    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     EXAMINING MISCONDUCT AND INTIMIDATION
                     OF SCIENTISTS BY SENIOR DOE OFFICIALS

    =======================================================================

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT &
                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               September 21, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-94

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                 ________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     00-000 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2017
    ____________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
      Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         ZOE LOFGREN, California
        Wisconsin                        DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             ERIC SWALWELL, California
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             AMI BERA, California
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma            KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
    RANDY K. WEBER, Texas                DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan          ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
    STEVE KNIGHT, California             PAUL TONKO, New York
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   MARK TAKANO, California
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
    GARY PALMER, Alabama
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
    DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
                                     ------

                           Subcommittee on Oversight

                     HON. BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia, Chair
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         DON BEYER, Virginia
        Wisconsin                        ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
                                     ------

                             Subcommittee on Energy

                       HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              ERIC SWALWELL, California
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
    STEPHAN KNIGHT, California           ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia           EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

                                C O N T E N T S

                               September 21, 2016

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................     4
        Written Statement............................................     6

    Statement by Representative Don Beyer, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................     8
        Written Statement............................................    10

    Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    12
        Written Statement............................................    14

                                   Witnesses:

    Dr. Sharlene Weatherwax, Associate Director, Biological and
      Environmental Research, U.S. Department of Energy
        Oral Statement...............................................    16
        Written Statement............................................    19

    Dr. Noelle Metting, Radiation Biologist, U.S. Department of
      Energy
        Oral Statement...............................................    26
        Written Statement............................................    28

    Discussion.......................................................    75

                 Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record

    Statement submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   106

    Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
      Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
      U.S. House of Representatives..................................   109

    Document Submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   110

    Documents submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   118

    Document submitted by Representative Don S.Beyer, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................   127

    Report submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   139

    Document submitted by Representative Randy Weber, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................   178

