I don't have perfect recall at
this point--but there was some restriction that the Department
could not do this unilaterally, and needed help from Congress.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, and----
Dr. Holt. Would you yield?
Mr. Grijalva. Let me yield to the gentleman.
Dr. Holt. Thank you. I would like to bring this discussion
back to earth.
The other side said the question is did the Department of
the Interior deliberately agree that there should be a
moratorium. Well, there is no question that they deliberately
said there should be a pause. So we could spend all day or all
month or all year investigating whether pause equals
moratorium, and whether we should ruin people's careers in the
Department of the Interior because of that difference. But it
is all based on this, really, sad misunderstanding from the
other side of the aisle here, that somehow the moratorium is
worse than the oil spill disaster.
This moratorium--and remember that we now have 50 percent
more floating rigs working in the Gulf than we did before the
BP spill; during this delay/pause/moratorium there were no lay-
offs. And yet, because of the spill, because of the dispersants
that were used, because of the oil that was spilled, there was
enormous environmental damage. We know there is enormous
economic damage. And there were lives lost.
Don't tell me that ``pause'' or ``moratorium'' is worse
than the disaster. And we should be investigating the disaster
and the effects of that disaster and the steps to provide
safety and public health and environmental protection into the
future, rather than yanking people before this Committee to
talk about whether they deliberately changed the word ``pause''
into ``moratorium''. Come on.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. We
have a vote going on. And my intention is to recognize Mr.
Southerland, and then after that we will break. We have two
votes. And we will reconvene. This is important timing. We will
reconvene 10 minutes after the start of the last vote. As soon
as this second vote starts, 10 minutes thereafter we will
reconvene.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Southerland.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say,
Mr. Chairman, I find it somewhat disturbing that some of my
colleagues claim that those of us who live on the Gulf of
Mexico have completely forgotten this disaster. I think it is
grotesque in their accusations, when I live each and every day
with people that have been affected by this. My family has been
affected by this. And I think it is unbecoming of their
position, especially the Ranking Member.
I would like to say to Ms. Kendall I am concerned that, in
the past, government officials have used their personal email
account as a way to avoid scrutiny by Congress and the public.
I am also concerned that sensitive investigative or law
enforcement information would be treated so casually that it
would be sent through unsecured means, such as Yahoo! or Gmail,
or whatever.
Does the IG have a secure way to access email remotely?
Ms. Kendall. Yes.
Mr. Southerland. Then what is the policy for using your
personal email account, rather than your official IG email
account?
Ms. Kendall. I don't know that we have a policy on that.
Mr. Southerland. OK. Well then, obviously you have a
personal email account, as Members of Congress do, and we all
have our official email accounts, as well.
May I ask you how often do you use your personal email
account to conduct professional business?
Ms. Kendall. I use my personal email fairly regularly to
send myself reminders to send work that I have worked on at
home. But I do not send any sensitive information that would
need to be encrypted or have any other kind of protections. We
do have a policy on that.
Mr. Southerland. So you limit your email use of your
personal email account to personal business, or as a reminder
from you in your personal email account to your business email
account to remind you of stuff that needs to be done?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, or to transmit, for instance, draft
letters back to this Committee.
Mr. Southerland. OK. I know, as a part of the emails that
your office has provided, there are a number of official IG
emails that appear to have been sent from your personal--as you
stated, your Yahoo! email account--as opposed to the IG
account.
And I would ask at the desk--I know we have an exhibit.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Southerland. You can clearly see from the exhibit that
we have on the screen, we have an email that was sent from
Stephen Hardgrove--it wasn't from you, obviously--to you, as a
reminder, but it was sent from Stephen with the IG's office,
obviously to your personal email account. And down at the
bottom, this statement: ``I have no problem working closely
with the Department on this.''
And the whole purpose of this email was the discussion of
this was the Safety Oversight Board that has been the center of
discussion today, the statement, ``I have no problem working
closely with the Department on this or other issues, I probably
did not realize that the majority of our staff is not yet
prepared for it, nor understands it,'' so based on that, this
individual who sent an email to your personal account, was he
in violation of the IG policy by sending and corresponding with
you on your personal account? And is it fair for us to be
curious as to the use of your personal account that could be in
violation of the IG policy that you claim you do have?
Ms. Kendall. Yes. Quite frankly, I don't know the details
of the policy, other than on sensitive and encrypted, or
sensitive information that needs to be encrypted.
But I am looking back at the date here. I don't know that
in 2010 that we had the capacity to access work email from home
like this. We do now. But I am not sure that we did at the
time.
Mr. Southerland. Can you provide the Committee with copies
of any internal IG policies, or guidance on the use of personal
email for conducting official business?
Ms. Kendall. If we have it, yes.
Mr. Southerland. OK. Well, you claimed just a few minutes
ago that you do have it.
Ms. Kendall. Well, I know we have policy governing email. I
don't know if we have policy governing personal email.
Mr. Southerland. OK. If you have that, whatever you have
regarding email policy, I think it would be helpful for us to
see. And I think that would be--obviously, you can understand
our concern if there are personal emails being used because we
need to do searches. Certainly a person in your position could,
and should, understand the conflict there. I mean, is that
fair? I mean, you understand my concern?
Ms. Kendall. I am not sure that I do. But----
Mr. Southerland. Well, that is even a bigger problem. And
the reason I say that is a bigger problem is because a person
in your position, you are paid significantly in your position.
You have tremendous authority, people under you. And I find
that a leader--which you are in a leadership position--you must
at all times practice discretion and discernment borne out of
wisdom. And I think that, at the very minimum, that has been
brought into question. And----
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. I----
Ms. Kendall. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I did not have an
opportunity to finish my answer.
The Chairman. Real quickly, because we have to break. The
vote is getting close. But I will give you 30 seconds.
Ms. Kendall. I do not understand the concern, because we
did provide--and the reason the Committee knows I use my
personal email--is we provided those emails to the Committee in
response to your requests.
The Chairman. OK. I appreciate the gentlelady's answer.
We will recess again, and reconvene 10 minutes after the
start of the second vote. The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The Committee will reconvene. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the Chairman. I was in my office and
watching a bit of the hearing, and I have to say I am a bit
puzzled at sort of the demeanor of some of the Members here, as
though some crime has been committed.
It appears that the question is the difference between the
word ``pause'' and the word ``moratorium''. And I looked up
``pause'' and I looked up ``moratorium''. There is no limit on
a pause. A pause could be 6 months, a pause could be 12 months,
a pause could be a decade. Moratorium has slightly different
meaning. But again, there is no duration attached to the word.
And in this report, the number six was attached. The number--
you know, you could have used the word ``pause,'' and you could
have said, ``Well, we are going to pause for a year.''
And we paused for good reason. The blow-out preventer
didn't work. Why didn't it work? It was kind of critical to
know why the blow-out preventer didn't work, since that is our
last line of defense against catastrophic oil spills. And you
know, it appears that the blow-out preventer wasn't capable of
cutting at least 10 percent of the pipe as joined, and there
were other problems with its maintenance. That has all come
out. And so, I think it was very prudent that we took a little
time to figure out, ``Whoa, we've got a failsafe here, and the
failsafe failed.''
So, anyway, I would like to just yield some time to the
Acting Inspector General, if she has anything to say, because I
noted she has had little opportunity to respond to what has
been going on here.
Do you have anything you would like to add or elucidate
upon? Was I inaccurate in anything I just said?
Ms. Kendall. I have not looked up the difference between
``pause'' and ``moratorium,'' so I appreciate that information.
And I appreciate the time.
The thing that I guess I would like to come back to is the
focus of the investigation that we conducted. And it was very,
very focused, primarily because of the words from you, Mr.
Chairman, asking that we look at how the Executive Summary was
edited to suggest that the moratorium decision was peer-
reviewed. And that is what we did. We had the information, the
documentation that we needed. It came down to these emails that
had been sent in the early morning hours between, I believe,
11:38 p.m. and 2:13 a.m., where the editing had been done. And
that is where the editing that was changed by the White House
personnel went from suggesting that the moratorium was the
Secretary's decision to the moratorium had been peer-reviewed.
And that really was the only focus of our investigation. We got
all the information that we needed to make that determination,
and we did so.
I thank you for the time.
Mr. DeFazio. So some over-zealous politically appointed
White House staffer, probably junior level, made an edit that
they thought added some emphasis to the Executive Summary.
Ms. Kendall. There was no evidence in the email exchange to
suggest that that was done intentionally.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. But still, it was done over at the White
House by some sort of editing----
Ms. Kendall. The editing changes that occurred to make this
distinction lost, essentially, were the edits at the White
House.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. But--and I--perhaps you are not an expert
on this, but as I understand the peer review, they did
recommend a pause, which I mentioned earlier.
Ms. Kendall. I don't know that.
Mr. DeFazio. I believe that they did. And that is why I
feel that the focus is on the difference between 6-month
moratorium and pause, which could be dramatic, it could be non-
existent, a pause could be longer.
So, you know, I appreciate the fact we have had--how many
documents now have you provided, or emails?
Ms. Kendall. I couldn't even begin to count.
Mr. DeFazio. Hundreds? Thousands?
Ms. Kendall. Hundreds, perhaps thousands.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And yet it seems that there is a thirst to
spend more time on this issue. Again, I remain puzzled. I
appreciate your service and hope that we move on to more
important subjects.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has--or the
gentleman yields back his time. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms.
Kendall, for being here.
Before we get into questioning with you, I wanted to
respond to a couple things that have been said earlier. Number
one is I think it was Mr. Holt said the number of deepwater
rigs in the Gulf of Mexico is up 50 percent. That is false. It
is down 15 percent, still. So jobs are still being impacted by
the moratorium, permatorium, slow-down, whatever you want to
call it.
The second thing is the Ranking Member called this hearing
trivial. This is not a trivial hearing, in light of the
Administration's lack of transparency. This is not trivial,
when you have another cover-up called Fast and Furious. It is
not trivial when you look at the Department of Labor rewrite of
the Warren Act outside of its statutory authority. It is not
trivial when you look at the Obama Administration rewrite of
welfare laws, contrary to the constitutional authority of the
President. And it is not trivial when you look at the abuse
that is happening to taxpayer dollars with the GSA. So I just
want to get that off the table.
In your written statement, you invited the Committee to
review the IG's editing of the November 2010 moratorium report.
And so I would like to take you up on that invitation. And if
we can bring up exhibit 11--excuse me, exhibit 5, exhibit 5.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Flores. In exhibit 5, you struck out the original draft
language that stated the IG could not independently validate
that the emails provided by Steve Black were complete and
unedited. Why did you strike out that sentence?
Ms. Kendall. You know, I don't have a recollection
specifically of actually addressing that issue. But my question
would have been to the investigating agent, if I were asking
the question today, ``What is it that we need to validate? We
were provided the documents that''----
Mr. Flores. Well, let's----
Ms. Kendall.--``that focused on the question at hand, and
that was how did this editing occur.''
Mr. Flores. Well, let's talk about this. One of the things
that we need to know about the IG's investigation, and one of
the things the American public needs to know about the IG's
investigation is, was the scope so inherently reduced that the
report is not worth the paper it is written on? And in this
case, if you didn't review the White House emails, and I think
that is the case, is that correct? You did not review the White
House----
Ms. Kendall. We did review the White House emails.
Mr. Flores. The ones internally?
Ms. Kendall. The ones that were exchanged between the
Department of the Interior and the White House, where the
editing took place.
Mr. Flores. But none of the ones internally. Is that
correct?
Ms. Kendall. I'm not sure what you're----
Mr. Flores. Internal to the White House.
Ms. Kendall. We only had access to those that were provided
to us from Steve Black.
Mr. Flores. Right. OK, but----
Ms. Kendall. And those were White House----
Mr. Flores. But none inside the White House. That is where
I am trying to go.
Ms. Kendall. Our jurisdiction does not extend to the White
House, sir.
Mr. Flores. OK. Then don't you think that this statement
that got struck, don't you think that would be informative when
you look at the report's conclusions, and weighing the
assertion by Steve Black, that the peer review language was not
intentionally edited to suggest the peer reviewer support of
the moratorium?
Ms. Kendall. What is your question, sir?
Mr. Flores. So don't you think the statement that you
struck, don't you think that would have been informative, when
it says that the OIG could not independently verify whether the
emails had been edited or not?
Ms. Kendall. I don't think it was a question of the emails
being edited. The emails were provided to us. There was nothing
to indicate that they weren't thorough and complete.
Mr. Flores. OK. Now this kind of a sentence, from what I
understand, is fairly common in IG reports. If you left that
sentence--I mean, you have had to come out and clarify that you
weren't able to independently verify the witness statements.
Don't you think it would have been better if you left this
sentence in? You wouldn't have had to come back and clarify
that. Correct?
Ms. Kendall. I am not sure what you are asking, sir.
Mr. Flores. OK. Well, let's move on. Let's move to exhibit
11, if we can, because I am running out of time.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Flores. In the last sentence of Mr. Larrabee's report
it says, ``We simply were not allowed to pursue the matter to
the White House. But, of course, that is not mentioned in the
report.'' Don't you think that sentence would have been more
transparent, and would have prevented the Secretary from being
able to incorrectly claim that the IG's report confirmed that
there was no intent to mislead or avoid confusion about what
the report found or did not find?
Because, you know, the Secretary has tried to hide behind
this, your report, and say, you know, ``There was no--nothing
went wrong.'' But what your inspector is saying, investigator
is saying, he said, ``I couldn't verify that.''
Ms. Kendall. Well, what he is saying is that he could not
pursue it to the White House, because our jurisdiction does not
extend to the White House.
Mr. Flores. OK. I think it would have been better to say in
the report that you had--the scope was so reduced that the
validity of the report itself was in question.
And I am out of time. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Kendall. Well, if I may respond to this, Mr. Chairman--
--
The Chairman. Go ahead, please respond.
Ms. Kendall [continuing]. I will be brief. But the case
agent wrote the first draft of the report. And he did not
include any reference to this. So it was not as if it was
excluded. He did not put it in. I just want to make that clear.
The Chairman. All right. The time of the gentleman has
expired. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Guam, Ms.
Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you could, be
concise in your answers, because I do have quite a few
questions.
After you finished editing, you sent your revisions back to
the case agent and asked him if he had any issues with your
changes. He then responded, ``Your email language about the
exchange between DOI and the White House was far simpler than
my own. Yet I believe it still clearly captured our finding.''
Is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. That is correct.
Ms. Bordallo. If the case agent had concerns, he didn't
communicate them to you when he had the chance. You were
surprised when you read some of the case agent's emails that
have come out in this investigation, weren't you?
Ms. Kendall. Very much so.
Ms. Bordallo. The case agent also speculated in an email to
an OIG colleague that the editing was intentional. But he also
recognized that there weren't facts to back up his speculation.
In fact, he wrote to you that ``the jury will always remain
out'' on this question. And also, ``The reader of the OIG
report will have to make their own speculations on that
topic.'' Is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. That is correct, and that is what surprised me
the most.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Going on, you have been Acting
Inspector General for the last several years. Is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. About 3\1/2\ years.
Ms. Bordallo. How many? Three-and-a-half years, OK. What
work has the OIG done during that time that you are most proud
of?
Ms. Kendall. I would say, really, all the work that the OIG
has done. But perhaps the most important, particularly relative
to this, was the review we did on the Outer Continental Shelf,
the comprehensive review, which today is still being
implemented by what used to be Minerals Management Service, is
now three bureaus in the Department.
Ms. Bordallo. OK. And did that work achieve benefits for
the American people and taxpayers?
Ms. Kendall. I would say it was one of the most
comprehensive and impactful documents that we have issued in a
good number of years.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. I feel that this is what the
Office of Inspector General should be doing, without being
distracted by baseless document requests from this Committee.
And members of this Committee should understand the important
work that you do, and what is at risk if we continue to consume
your time on this frivolous investigation. And I want to thank
you for what you have done.
Ms. Kendall. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady----
Ms. Bordallo. I yield back.
Mr. Markey. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
Mr. Markey. Thank you. Maybe it would be possible for you
just to elaborate a little bit more on what the benefits were
from the work that you have done in the last 3\1/2\ years,
overseeing the Department of the Interior, so that there can be
a fuller understanding of the comprehensiveness of that.
Ms. Kendall. Well, I am going to be at a loss to sort of
cite chapter and verse right here. But I went back and took a
look at the last five semi-annual reports that the OIG issued,
the first under my signature up to the last. And I was actually
pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless, with the
incredible amount of work that our office accomplishes every 6
months, and the breadth of the work that we do.
As you know, the Department has nine bureaus and offices
that have very, very diverse missions. We go from Indians to
minerals to lands to geological survey. And every day is
something new. Part of what is so rewarding about working in
the Office of Inspector General for the Department of the
Interior is the breadth of----
Mr. Markey. And how much of a distraction is this
investigation that this Committee is trying to conduct thus
far, with no avail at all, no evidence at all?
Ms. Kendall. It is----
Mr. Markey. From that other work that you are doing, which
sounds like it is critical in making sure that we do root out
the wrongdoing that goes on, the inefficiencies that exist.
Ms. Kendall. Well, it has certainly been a distraction to
me. I have kept my eye on what else we are doing, but it has
taken a considerable amount of time from me and my senior
leaders and senior advisors. I can't quantify it beyond that,
other than it has been considerable.
Mr. Markey. And again, thank you so much for your work.
Thank you for your contributions to our country. Thank you for
the job you and your staff play in providing oversight for this
agency.
And again, I can't raise enough times this problem that we
have, that this debate over whether or not there was a pause
called for or a moratorium called for, and Secretary Salazar is
saying that he called for the 6-month moratorium. The Secretary
himself, we should bring him here, you know, let him explain
what his judgment was.
But we are not going to hear about the spill. We are not
going to hear about the damage. We are not going to hear about
BP or Halliburton or Transocean. None of that is ever going to
come before this Committee. That is not part of the Republican
agenda, you know? They don't want to talk to the CEOs. They are
talking here about a semantical difference, a terminological
inexactitude, you know, that is built into this discussion that
went on at the agency, as though that is the real issue, rather
than this historic crime against the environment that was
committed here in the country.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Landry.
Mr. Landry. I mean, if there is any Member here who has had
constituents affected by the moratorium--because we have many
here who have been affected by the spill--but if there has been
anyone who has been affected by the moratorium, it is my
constituents. It is the constituents that I serve.
And you hear a lot about, ``Well, there were no lay-offs,
and there are a lot more rigs in the Gulf.'' The reasons that
there were not as many lay-offs as you would think is because
people down in South Louisiana, they are not lazy. They don't
want the government for anything but to get off their back.
And so, when you kill their jobs in the Gulf of Mexico,
they have to leave their families and they have to travel to
Africa, to the North Sea, to Montana. Because they know one
thing is that the country they grew up in, it is God, family,
and work. OK? So they don't sit there waiting for the
government to give them a check or to feel sorry for them, they
go to work, and they leave. But it is sad when they have to go
to Africa, instead of working the Gulf of Mexico.
And I don't understand. Are you an investigative branch, or
are you a policy-making branch?
Ms. Kendall. We are an audit and investigative branch.
Mr. Landry. OK. Because if I close my eyes, when I listen
to you answer the questions from Members of the other side, I
could swear you are petitioning to become the Secretary,
because your answers are all about policy. They are not about
investigation.
We had a gentleman ask you whether or not you felt that the
safety standards that the private industry was implementing
were enough. That is not your scope. And then just now you
answered and talked about how proud you were of the work that
was done from moving from MMS to BOEM to BSEE. That is not your
job, either.
And so, unfortunately, I believe that your testimony today
has impeached you, has impeached your character. Because
earlier you said that, sure, that, you know, you are interested
in the job of the Inspector General, because you are an
interim, and you need the President to appoint you if you want
to get to that job.
Why simply did you not just say, ``You know what? I am
interested in taking this job, Mr. President. Maybe you should
appoint someone in the interim, while I go out and I lobby for
that job?'' Then there would have been--I mean, I am sure you
are a bright lawyer. There would have been no question. This
Committee would not have to question your character or your
actions.
Why didn't you just step aside, and say, ``Look, I want to
run for this job. I want to apply for this job. And let's
appoint another interim who will have no bias as to whether or
not they want the job or not.'' Why didn't you do that?