                     EXAMINING MISCONDUCT AND INTIMIDATION

                     OF SCIENTISTS BY SENIOR DOE OFFICIALS

                                  ----------

                         WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                  Subcommittee on Oversight and
                        Subcommittee on Energy,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in
    Room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barry Loudermilk
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Loudermilk. The Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Energy will come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the subcommittee at any time.
        Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Examining Misconduct
    and Intimidation of Scientists by Senior DOE Officials.'' I now
    recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
        Good morning, and welcome to today's Oversight and Energy
    Subcommittee hearing examining the intimidation of scientists
    at the Department of Energy.
        Congressional oversight and authority to access information
    is a constitutional authority granted to Congress. Without open
    dialogue with the federal agencies, Congress cannot gather the
    information needed to effectively legislate. Today, we will
    examine a clear case of this committee's request for
    information directly related to the legislative process and the
    executive branch's actions to block Congressional access to
    federally funded research.
        Unfortunately, what we will learn at today's hearing is not
    an isolated incident. It fits a pattern of intentional
    misinformation from the Obama Administration officials, ranging
    from FDIC to NIST to EPA, and now the Department of Energy.
    While today's hearing is disturbing in many ways, I am most
    concerned with this incident because it appears that unelected
    DOE officials sought retribution against a DOE scientist simply
    for respecting the constitutional authority of Congress in
    order to advance political priorities.
        The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is the
    authorizing committee for scientific research and development.
    In order to fully inform the legislative process, committee
    staff must be able to engage in open discussions with federal
    researchers to fully understand the scope and value of existing
    programs. In fact, this open dialogue is protected in each
    annual appropriations act we pass in the House.
        Federal law prohibits department and agency officials from
    stifling communications with Congress and penalizes those who
    seek to silence federal employees by prohibiting the payment of
    their salaries by the U.S. Treasury. I would request unanimous
    consent that this provision of law be included in the record.
        [The appears in Appendix I]
        Chairman Loudermilk. Transparency from executive agencies
    is necessary to ensure Congress' ability to carry out our
    oversight and legislative responsibilities effectively. In this
    case, communications with DOE are central to the Committee's
    oversight of accountable use of taxpayer funds in scientific
    research. Sadly, it appears that politics has disrupted this
    important dialogue between Congress and the Department of
    Energy, and derailed important scientific research in the
    process.
        When DOE decided it wanted to redirect funds to support
    President Obama's Climate Action Plan, the Department
    sacrificed the Low Dose Radiation Research Program to achieve
    this goal. This program is the federal government's only
    program to investigate whether the types of radiation received
    by Americans every day are dangerous. This research is vital to
    understanding radiation doses to patients undergoing CT scans
    or PET scans, or the hazards of radiation to workers in the
    nuclear industry.
        The Low Dose Program is also crucial to understanding the
    effects of a dirty bomb or nuclear accident on potential
    victims, so it is a key research program to protecting our
    homeland. This is clearly science in the national interest.
        But when this committee took steps to specifically
    authorize this important research, DOE pushed back. When Dr.
    Noelle Metting, the DOE scientist in charge of this program,
    provided honest input on the merits of the Low Dose Program,
    she was subsequently fired by DOE senior management, all for
    the ``crime'' of working to conduct what is clearly important
    research and explaining that research to Congressional staff.
        I want to make absolutely clear that Congress is not
    directing the technical experts on how to specifically carry
    out research. Instead, Congress decides the broad priorities
    and policy goals, and makes sure that taxpayer funds are spent
    responsibly on research with the greatest potential, while DOE
    carries out research at Congressional direction. It is
    disappointing that DOE's senior management would attempt to
    usurp this process and silence a federal researcher to advance
    political goals in violation of appropriations laws.
        This Administration's bullying and intimidation must stop.
    I hope at today's hearing we will get to the bottom of the
    intimidation, deception, and misinformation conducted by the
    DOE officials for political priorities.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Loudermilk follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Loudermilk. I now recognize the Ranking Member,
    the gentleman from Virginia, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And later
    on, I'm sure we'll have a chance to distinguish between
    political priorities and scientific priorities because they are
    different.
        I want to thank the Chairmen Loudermilk and Weber for
    today's hearing and thank you, Doctors, for testifying.
        In February this year, the Science Committee began
    investigating the Department of Energy's attempt to stop
    funding the Low Dose Radiation Research Program and the related
    personnel action that resulted in the removal of longtime
    Program Manager Dr. Noelle Metting.
        As a businessman, as a former Ambassador, as someone who's
    been involved in transition of federal agencies and for
    presidential elections, I think I know what good and bad
    management looks like. I also represent many federal employees,
    and they often call my office when they see evidence of
    mismanagement or are treated poorly or unfairly themselves.
        From everything I know, it seems to me that in this
    instance the Department of Energy was a bit overzealous in the
    removal of Dr. Metting and badly mishandled this case. This all
    stems from a briefing October of 2014 requested by a majority
    staff member, and I'd like to note that the Democratic
    committee staff members were not present, nor were they invited
    to the meetings so we can't attest firsthand to what actually
    happened. We can only rely on the accounts given during the
    formal transcribed interviews with only two of the four DOE
    officials that were present.
        On that note, I'm disappointed that yet another
    investigation by the committee's majority appears incomplete.
    To my knowledge, the committee's majority never formally
    interviewed Dr. Metting or the other DOE staff member who was