Ms. Kendall. When I was asked to become Acting Inspector
General, Earl Devaney, the Inspector General at the time, asked
me to take over his role when he went to the Recovery and
Oversight Board. At the time, I wasn't thinking about becoming
the IG. I didn't know what was going to happen with Mr.
Devaney's appointment to the Recovery Act board. And it was the
natural----
Mr. Landry. Progression. It was the natural progression.
Well, but there comes a point in time--as a lawyer you know
that well, that there becomes a question of conflict of
interest.
Now, let me ask you a question. If someone inside the
Department intentionally causes irreparable harm to an
industry, is there a criminal statute that you can use to go
after that person? If they intentionally cause harm on an
industry, do you know of a criminal statute that we could use
to go after them?
Ms. Kendall. I am not--I don't know if there is a criminal
statute for that.
Mr. Landry. Do you think we should have one?
Ms. Kendall. Intentional harm by itself may be a criminal
violation.
Mr. Landry. Well, I see an email. There is an email here
that--from the case manager, which says--and I read--
``Salazar's statement that our ROI concludes it was a mistake
and unintentional is a clear attempt to spin our report. I
truly believe that editing was intentional.''
Now, this isn't about a pause. Because the American Academy
of Science, they said, ``Look, a 30-day pause certainly would
have been sufficient.'' A 6 month one they did not stand by.
So, would you say that anyone who intentionally altered the
document caused irreparable harm to an industry?
Ms. Kendall. Well, let me just be clear that that was the
case agent's opinion. The evidence did not support that
opinion.
Mr. Landry. But that is why we are here today, because no
one will give us the rest of the evidence.
Ms. Kendall. I understand that.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And,
Inspector General, I, for one, appreciate the character you are
showing today, with the type of questioning that you are having
to go through. I think words matter. That is why we are here
today. Because the change of a word is what elicited today's
conversation. And when we tell you that you have impeached your
own character today, I am sorry. I am sorry that was said.
Because words matter.
And because words matter, I have a dictionary here. I have
Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms. Anyone is welcome to
borrow it. As a matter of fact, I have added tabs to save
everybody time, where ``pause'' and ``moratorium'' are in here.
They are here for anyone to use. They are in the Minority's
books. But I think that if we found these same books, the same
editions in the Majority's offices, they would read the same
thing. I would hope they would.
And maybe we should subpoena whoever is working for Mr.
Webster to ask him why they defined ``pause'' the way they did,
why they defined ``moratorium'' the way they did, to get to the
bottom of this.
What we should be talking about today and in the future is
the moral question. Eleven people's lives were taken. Is that
your understanding, Inspector General?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lujan. Do you know how many gallons of oil were spilled
in the Gulf?
Ms. Kendall. I don't know. It was in the millions.
Mr. Lujan. I think the numbers I have here somewhere are 4
million.
Look, if there wasn't a spill, we wouldn't be here today.
If the blow-out preventer had worked, we wouldn't be here
today. If that hadn't failed, we hadn't lost 11 lives, 11
fathers, 11 brothers, 11 sons--that is a catastrophic event.
And, Mr. Chairman, I know sometimes when we are trying to
get to the bottom of something, words matter. But why are we
here?
And when the President asked for the 30-Day Report to be
compiled and put together in 30 days, given the magnitude of
what was talked about here, I think we all wanted to get to the
bottom of this. There is not a one of us that did not want to
know what happened, and not a one of us that didn't want to
plug that, and make sure that not another drop of oil got out,
make sure that not another one life was put in danger. We all
wanted that. And I appreciated that congeniality that we all
had during that time.
So, I hope that that is where we can concentrate some of
our efforts, and see what we can do to get to the bottom of
this, as well.
Now, Inspector General, one of the gentlemen from Texas
today asked you earlier why you didn't investigate Mr. Larrabee
for praising you to your face while criticizing your work to
others. If you had investigated Mr. Larrabee, wouldn't some
people, including maybe some on the Committee, attack you for
retaliating against Mr. Larrabee? In other words, are you in a
Catch-22 with having to respond to this?
Ms. Kendall. Well, I certainly feel that if we were to
investigate Mr. Larrabee, there would be repercussions from
this Committee, yes.
Mr. Lujan. Well, I appreciate that, Inspector General. And
you know, Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, again, words
matter. And I know sometimes the words we use matter. The words
we use in debate matter. The words that we use to describe our
friends or those that we don't agree with necessarily matter. I
just hope that we truly understand the magnitude of words
sometimes with the kind of work that people are putting forward
to sacrifice for themselves.
And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if the
Ranking Member needs any time, but with that I would yield
back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. He yields back his
time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina,
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The
question has been asked. Why are we here today? We are here
today because an Executive Summary, part of a 30-Day Report led
to the detrimental effect on lives.
The gentleman from Louisiana talks about the impact on his
State and the people that are creating jobs or working those
jobs providing for their family, they now have to go other
places for employment. The 30-Day Report that led to the
moratorium that kept our Nation from being able to meet its own
energy needs.
Why are we here today? One day after his inauguration,
President Obama promised a new era of openness in government.
``We will work together''--I quote, his words--``We will work
together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of
transparency, public participation, and collaboration.'' He
wrote in one of his first memos to the Federal agencies, he
said, ``Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote
efficiency and effectiveness in government.''
But, Ms. Kendall, I look at your written statement, and you
say that this is ``a unilateral approach to investigate me by
requesting select documents from the Office of the Inspector
General, drawing conclusions from those documents without all
the facts.'' No. We subpoenaed you and your agency because we
want the facts. We are asking for the facts. And we can make
and draw our own conclusions from the documents and those
facts. That is what we are trying to do today.
That is what we are trying to do today, is get to the
bottom of what led to this moratorium that affect lives in
Louisiana and all along the Gulf Coast, and affected the lives
of people in my district and South Carolina that are paying
higher gasoline prices today to drive to and from work. That is
what this meeting is about here today. And I appreciate the
Chairman holding this hearing.
The gentleman from Florida was really delving into
something before he ran out of time. So, Mr. Chairman, I will
yield the balance of my time to Mr. Southerland from Florida.
Mr. Southerland. I think that--I would like to thank the
gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me time. I know that
I was asking you questions regarding emails before we went to
the Floor to vote. And I had asked you about providing for us
IG policies and guidance. At one time you said that you weren't
aware of those, and then you said you were aware of those, but
you were going to find those for us, if they do exist, and
provide those for us.
I was going toward, really, I think a more important issue,
really relating to your desire to move forward. You had claimed
that you were seeking the opportunity, perhaps, of a more
permanent position. And I think what we see here is, throughout
the testimony today, that it has been--it--you either know what
is going on through many of your answers and you have not
perhaps answered those in a way that I find acceptable, or you
are not aware--and I think perhaps could be the case--of
policy. Or, you are not aware of things that have been referred
or not referred to the Attorney General. You don't have memory,
and then you come back and say, ``Oh, I do now remember.''
I mean, I am bothered by the fact that you may not seem to
be on top of these issues.
Ms. Kendall. Well, let me just say that I have a very, very
talented staff that takes care of--for instance, the case
review group, who reviews all of the allegations that come to
the Office of Inspector General. I do not personally
participate in that group. I do not personally decide what
should be or should not be investigated, unless it is brought
to my attention.
So, no, you are right, I don't know everything that is
going on in terms of referrals or investigations. Once they are
investigations, however, I do know about them, because I am
briefed regularly by a very competent staff that----
Mr. Southerland. But you claim that there had been zero
referrals made to the Attorney General in the last 3 years.
Ms. Kendall. I said I don't--I think that is--no. When you
said zero referrals--for ethics violations.
Mr. Southerland. OK.
Ms. Kendall. We have made many referrals.
Mr. Southerland. OK, OK, all right. Well, I apologize if I
misunderstood. OK. So zero referrals for ethics violations.
Ms. Kendall. As far as I know.
Mr. Southerland. OK. But do you get a report on those? Do
they--I mean, I am assuming you have weekly staff meetings and
your team is communicating with you on investigations and
ethics probes and, I mean----
Ms. Kendall. Yes, I do.
Mr. Southerland. OK, OK. I would like to thank the
gentleman from South Carolina, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. There has been
interest in having another round. I think that that interest
should be observed. And so, we will start another round. And I
just have a few questions, and I will recognize myself.
First of all, let's establish, again, what this is all
about. The BP spill was in deep water. That was in deep water.
The moratorium was in shallow water. And the consequences of
the moratorium had a huge effect on the economy and
individuals' lives. So let's make sure that that distinction is
made.
Now, I want to ask you, Ms. Kendall. You mention that you
had no jurisdiction--and I agree--with the White House. That is
correct?
Ms. Kendall. Yes.
The Chairman. Is there anything that prevents you from
asking a question of the White House?
Ms. Kendall. I don't think it would prevent me from asking
a question.
The Chairman. Well----
Ms. Kendall. But----
The Chairman. If it didn't prevent you, and you
acknowledged that the edit happened in the White House, logic
would suggest that you would ask the White House why, and they
would make the determination whether they should answer or not.
Ms. Kendall. Well, no, sir. I did not, for instance, go
knock on the White House's door to ask a question. I inquired
of the Deputy Secretary, who is in regular contact with the
White House, saying it would be helpful for us----
The Chairman. Well, wait. Now, you are independent. Why
would you have to go through the Deputy Secretary? You are an
independent inspector. If you thought that it was important--
and clearly the evidence said there, because you said it was
decided in--why didn't you just ask? Why did you have to ask
permission to ask?
Ms. Kendall. I didn't ask permission to ask, sir. We do
not----
The Chairman. Well, why did you even go through the
political appointee to make that inquiry? I mean, nothing
prevents you from asking the question. Why didn't you ask? Why
wasn't it asked?
Ms. Kendall. That was the decision I made at the time, sir.
The Chairman. OK.
Ms. Kendall. Again----
The Chairman. All right, that is fine. I respectfully think
that was the wrong decision.
Let me ask this. Do you think that the 30-Day Report was a
policy document?
Ms. Kendall. I am almost embarrassed to say this, sir, but
I have never read the 30-Day Report.
The Chairman. Well, do you think the 30-Day Report was a
policy document?
Ms. Kendall. I think the 30-Day Report was much like OIG
reports, which contain recommendations----
The Chairman. Wait. Now, if you can't say that it was not a
policy document, do you think the moratorium was a policy?
Ms. Kendall. I think the moratorium decision was a policy
decision.
The Chairman. OK. Now, if the 30-Day Report drives to the
moratorium, would it not suggest that the 30-Day Report was a
policy document?
Ms. Kendall. The 30-Day Report did not contain the
moratorium recommendation.
The Chairman. It came from that document.
Ms. Kendall. I don't know that, sir.
The Chairman. You don't know that?
Ms. Kendall. I don't. I don't know where the moratorium
decision came from. I was not part of the 30-Day Report----
The Chairman. If it----
Ms. Kendall [continuing]. Or that decision.
The Chairman. Well, it came from the 30-Day document. And
your own report suggests that it came because of editing from
the White House.
Ms. Kendall. We----
The Chairman. But you--Ms. Kendall, I find it hard to
believe that you can say or suggest or agree that the
moratorium was a policy decision, yet you can't say that the
30-Day Report which led to the moratorium was a policy
document. I find that hard to believe.
Ms. Kendall. I can't say what the 30-Day Report was, or
that it led to the moratorium. I have already said----
The Chairman. You--so you----
Ms. Kendall [continuing]. That I did not read the 30-Day
Report, and I know that the moratorium recommendation was
contained only in the Executive Summary.
The Chairman. Based on that report. I mean, the deadline,
and the reason this came in the middle of the night, was
because of the 30-day deadline of the 30-Day Report. And you
are saying--well, I have some real problems understanding your
logic on that. And I said that in my opening statement. And,
frankly, that has been confirmed to me.
I will yield the balance of my time to Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
being here. In a May 23rd article this year in USA Today, you
are quoted as saying, ``I was an active listener. I was not an
active participant in these meetings.'' Is that a correct
quote?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, it is.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. What is the difference between an active
listener and an active participant?
Ms. Kendall. My distinction here is I did not ask any
questions in these meetings. I was there to hear what was being
said, to learn as much as I could about deepwater drilling and
the things that attend to it so that I could inform myself, as
a member of the Safety Oversight Board, and lead the team that
we had conducting the Outer Continental Shelf evaluation.
Mr. Lamborn. So you were an active listener.
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lamborn. But not an active participant.
Ms. Kendall. No, sir.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. And in the law I think that is called a
distinction without a difference, at least in my opinion.
OK. Exhibit number nine, which----
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
The Chairman. All right. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Majority has
claimed that the economic impacts of the 6-month moratorium
were worse than the economic impacts of the spill itself, worse
than the impacts of the worst environmental disaster in
American history.
But the reality is there were not significant lay-offs in
the oil industry from the moratorium. And now, why is that, you
might ask. Why weren't there significant lay-offs? Well, it is
because President Obama secured $20 billion from BP to aid the
Gulf and its people. Because President Obama got BP to put up
$100 million specifically to aid any oil rig workers affected.
Because that $100 million was expanded to help any oil service
and support companies. And it was because the oil companies
knew that drilling in the Gulf would resume in a safer manner
under President Obama. That is the reason why we now have 50
percent more floating rigs working in the Gulf of Mexico than
before the spill. These rigs did not leave. These rigs kept
their employees. Those employees were compensated by the fund
that President Obama extracted from BP.
And, despite what the Majority may claim, these are the
facts. President Obama and Secretary Salazar took action to
protect the workers. That is what they did. The Gulf had to be
protected. That is what President Obama did to minimize the
economic harm to the region from the spill, and to ensure that
we are drilling again now more safely.
So, the Majority says they just want to get to the bottom
of this. They have gotten to the bottom of this. And there is
no evidence of wrongdoing. The Majority has gotten the answer.
They don't like the answer. Secretary Salazar will sit here, if
you ask him. He will tell you he made the decision.
This woman should not be here today. You should have
Secretary Salazar here, and he will tell you he made the
decision. You should have the CEOs of Halliburton and BP and
Transocean sit here. Because what you should be trying to do is
get to the bottom of the ocean. You should be trying to find
out what happened.
Why were those workers harmed? Why was the environment
harmed? Why was the fishing industry harmed? What nerve did
those companies have to short-change the safety procedures? So
bring them in here, and set them up as examples to let the
world know it will never happen again in the United States. We
will know you are serious. We will know you want to get to the
bottom of the ocean when you have them sitting here.
But we are going to go through the whole 2 years and that
is not going to happen. And this woman sits here as, really,
just a diversion, a red herring. We might as well put an
aquarium out here, you have got so many red herrings floating
around. OK? And this woman is just here, unfortunately, as part
of your plan to have 149 votes on the House Floor for the oil
and gas industry, and none to help wind and solar, to have a
vote on the House Floor last year to keep all of the loan
guarantees--$18 billion for nuclear and for coal--and to zero
out all of the loan guarantees for wind and solar--and each of
you voted for that.
So, you have--Solyndra will be made an example, while the
United States and Richmond Corporation will continue to get
$540 billion in a loan guarantee, exactly equal to what
Solyndra got, and it is already in junk bond status. When is
the Republican Party going to have the hearings on what is
really going wrong here?
And this woman, like the solar industry, is just part of
not dealing with the real issue, and that is that the oil
industry recklessly, indifferently came very close to
destroying the livelihoods of people in the Gulf of Mexico. And
but for that $20 billion that President Obama extracted from
that industry, there would have been devastation down there.
And so, let's bring them in. Let's bring in Secretary
Salazar. He will tell you why he imposed the moratorium. But in
the dictionary, the difference between a moratorium and a pause
is just temporary inaction, temporary delay. It is the same
definition. You want to fight over that? You do that. But it
is, oh, so clear, this innuendo, this attempt to divert,
because you don't want to get to the central issues of what
this Committee should be all about.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And could the staff
please put exhibit 9 up on the screen?
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Lamborn. OK. And we talked about this a little bit
earlier, Ms. Kendall. It says there, in the red box to the
left--this is Steve Black saying in an email dated May 28th,
``And thanks for the kind words, Mary, and for your
participation in so many of the meetings and interviews leading
up to this report.''
Why should we not believe Steve Black when he says that you
participated in the process?
Ms. Kendall. I attended. I did not participate in the
process of the 30-Day Report. I did not participate in the
development of the Executive Summary. I don't know how many
times I can say that. It is just--that is the fact.
Mr. Lamborn. So Steve Black was not being accurate when he
said this?
Ms. Kendall. He was talking about my attendance at the
meetings, yes. And I told him that putting together those
meetings was an enormously impressive effort. It was a 30-day
effort to get people from industry, scientists, government----
Mr. Lamborn. OK----
Ms. Kendall [continuing]. In to talk to us----
Mr. Lamborn. Excuse me. My time is limited, so we will have
to go on. Exhibit 8, please.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Lamborn. OK. This is Steve Black again in an email
dated May 17th. In the upper box, ``Thank you for participating
on the call with the NAE-identified experts.'' He once again
thanks you for participating. Why should we not believe his
words?
Ms. Kendall. He thanks everyone for participating. It is
his use of the word ``participate''. I listened.
Mr. Lamborn. You ``participated on the call today.''
Ms. Kendall. I don't----
Mr. Lamborn. How did he even know you were there on the
call?
Ms. Kendall. I don't even remember this call. I don't know
that I participated in this call, quite frankly. But I was
probably one of the invitees, and so he thanked the invitees
for participating. And I honestly couldn't tell you if I was a
part of that call.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. I am going to switch gears now to the role
of the Department to turn over documents when there might be a
privilege. If the Department tells you or the IG's office not
to disclose documents to Congress, is it the policy of the
Inspector General to err on the side of the Department, and to
go along with that request without question?
Ms. Kendall. Not without question, sir. The Committee has
requested these documents from the Department itself. And the
Department has said that they decline to provide them, because
they implicate important executive confidentiality interests.
This apparently is a term of art as a precursor to the claim of
executive privilege. And the previous Administration used this
very phrase in 2007, when the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform requested documents related to the 2004 death
of Army Ranger Pat Tillman.
So, this is a process that I, quite frankly, before this
knew nothing about. But it is a longstanding process that goes
back, as I understand it, to the Nixon Administration.
Mr. Lamborn. So in 26 years you hadn't heard about this
happening.
Ms. Kendall. Oh, I have heard about it.
Mr. Lamborn. OK.
Ms. Kendall. I have never just been involved in it.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Did the Department ever exert executive
privilege?
Ms. Kendall. No. The Department has used this term, which,
as I understand it, implicates executive privilege in the
process that is a long and complex process that I believe the
Committee is engaged with the Department in, and should
continue to engage the Department in.
Mr. Lamborn. Is it not true, Ms. Kendall, that only the
President of the United States can exert executive privilege?
Ms. Kendall. The President himself must assert the
privilege, but it is usually done through a department head.
Mr. Lamborn. Was that done in this case?
Ms. Kendall. It has not been done yet, no.
Mr. Lamborn. But you went along with their position and did
not disclose the documents to Congress?
Ms. Kendall. I have explained as best I can to the
Committee in my letter, responsive to the subpoena, the reasons
why we did not turn over the documents. They are not ours--they
are not our documents, the privilege is not ours to assert, and
the privilege is not ours to waive.
Mr. Lamborn. You said in an April 18th letter that promises
of confidentiality are needed to ensure that Department
officials cooperate with your office. Are you suggesting that
if they don't have that promise of confidentiality, that they
will not cooperate as much?
Ms. Kendall. I am suggesting that we might not get these
kinds of documents in the future, if we did not abide by that
promise of confidentiality.
Mr. Lamborn. So they needed a promise of confidentiality to
work with you? Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Kendall. No, I am saying in regard to documents like
this, I don't believe that if we released these documents we
would ever see them again, if we were investigating something.
And we would be back before, probably, this Committee saying,
``We can't get these documents,'' and we would all be in the
same position as the Committee is right now, relative to the
Department. But we would not have had the benefit of seeing the
documents ourselves, as the oversight body.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you for your answers.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, the
impugning of the witness's character, her truthfulness, in
front of the Committee is, as Mr. Lujan said, is not the way to
be conducting this hearing. And, more importantly, there is no
basis for those accusations.