    present during the October incident. And, in addition, Dr.
    Weatherwax, who is also testifying today, was not even present
    for the meeting or post-meeting discussion that resulted in the
    removal of Dr. Metting. So good luck today, Dr. Weatherwax.
        While I don't believe that Dr. Metting's actions at the
    briefing should be characterized as that of a whistleblower, I
    do strongly support the right of federal employees to petition
    their government and speak openly about their work without fear
    of retaliation. As a federal employee, Dr. Metting should have
    felt unbridled in her answers to and interactions with
    Congressional staff.
        I certainly know as a sometime boss and manager I always
    want to hear all sides of an issue, yes and no, to make good
    decisions. I would strongly recommend that the Department take
    a closer look at how they handle situations like the one we're
    talking about today.
        On that point, the scientific integrity policy that the
    Department released in 2012 could certainly use a second look
    or potentially an update. The policy leaves gray areas that can
    create confusion and misunderstanding, and relative to other
    executive agency branches, DOE's scientific integrity policy is
    not nearly as robust. Agencies like the Department of Interior,
    NASA, NOAA have led the way in this effort. And given the
    quality and the quantity of scientific research at DOE, I'd
    really expect more from DOE leadership on this front.
        I also look forward to learning more about the future of
    low dose radiation research today. I'd urge the Department to
    be more clear with Congress about their intentions and
    rationale for changes in research priorities to make sure
    they're based on science and not, as our Chair suggested, on
    politics.
        There's been a general lack of communication from DOE on
    these particular research activities involving low dose
    radiation research. I hope we can avoid similar occurrences in
    the future. The clearer the communication early on, the better
    off.
        Before I conclude, I'd also like to add that I find this
    halfhearted investigation especially ironic, given that the
    committee's majority is engaged in clear intimidation of
    government scientists that are conducting client change
    research at NOAA, including a issuing a subpoena to NOAA
    Administrator and former astronaut Dr. Kathryn Sullivan for
    emails of the scientists all because the majority disagreed
    with the results of a twice peer-reviewed scientific study.
        And I'd point out that I don't believe the majority has
    ever produced a shred of evidence that would have justified the
    subpoena, although they made numerous unsubstantiated
    allegations of scientific misconduct by NOAA scientists.
        I think if we're going to talk about chilling effects on
    scientists, we need to look across the complete board.
        I think we can all agree that all scientists--government,
    academia, private sector--should be free of undue influence, be
    it politics or profit. Our policy decisions should be guided by
    our research by our world-class scientists. When they speak
    loudly in unison, we should listen. I don't think that's always
    been the case in this Congress or on this committee.
        Lastly, this incident highlights the necessity of basic due
    process requirements, appeals, and federal employee
    protections, as well as the right of federal employees to have
    the right to union representation. If my friends on the
    majority are sincere about their concern for federal employees,
    and I hope they are, I'd encourage them to keep this hearing in
    mind next time Congress considers legislation intended to erode
    due process and collective bargaining rights for federal
    employees.
         My dad spent a year in Eniwetok 1956, '57, as provost
    marshal when they were testing nuclear weapons, so I'm very
    interested in what the impact of low-dose radiation is because
    he's only 92-1/2 right now.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Beyer follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. And for the
    record, I agree with you. It is very important that we have the
    true testimony from the others that were in that meeting. And
    for the record, this committee did invite Dr. Julie Carruthers
    and Dr. Todd Anderson, who were present during the briefing
    October 16, 2014, but the Department of Energy chose not to
    provide those witnesses for today's hearing.
        At this point I'd like to recognize the Chairman of the
    Subcommittee on Energy, Mr. Weber, for his opening statement.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
        And good morning. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    Energy, I have spent this Congress focusing on basic research
    that can benefit our nation by enabling technology
    breakthroughs.
        Throughout its history, the Department of Energy (DOE) has
    conducted research in support of nuclear energy and nuclear
    weapons complex. It has also explored the impact of radiation
    so that our nation's researchers, industry, and military can
    safely handle nuclear material--I bet you're all about that,
    Dr. Metting--also maintain the nation's nuclear weapons
    program, and dispose of that same nuclear waste. In my opinion
    not only good energy policy but good national security policy
    that the Chairman alluded to. This use-inspired basic research
    leads to scientific discoveries and long-term benefits for the
    energy industry and for our national defense.
        Today, we will examine the Department's decision to
    terminate the Low Dose Radiation Research Program, and may I
    add the only federal program currently conducting research in
    this area.
        This program does three things. It provides research that
    can inform authorities setting nuclear safety standards for the
    public. Low dose research can also provide, number two, new
    data to enable federal emergency response agencies to more
    accurately set evacuation zones from radiological incidents.
    And number three, it provides research to enable practicing
    physicians to decide when and how to use diagnostics to detect
    cancer in patients. The research conducted in the Low Dose
    Program can also facilitate, I guess a fourth thing, medical
    research efforts to even combat cancer. Other than that, the
    research is really not useful.
        I'm being facetious obviously. When DOE chose to close down
    the Low Dose Program, this committee began to examine this
    research program. Why was that? Committee staff contacted DOE
    specifically to hear from technical experts about the broad
    impact of this basic research program and the potential value
    this research could yield for domestic energy, medical
    discovery, and national security to put it in a nutshell. And
    as this committee took steps to authorize the Low Dose Program
    through the legislative process, we relied on these open
    conversations with DOE researchers to draft legislation that
    would prioritize this important research and responsibly invest
    American tax dollars.
        These kinds of frank discussions between researchers and
    Congressional staff are absolutely vital in this legislative
    process. Members of Congress must be able to trust that the