But we are doing all this based on the opinion of a case
worker who praised the witness first, and then communicated to
other members in the Department whatever concerns he had. And
while the Majority wants us to accept this as fact, questioning
the witness's character, but the case worker we--the Majority
wants the rest of us to believe that that has got to be a
pillar of integrity, that there is no hidden political agenda,
and that the motives of this case worker is as pure as the
driven snow, that the case worker is a bastion of truth, and
that is the premise by which we are here today.
Now, I don't want to impugn this case worker's character. I
wouldn't do that. But to ask us to proceed on that assumption,
I think, is asking a lot.
And, you know, this hearing has kind of been like when I
was learning English in school, where we had to get the
distinction between, you know, what is a pause, what is a
moratorium. That would help us with our diction. And with us
understanding what is an active participant, what is an
observer. That was English class. This has nothing to do with
this hearing.
And the gentleman brought up what is the difference between
active observer, active participant. I would suggest that the
audience here at this hearing are active observers. I would
suggest that the members of the Committee are active
participants. I think that is the distinction and that is the
difference.
I wanted to ask one question, if I may. Ms. Kendall,
according to the safety board report, since 1982 OCS leasing
has increased by 200 percent, and oil production has increased
by 185 percent. However, staffing resources have decreased by
36 percent since 1983. The independent BP Commission
recommended increasing the $10 million per year the oil and gas
industry paid in inspection fees significantly in order to fund
Department regulators.
Despite the Majority's attempt to block an increase in the
inspection fees charged to offshore oil and gas companies in
the appropriations bill for the current fiscal years, the
Department was provided with the authority to collect
inspection fees up to $62 million to fund the agency. Yet that
authority will expire at the end of the year, unless it is
extended.
Do you think we should give the Department permanent
authority to collect inspection fees on offshore operators to
provide a steady, robust funding stream for offshore
regulators?
Because, at the end of all this, we are still dealing with
possibly--with the worst environmental catastrophe that this
country has seen. And we should not lose sight of that in the
English lesson that we are having today, or in the attacks on
the witness.
Do you believe that that funding has to be permanent, so
that what processes are in place and processes will be in place
in terms of staffing and procedures can continue to provide the
safety oversight that we need?
Ms. Kendall. Congressman Grijalva, I am not familiar with
that particular authority. But I do know that when the Safety
Oversight Board was looking at this issue, there absolutely is
a need for more Federal presence, in terms of oversight
inspection and enforcement of the regulations that are in
place. And if this is one of the vehicles by which that can be
done, then I would agree with you, yes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Mr. Markey. Could I just ask?
Mr. Grijalva. I yield to----
Mr. Markey. Yes, and I just had one quick question, which
is the case agent in one email to OIG colleagues saying that he
was dismayed that the final OIG report did not mention
requesting interviews with the White House. In fact, his draft
that you edited did not include language about interviewing the
White House.
You said this before, but I want to underscore it. The case
agent was complaining about things that demonstrably did not
happen. Is that not true?
Ms. Kendall. That is correct.
Mr. Markey. OK. Thank you for saying it again.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Landry.
Mr. Landry. Ma'am, I know sometimes we find ourselves in
precarious situations. So, for the record, there are two things
that I think need to be fact-checked. Number one, many of the
victims who died, their families came here and begged for that
moratorium not to be implemented. I think that is important,
because that speaks volumes. Because we like to make victims
out of victims out of victims families. There is a reason for
it. Number two, no one in the oil and gas industry has access
to that $20 billion fund. That is a incorrect statement by the
gentleman from Massachusetts. In fact, they are prohibited, if
you are in the oil and gas industry, you are prohibited from
taking part in that $20 billion. And that is a fact.
And I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Colorado.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, I thank the gentleman. Could we show
exhibit 1 up on the screen, please?
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Lamborn. Ms. Kendall, are you aware of this email dated
September 17, 2010 from Mr. Delaplaine, General Counsel of the
Office of the Inspector General, to Mr. Hardgrove?
Ms. Kendall. I need to take a look at it, sir. I don't
recognize it.
Mr. Lamborn. Let me quote the highlighted portion there.
``However, I did take the opportunity to explain our position
that they do not have a valid basis to keep the requested
material from us, as it could not fall under the executive
privilege doctrine.''
And then the email goes on to explain that there was no
decision pending for the President to make, as the moratorium
decision had already been made. The only issue being discussed
was how to word an Executive Summary.
Are you familiar with either this email or the thinking
contained in this email?
Ms. Kendall. I am--at the moment, no. I don't--I obviously
was not a recipient of this email, and I am not sure what this
email refers to.
Mr. Lamborn. What is the role of Mr. Hardgrove?
Ms. Kendall. Mr. Hardgrove is our Chief of Staff.
Mr. Lamborn. And does he work for you?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, he does.
Mr. Lamborn. So he knew this, apparently.
Ms. Kendall. Apparently.
Mr. Lamborn. Did you know this?
Ms. Kendall. I have told you I don't know what this email
is about.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, if you look at the highlighted portion,
according to Mr. Delaplaine, the position is that they do not
have a valid basis to keep the requested material from us, as
it could not fall under the executive privilege doctrine.
Ms. Kendall. I guess what I am saying is I don't know what
the requested material is that he is referring to.
Mr. Lamborn. I believe it is the 13 documents that are at
issue.
Ms. Kendall. I don't know that. This was back in 2010. And
I don't believe that the 13 documents had been identified at
that point.
Mr. Lamborn. I believe that these are the Steve Black
emails.
Ms. Kendall. They may be; I don't know.
Mr. Lamborn. But are you aware of the doctrine that after a
decision has been made, that there is no ability of the
Executive Branch to assert executive privilege?
Ms. Kendall. No, I am not. I don't know what this email
means, quite frankly.
Mr. Lamborn. Did Mr. Hardgrove ever talk to you about this
email, or the contents of it?
Ms. Kendall. I don't remember our discussing it, no.
Mr. Lamborn. Did Mr. Delaplaine ever talk to you about this
email or the contents of it?
Ms. Kendall. You know, we have had so many discussions, I
don't know if he talked to me about this email or the doctrines
relating to it. I can't tell from this email what it is about.
Mr. Lamborn. Do you agree with this privilege--excuse me,
with this explanation of executive privilege? This is the
General Counsel of the Office of the Inspector General.
Ms. Kendall. I don't think it is talking about executive
privilege. Honestly, I am looking at it for the first time, and
I am not sure what it is talking about.
Mr. Lamborn. In parentheses, ``There was no decision
pending for the President to make, as the moratorium decision
had already been made.''
Ms. Kendall. I see that. Again, I don't know what documents
we are talking about here.
Mr. Lamborn. We have had access to this for months. Is this
the first time you believe that you have seen this?
Ms. Kendall. Yes. I believe it is the first time I have
seen this email.
Mr. Lamborn. And you don't know the discussion that is
going on here about executive privilege and when it ends, once
a decision has been made?
Ms. Kendall. No, I don't know what this is talking about.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Guam, Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms.
Kendall, the case agent also wanted to interview Secretary
Salazar. But that would be very unusual. Is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. It would be.
Ms. Bordallo. Do you know if the Secretary was willing to
be interviewed?
Ms. Kendall. I don't know. But there was no indication that
the Secretary had anything to do with the editing of the
Executive Summary.
Ms. Bordallo. I see. Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up a
little on what our Ranking Member Markey was commenting on. And
I certainly agree that, you know, if we really want to get to
the bottom of something like this, we have got to go to the
top. We can't keep bringing in people--Ms. Kendall, I admire
your composure. You have been sitting here before us being
grilled, under fire, since 10:00 this morning. And you know, I
don't know. I certainly don't like to see anybody harassed like
that.
But I would like to hear from you, Mr. Chairman. Did this
Committee--did you ever request testimony from Secretary
Salazar? And why aren't we hearing from him?
The Chairman. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Bordallo. Yes, I will yield.
The Chairman. I had a conversation with the Secretary. But
if anybody here believes I wouldn't want the Secretary here,
then they are sadly mistaken. We had a hearing the week before
last. And when I asked the Secretary to come down on the
surface mining, and the Secretary did not.
I advised the Secretary that if he wanted to come, he
should expect to be open for questions on a number of issues,
not only confined to this issue, but other issues because we
have subpoenaed him. And there are many, including me, that
feels that there has not been a response from the Secretary.
And so I advised him. I said that, you know, he could come
down, but ``be prepared to potentially face questions regarding
why you haven't supplied the subpoenas, and potentially issues
of maybe going into contempt and why you should not be held in
contempt.''
Now, that was the conversation I had with the Secretary.
That ended that conversation, and there was no other discussion
regarding his coming here. But yes, there was a discussion, and
it is as I just described to you.
Thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Ms. Bordallo. So, Mr. Chairman, then what you are saying is
that, unofficially, you just had a conversation with him. This
wasn't an official request to come before the Committee to be
subpoenaed to speak on several issues.
The Chairman. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
The Chairman. The Secretary offered that suggestion to me,
and I responded to him, as I just mentioned, and that was the
end of any further discussion on his coming in front of me.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, I have a comment. I just understood
here that we have not issued a subpoena, as you had said, for
the Secretary to testify. So it is my understanding that he is
willing to appear. So can we call him in?
The Chairman. Like I said, the conversation that we had and
the exchange that we had with the Secretary was that if he
wants to come in he should be prepared to have discussions far
beyond here, this issue only. It would probably go to the
surface mining issue. It would probably go to the issue of why
there hasn't been a response to all of the subpoenas that have
been issued by this Secretary. And a discussion on whether he
would want to face questions that may lead to why he should not
be held in contempt.
Now, those are all issues that I suggested to the Secretary
when he suggested that he may come forward. I left the
conversation at that, and that has been the end of that
conversation.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, as a member of the Committee, I am
suggesting that we ask him to appear. He apparently is willing.
So if I could make that request.
And, second, we could ask the CEOs of oil companies to
appear, as well. Have we done that?
The Chairman. You know, I find it ironic--if the gentlelady
would yield----
Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
The Chairman. I find it ironic that that issue keeps coming
up. And I will mention to the gentlelady and also other members
of the Committee that we have had executives of those companies
in front of this Committee, in fact, going back to the last
Congress. And in the same vein that while we have maybe not had
the presence, although we have, in front of this Committee, we
have not gotten the cooperation, I might add, if you compare
the information that we received from those companies compared
to the information we have gotten from this Administration,
there is a huge, huge divide as to what they have provided to
us.
So, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Chairman, just one quick question here.
You said the top people. I am talking about the CEOs.
The Chairman. Oh, we have had the president of some
companies----
Ms. Bordallo. We have had the CEOs here----
The Chairman [continuing]. Of companies that have come in
here.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, I suggest, if we really want to get to
the bottom of this, that we have another----
The Chairman. The time of the gentlelady has expired, and I
will simply respond to this. The issue here that we are
pursuing is because of a moratorium that dealt with shallow
water, not deep water, where the BP is. There is a distinction
between the two.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
get back to the Klamath Basin for a second. It might not be as
visually graphic, but it is not insignificant. It is the loss
of four hydroelectric dams, 155 megawatts of hydroelectricity,
loss of a fish hatchery that produces 5 million salmon smolts a
year, a billion dollars of taxpayer and ratepayer costs, all
driven, we are told, by the best available science.
Now, we spent nearly all 5 minutes allocated to my first
round of questioning, Ms. Kendall, with you denying that you
knew anything about a complaint by the Bureau of Reclamation's
scientific integrity officer, Dr. Paul Houser, documenting
intentional falsification of scientific data related to the
Klamath Basin all to drive the decision to a predetermined
conclusion. In the final seconds of my allotted time, you
appeared to have had a recollection when I asked about a
scientific integrity case provided on your office's own
manifest entitled, ``Finkler, Kira, et al.''
So, with your memory freshly restored, I would like to
know, first and foremost, if we at least now established that
the scientific integrity case entitled ``Finkler, Kira, et
al,'' status closed, final report not available, listed on your
office's manifest, involves the complaint by Dr. Houser.
Ms. Kendall. I know it involves Dr. Houser. I don't know if
it involves his complaint.
Mr. McClintock. All right. Then can you tell me what--so
the Office of the Inspector General then did know about his
complaint. And my next question to you is what did the
Inspector General's office do to investigate this most detailed
complaint by the scientific integrity officer of the Bureau of
Reclamation?
Ms. Kendall. Congressman, I would have to get back to you
on that, because I simply don't know the answer to it.
Mr. McClintock. Then you obviously can't tell me what you
discovered from that investigation, which is not an
insignificant or insubstantial matter.
Ms. Finkler, whose name is on the manifest, was Dr.
Houser's boss. When Dr. Houser raised these concerns
internally, her response was to fire him. She was an employee
of Trout Unlimited, which is an interested party to the Klamath
Basin agreement. She did not recuse herself from being involved
in these discussions, and in fact, fired the whistle blower
hired by the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure the scientific
integrity of the data that is driving this entire proposal. Her
response was to fire him.
Now, doesn't it strike you as significant that the official
who fired Dr. Houser was precisely the same official that he
accused of official misconduct in falsifying this data, and who
had an obvious and glaring conflict of interest?
Ms. Kendall. Congressman, I am listening to what you are
saying, but it doesn't help me because I really don't know
about this case.
Mr. McClintock. You are the watch dog. You are responsible
for assuring the integrity of the scientific data that is
driving these policy proposals.
Ms. Kendall. Congressman----
Mr. McClintock. Why aren't you--why--you know----
Ms. Kendall. I have many----
Mr. McClintock. Where is the outrage?
Ms. Kendall. I have many people on my staff who work these
issues on behalf of the Office of Inspector General. I
apologize. I don't know the details about this one.
Mr. McClintock. Well, you have got a row of folks behind
you. Do any of them know?
Ms. Kendall. Congressman, we would be glad to get back to
you and provide details about this. I simply don't know them
today.
Mr. McClintock. Well, I will tell you what I would ask for,
is all of the documents related to Dr. Houser's complaint. I
would like to know why was the case closed. Why is there no
report available? I assume you cannot provide me information on
any of these questions.
Ms. Kendall. I don't have the information today, no.
Mr. McClintock. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that this is
significant enough, and this omission is glaring enough, to
call for a separate hearing on this subject. As I said, it is
not an insignificant matter. It has huge fiscal and economic
and environmental ramifications for the entire Pacific
Northwest. It all hinges on what we are told is the best
scientific data when the scientific integrity officer has been
blowing a whistle warning us that that data has been
deliberately corrupted. And the Inspector General, so far as I
can tell at this hearing, has done precisely nothing.
We need to look into this. And we need to look into this
before any further activity is taken on the Klamath. And I
think that we also ought to get in our possession----
Mr. Markey. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. McClintock [continuing]. All of the documents----
Mr. Markey [continuing]. Parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McClintock [continuing]. Related to----
Mr. Markey. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman will stage his inquiry.
Mr. Markey. Yes. The rules of this Committee, Mr. Chairman,
require that members contain their questions to the subject
matter of the hearing. Those are the rules of this Committee.
Mr. McClintock. Well----
Mr. Markey. Did your invitation--Mr. Chairman,
parliamentary inquiry--did your invitation, Mr. Chairman,
invitation letter to Ms. Kendall, notify her that this Klamath
issue would be a topic for today? And, if not, then I would ask
that this line of questioning be ruled out of order. Because
there is an implication being made by this gentleman that Ms.
Kendall is not answering his questions, when she was invited
here, under the rules, to answer a whole other set of subject
material. And under our rules, she was coming here knowing that
other material could not be put before her.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Markey. So I would just ask for a ruling on that.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. The gentleman asked a parliamentary inquiry
into whether the gentleman from California's line of
questioning was within the scope of this hearing. And I would
tell the gentleman from Massachusetts that the title of the
hearing is as such: ``Oversight of the Actions, Independence,
and Accountability of the Acting Inspector General of the
Department of the Interior.''
And then, the invite letter goes on to talk about the
conduct of the Inspector General, and four specifically,
independence and effectiveness of the Inspector General in
acting capacity, and then five--on the invite letter of the
second paragraph--``and other matters''. And the gentleman from
California is talking about other matters, so it falls within
the scope----
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. It falls within the scope of the hearing
today.
The gentleman from----
Mr. Markey. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chairman, I would also--because I still
had time remaining before the gentleman from Massachusetts
interrupted me--point out that the Klamath Basin issue was
raised in the Chairman's letter to Ms. Kendall dated May 30,
2012, and was referred to in her letter back to the Chairman
dated July 20th. So this is not unexpected for her. It was
raised in the letter. She responded specifically on this issue
in the letter back to the Committee, which I have already asked
to be entered into the record.
I would suggest the gentleman from Massachusetts read his
briefings more carefully before he comes to the hearing.
The Chairman. The gentleman had some time, and I am
anticipating he had approximately 30 seconds left in his time.
Does the gentleman yield back?
In response, then, to the Ranking Member, this falls with--
the line of questioning from the gentleman from California
falls in line with the invitation to the Acting Inspector
General.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from the Northern
Marianas.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, it is going on 4 years that I have served on this
Committee there are--you know, we take votes, we have hearings.
There are times when I agree with the other side, and there are
times when I disagree with my side. And there are times when I
take a vote that bears hard on me.
The vote we had yesterday, Mr. Chairman, was, I think, a
very difficult one for me, because I wanted to vote no. Because
I thought that there was still a chance to have more
conversations with the Department of the Interior, rather than
issue the subpoena. I also didn't think yesterday that the
extraordinary effort has been exhausted.
And the Chairman knows I have a great deal and healthy
respect for him, and I still do. I just--last night, you know,
just before I went to bed, thinking about what we did yesterday
also, Mr. Chairman, and just couldn't find comfort that we did
that. But we did take a vote. We are issuing subpoenas.
And I would also like very much to bring the Secretary of
the Interior here. If we need the answers here, we need the
Secretary of the Interior to give us the answers. And I would
encourage and urge the Chairman to include the Secretary.
And at this time I yield my remaining time to the Ranking
Member, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. I thank the gentleman very much. And again, let
me just state for the record we have not invited the CEOs of
BP, Transocean, or Halliburton to sit here. This is the
greatest crime in the history of America against the
environment. Bringing in mid-level officials at these companies
is not taking this issue seriously.
So, when you bring in the CEOs of these companies and you
are staring them down, you are getting the answers, then it is
serious. This is not serious.
Ms. Kendall, Mo Udall, by the way, Mo Udall, the great
Chairman of this Committee for so many years, he used to have a
saying. He used to say, ``Everything has been said, but not
everyone has said it.''
So, on their side they keep saying the same things over and
over again. You keep giving the same answers. And they hate the
answers. They just hate these answers, because at this point we
still don't have any understanding of what it is that they are
saying went wrong. This is executive privilege, it is
controlled by the President. Everyone can have an opinion on
executive privilege, but the President, the Secretary, they
exercise the decision on executive privilege, not you. It is
not your decision.
Isn't there a point that you have to ask, you know, again,
what is the legal basis for asking questions?
Ms. Kendall, are you familiar with the works of Franz
Kafka? Well, in Kafka's ``The Trial,'' a man is charged with a
crime without being told the process of the trial, or even what
he is being charged with. Ms. Kendall, you seem to be in a
similar situation. At this point, I don't even know what you
are being attacked for. I still can't figure it out. Is it that
you are the IG? Is it the Klamath River Basin hydro project
unrelated to this hearing? Is it Secretary Salazar's decision
to issue the moratorium? Or is it just that Barack Obama is
President, which I suspect is what is at the heart of all of
this?
But for you to be sitting here for hour after hour without
anything thus far that I can ascertain is something that they
can point to you and say that you did wrong, I still am waiting
for that sentence to be uttered, other than a McCarthyesque set
of questions that are asked without any evidence of anything
that has not already been conclusively proven to not be true.
So, this is the essence of what we have here, OK? Those who
are guilty, the CEOs of these companies, they are not here.
Those who have, really, the responsibility to make the
decisions, even at the agency, we can bring in the Secretary.
But everything else is just kind of a sideshow. You know? Let's
have the real answers. And let's have the real showdown here on
what happened in the Gulf of Mexico with the CEOs of these
companies. But until you invite those CEOs, this is not a
serious investigation at all. And the absence of any specific
charges that you can make that make any sense is evidence of
that.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Southerland.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Along those lines
right there, as far as CEOs--and clearly the Secretary of the
Interior is a CEO--the Department issued over 700 citations to
the owners and operators of the Macondo Well, Deepwater
Horizon. As the Acting IG, could you tell me about the
investigation that you performed, or your department performed
on the Department for their inaction after issuing those 700
citations?
Ms. Kendall. I am not sure what investigation you are
talking about.
Mr. Southerland. Well, wait a minute. The Department issued
700 citations to the owners--and I want to make sure the
Ranking Member catches this, Mr. Chairman--the 700 citations
were issued to the owners of the Macondo Well and the Deepwater
Horizon from the Department. And I ask you about the
investigation into the inaction of--you got a problem. And you
are telling me that you are not aware of an investigation, or--
--
Ms. Kendall. Well, I am aware of a number of
investigations, but I am not aware----
Mr. Southerland. No, no, no. I am talking about
specifically to the Department for issuing 700 citations and
not moving it a step farther, because we are always told that
government is here to protect the people.
Ms. Kendall. And I am telling you I don't know about an
investigation about that.
Mr. Southerland. Mr. Chairman, I find it absolutely
amazing. And the Ranking Member talks about bringing CEOs in
here. And, by the way, I asked the CEO of the Department of the
Interior last year, Mr. Chairman. I asked him that very
question, and was given, you know, absolutely no satisfaction
that the Department accepted any responsibility that it failed,
after you know you had a problem, that there is no
responsibility, no personal responsibility, and no
responsibility for the Department.
And now I ask the IG. Certainly after 700 citations were
issued, what about the investigation? Clearly, there must have
been one. Clearly, there was the--because we have heard today.
We have seen Webster's dictionary. And Webster--I will tell you
the definition of ``incompetence'' is lacking the qualities
needed for effective action and unable to function properly.
The synonyms, according to Webster, ``incapable, inept, unfit,
unqualified, unable.'' And yet we have a Department that I
think has demonstrated that to perfection--700 citations. And
we have an IG department that hasn't even done an investigation
on that. That is the very definition, according to Webster.
And so, we have tried. We brought the CEO in here of the
Interior, and they have not answered that question. And so
there, now we know there is no personal responsibility. And I
am amazed that that is not a smoking gun for this body. And I
find that I agree. I agree with the Ranking Member. And I am
amazed that they are not concerned, because at no point in time
when the Secretary of the Interior was here, not one single
question from the Minority looking into that issue. And it
undermines, really, the validity and the purpose of trying to
understand.
So, go to the bottom of the ocean. Well, we have tried to.
And, unfortunately, we have--we are--you know, there is--we are
not catching anything there. And so I just--I find that there
should be more examination. And that is your role, as the IG.
And why would there not be? With my remaining time left,
why would there not be? Is that not problematic?
Ms. Kendall. Because I am not familiar with the 700
citations, I could only speculate. But I would assume that
BOEMRE, which was the succeeding agency after MMS was split in
two, and either BOEM or BSEE now would be the appropriate body
to conduct such an investigation, or conduct an internal
investigation. And actually, I believe BSEE is actually doing
that, as we speak.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I
want to conclude this hearing by thanking you, Ms. Kendall, for
being here. I know it was difficult. But we that sit on this
panel, because of what we have chosen to do, find situations
sometimes that are difficult, also. But that comes with the
responsibility of self-government. You are in a position of a
great deal of importance. As I mentioned in my opening
statement, I have some questions and certainly members of this
Committee have questions about the independence which led to a
decision that did cause economic harm. And nobody disputes
that.
Nobody disputes the fact that the initial incident caused
economic harm. But we do think it is important that the people
get the facts. And the simple fact that the Executive Summary
caused such an immediate backlash from the peer review group,
where in some cases they felt that they were being used, I
think is very important that we get to the bottom of why this
happened.
And that is what we are trying to ascertain. Whether you
like it or not, you were caught in that discussion. And I
think--as I have said several times--that independence was
somewhat compromised is something that this Committee needed to
look into. And that was the reason for this hearing.
I am not sure that we have gotten all the answers. I
certainly have some questions in my mind. But I do very much
appreciate your participation. And the only thing that I could
offer you is that those of us probably at some time in our
political lives have faced similar situations that you have,
and so there is empathy from us to you. But recognize that that
responsibility, it is part of your job. And that is part of
self-government. That is what makes it difficult.
So, if there is no more business coming before the
Committee, the Committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A memorandum submitted for the record by Dr. Paul R.
Houser, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior,
follows:]
DATE: February 24, 2012
TO: Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs
Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., Mail Stop 7328
Washington, DC 20240
FROM: Dr. Paul R. Houser
Science Advisor, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington D.C.
Scientific Integrity Officer, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington
D.C.
1849 C Street NW
Washington DC 20240-0001
and
Professor, George Mason University
240 Research Hall, MSN: 6C3
4400 University Dr., Fairfax, VA 22030
(301)-613-3782
[email protected]
SUBJECT: Allegation of scientific and scholarly misconduct and
reprisal for a disclosure concerning the biased summarization of key
scientific conclusions for the Klamath River dam removal Secretarial
determination process.
SUMMARY: With this letter, I submit two allegations of scientific
and scholarly misconduct and reprisal intended to compromise scientific
integrity for a disclosure concerning the Department of the Interior's
biased (falsification) summarization of key scientific conclusions for
the Klamath River dam removal Secretarial determination process. These
allegations violate different parts of the 305 DM 3 Scientific
Integrity Policy, but are being submitted together, as their possible
motivation and topics are related. In my role as Science Advisor and
Scientific Integrity Officer for the Bureau of Reclamation, I provide
my comments at various points during this presentation.
1. Intentional Falsification: Motivated by Secretary Salazar's
publically stated 2009 intention to issue a Secretarial
determination in favor of removing four dams on the Klamath
River (due on March 31, 2012), the Department of the Interior
has followed a course of action to construct support for such
an outcome. An example of this intentional biased
(falsification) reporting of scientific results is contained in
the September 21, 2011 ``Summary of Key Conclusions: Draft EIS/
EIR and Related Scientific/Technical Reports'' [attachment 1].
Other examples provided by third parties are provided in the
attached documents.
a. Person(s) alleged to have committed misconduct:
i. Unreported author(s) of report ``Summary
of Key Conclusions: Draft EIS/EIR and Related
Scientific/Technical Reports''
ii. Department of the Interior officials
2) Intentionally circumventing policy that ensures the
integrity of science and scholarship, and actions that
compromise scientific and scholarly integrity: On September 15,
2011,1 expressed concern via written disclosure relating to the
scientific integrity of a draft press release on the draft
environmental analysis for removing four Klamath River dams
[attachments 2,3], and via verbal disclosure about the
integrity of the larger Klamath River dam removal Secretarial
determination
PacifiCorp's Klamath Hydroelectric Project 2082 (inclusive of the
J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams) led willing basin
stakeholders to come to agreement on the Klamath Hydroelectric
Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement
(KBRA).
The KHSA is a multi-party agreement that, if fully implemented,
would result in the removal of the Four Facilities within the Klamath
Hydroelectric Project. Signatories of the KHSA, with the exception of
the Federal government and PacifiCorp, also signed the KBRA. The
Federal government is not able to sign the KBRA until Congress passes
Federal legislation authorizing the agreement. The KBRA includes
interrelated plans and programs intended to benefit fisheries
throughout the basin, water and power users in the upper basin,
counties, Indian tribes and basin communities. KBRA fisheries programs
include extensive habitat restoration, improvements to water flow and
quality, and a fish reintroduction program in the upper basin. Full
implementation of the KBRA requires an affirmative Secretarial
determination on the removal of the four dams, and will likely cost
taxpayers and ratepayers in excess of $1B to implement.
Department of the Interior Scientific Integrity Policy:
The Department's Manual (305 DM 3) defines scientific and scholarly
misconduct as:
(1) Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing,
performing, or reviewing scientific and scholarly activities,
or in the products or reporting of the results of these
activities. (Federal Policy on Research Misconduct, 65 FR
76260-76264, December 6, 2000.) Misconduct also includes: (a)
intentionally circumventing policy that ensures the integrity
of science and scholarship, and (b) actions that compromise
scientific and scholarly integrity. Scientific and scholarly
misconduct does not include honest error or differences of
opinion.
(2) Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in the
application of scientific and scholarly information to decision
making, policy formulation, or preparation of materials for
public information activities.
(3) A finding of scientific and scholarly misconduct requires
that:
a. There be a significant departure from accepted
practices of the relevant scientific and scholarly
community.
b. The misconduct be committed intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly
c. The allegation be proven by a preponderance of
evidence.
305 DM 3 indicates that scientific misconduct must be an
intentional and significant departure from accepted practices of
scientific community that is proven by evidence, such as intentional
fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, or actions that intentionally
circumvent or compromise the policy.
ALLEGATION I: Intentional Falsification: Motivated by Secretary
Salazar's publically stated intention to issue a Secretarial
determination in favor of removing four dams on the Klamath River (due
on March 31, 2012), the Department of the Interior has likely followed
a course of action to construct such an outcome. In 2009, Secretary
Salazar stated that the proposal to remove the Klamath River dams
``will not fail'', and on September 19, 2011, Ms. Kira Finkler, Deputy
Commissioner for External and Intergovernmental Affairs, told me
directly that ``the Secretary wants to remove those dams''. This
intention has motivated Department of the Interior officials to
``spin'' or incompletely report the scientific results towards a more
optimistic scientific story that supports dam removal.
An example of this intentional falsification is contained in the
September 21, 2011 ``Summary of Key Conclusions: Draft EIS/EIR and
Related Scientific/Technical Reports'' [attachment 1]. This summary
intentionally distorts and generally presents a biased view of the
Klamath River dam removal benefits. It intends to present only the
positive, without the uncertainties or negatives. This is ascertained
by
Other examples of science integrity issues provided by third
parties are provided in attached documents. These examples should also
be considered when evaluating the scientific integrity of the Klamath
River dam removal Secretarial decision process.
1) February 7, 2012 Siskiyou County notice of intent to file
suit [attachment 5],
2) January 31, 2012 Siskiyou County comments on report
[attachment 6],
3) July 12, 2011 Siskiyou County KBRA and KHSA letter
[attachment 7].
4) November 11, 2011 Letter from Tom Connick [attachment 28],
5) July 21, 2011 Science, Secrecy and Salmon Restoration
[attachment 29],
6) December 27, 2011 Klamath dams: County's comments in by
John Bowman, Siskiyou Daily News, December 27, 2011 [attachment
30],
ALLEGATION II: Intentionally circumventing policy that ensures the
integrity of science and scholarship, and actions that compromise
scientific and scholarly integrity.
305 DM 3 establishes a scientific code of conduct (section 3.7).
Specifically, for all Departmental employees, volunteers, contractors,
cooperators, partners, permittees, leasees and grantees, the code
requires communication of the results of scientific and scholarly
activities clearly, honestly, objectively, thoroughly, accurately, and
in a timely manner (3.7.A.2), not intentionally hindering the
scientific and scholarly activities of others (3.7. A.6), and clearly
differentiating among facts, personal opinions, assumptions,
hypotheses, and professional judgment in reporting the results of
scientific and scholarly activities and characterizing associated
uncertainties in using those results for decision making, and in
representing those results to other scientists, decision makers, and
the public (3.7.A.7). Additionally for scientists and scholars, the
code requires providing constructive, objective, and professionally
valid peer review of the work of others, free of any personal or
professional jealousy, competition, non-scientific disagreement, or
conflict of interest (3.7.B.6). And finally, for decision makers, the
code requires supporting the scientific and scholarly activities of
others and not to engage in dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation,
coercive manipulation, censorship, or other misconduct that alters the
content, veracity, or meaning or that may affect the planning, conduct,
reporting, or application of scientific and scholarly activities
(3.7.C.1), and to adhere to appropriate standards for reporting,
documenting and applying results of scientific and scholarly activities
used in decision making (3.7.C.3).
On September 15, 2011,1 expressed concern via written disclosure
relating to the scientific integrity of a draft press release on the
draft environmental analysis for removing four Klamath River dams, and
via verbal disclosure about the integrity of the larger Klamath River
dam removal Secretarial determination process. My disclosure was never
directly addressed, and supervisors have enacted and used 1-year
probationary status to enact reprisal culminating in the termination of
my employment (effective February 24, 2011). The details leading to the
termination show a pattern of hindering and not being supportive or
honest about the scientific integrity process; the details themselves
are not the scientific integrity issue but are rather a case of
subsequent reprisal that show intentional actions that compromise the
scientific and scholarly integrity codes called out above. Below I
outline the actual disclosure, and subsequent reprisal. with critical
uncertainties and caveats, so that the Secretarial determination can be
made without scientific bias. This Klamath dam removal Secretarial
determination is reported to have a cost to the public (taxpayers and
ratepayers) in excess of $1B, so a misinformed or premeditated decision
could be a gross waste of funds.
Direct Response to Disclosure:
I received no direct response or follow-up on my disclosure from
Mr. Fletcher or Mr. Carter. However, the tone and bias of the final
press release scientific reporting was improved, and the title was
changed [attachments 1, 2, and 3]. My specific disclosure comments,
which primarily addressed issues with the Attachment: Summary of the
major findings and a schedule for public hearings, were not addressed
in the final release.
When my supervisor, Ms. Finkler, returned to the office on
September 19, 2011,1 discussed the issue with her, and she expressed
concern that I chose to document the disclosure via Email. She cited
concerns about creating discoverable records that could be subject to
FOIA for this contentious issue, and pointed out to me that that ``the
Secretary wants to remove those dams''. In subsequent discussions with
Ms. Finkler on this issue, she told me that she thought the press
release and related materials were unbiased, but she also conceded that
she had not reviewed the underlying documents, including the expert
panel reports.
Reprisal for Disclosure:
Following my disclosure related to the Klamath Dam Press release
[attachment 10], I faced systematic reprisal on several fronts. These
include, enacting and using a 1-year probationary period to issue
threats of termination, issuing a low performance rating, denying
travel, denying training and executive development, denying mentoring,
and termination of my position.
Performance Appraisal: On October 27, 2011, my supervisor, Ms.
Finkler, presented me with a minimally successful performance rating.
She invited Mr. David Murillo, Reclamation Deputy Commissioner for
Operations to the meeting as a witness. Areas identified as being below
fully successful were as follows [attachment 12]:
1) Needs to pay closer attention to detail when submitting a
written product. For example, he submitted a memo to the
Commissioner that still was labeled ``draft'' and had no date
on it. He also needs to work on his writing--he needs to take
the time to review the substance of his written products more
carefully, organize Information in a logical way and make the
final product easy to read.
2) Needs to make sure he responds in a timely way to requests
from me and follows directions.
3) Needs to work on contributing to a positive workplace that
supports the organization's missions and goals.
4) Needs to better engage in strategic planning, for example,
he needs to proactively suggest ways he can add value to
various priorities rather than waiting for Instructions.
5) Needs to work on using sound judgment to make effective
decisions, for example, he should not assume, and take action
on such assumption, that his input has been ignored prior to
knowing the final decision.
The review involved extensive discussion of my September 15, 2011
disclosure, and was clearly the subject of performance items 2,3 and 5.
On point 2) Ms. Finkler felt that I did not follow Mr. Fletcher's
directions (to not send him my disclosure in Email), when I chose to
Email the disclosure to Ms. Finkler. I had intentionally decided to
Email the disclosure to Ms. Finkler to make sure that the situation was
properly documented and transparent. On point 3), Ms. Finkler felt that
my disclosure actions were not in support of the organization's mission
and goals (i.e. Secretary Salazar's desire to remove the four Klamath
River dams). Also, she felt that my disclosure did not contribute to a
positive workplace and showed that I was
It is quite clear that at the time of the disclosure, my supervisor
decided to restrict access to travel, in an apparent attempt to reduce
my effectiveness, which would further her goal of using the
probationary period to terminate my position.
Training: On November 29, 2011 I finalized a standard Executive
Professional Development plan [attachment 22], which was focused on the
learning and improvement goals outlined in my performance review
[attachment 12]. This plan was carefully developed in close
coordination with Ms. Norma Martinez, Reclamation's Learning Officer.
Ms. Finkler signed the plan without even reading or discussing its
details. I presented a plan for implementing this training to Ms.
Finkler on January 11 [attachment 23], which she said she would review
later, but then disapproved at a subsequent meeting, citing budget
concerns. By denying training in the very areas that were cited for
needing improvement in my performance plan, Ms. Finkler further
undermined my success. This action further illustrates that Ms. Finkler
did not intend to give me an opportunity for improvement, having
decided at the time of disclosure to proceed towards termination.
Mentoring: Based on the establishment of a probationary period for
my position on September 29, 2011 [attachment 15], and Ms. Finkler's
offer of ``assistance which will better enable you to meet the
requirements of the position'' in the November 10, 2011 letter of
concern [attachment 17], on November 10, 2011,1 requested that Ms.
Finkler provide me written guidance on how she would evaluate success
in my probationary period. Ms. Finkler indicated that she had given me
all the guidance I needed in the letter of concern. In summary, the
letter of concern essentially says that one more incident of using poor
judgment or failing to listen and follow directions will result in
termination during the probationary period,
Between the November 10, 2011 and January 24, 2012,1 met with Ms.
Finkler seven times at regularly scheduled weekly check-in meetings
(11/15/11,11/23/11,11/29/11,12/6/11,1/11/12,1/18/12, and 1/24/12). At
each meeting I asked Ms. Finkler how I was performing, and each time
she said ``you are doing OK''. I also asked at each meeting how I can
improve, and she always replied that she could not think of anything.
Further, to better engage in strategic planning, and proactively
suggest ways that I could add value to various priorities (as pointed
out in my performance review), I presented Ms. Finkler with seven
proposals ranging from ways to engage in California Water [attachment
24] to FY14 budget proposals [attachment 25], Ms. Finkler took the
proposals, but never offered discussion, feedback or decisions to
proceed. At a meeting in early November 2011, she told me that the
``ball was in her court' with respect to the California Water proposal
[attachment 24], and later in November 2011 she told me that she did
not trust me to act on the California water ideas.
It is clear that since the time of the disclosure (September 15,
2011), Ms. Finkler's intention has been to use my probation status to
terminate my position. She has not offered genuine mentoring or
guidance, and has not made decisions regarding my proactive strategic
planning suggestions.
Termination: On February 8, 2012, Ms. Finkler informed me that my
expertise and skills were not a good match for the science advisor
position [attachment 26], and gave me until February 10, 2012 to resign
or be terminated. There was no specific incident sited for the action,
and the termination did not result from using poor judgment or failing
to listen and follow directions, as was her guidance in the letter of
concern [attachment 17]. On February 10, 2012,1 decided to let the
position be terminated because I firmly believe the evidence points to
it being the direct result and the ultimate reprisal for the September
15, 2011 disclosure. The timing of the termination, being just one
month before the Klamath Secretarial Determination, suggests that my
supervisors did not want me included in the decision process; for fear
that I would make another disclosure that does not support the
Department's goal to remove the dams. interest. However, conflicts can
occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic
competition, and intellectual passion.
I attest that I have no fiduciary ties or conflicts associated with
the Klamath River Secretarial decision process. I do not have any
financial relationships with Klamath River associated industry,
employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert
testimony, either directly or through immediate family. I am not an
author of any reports or the recipient of any research support
associated with the Klamath River. However, I do have personal impact
(loss of job) associated with accusation II, but have nothing to
directly gain or lose from the potential result of this accusation. I
also plan to submit an appeal for whistleblower protection with the
Merit System Protection Board (MSPB), and with the Office of Special
Council (OSC). My motivation for submitting this allegation is to
uphold the principles of scientific integrity and its code of conduct,
as is my responsibility as a practicing research scientist.
Cordially,
Dr. Paul R. Houser
Science Advisor & Scientific Integrity Officer
Bureau of Reclamation,
Washington D.C.
Associate Professor, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA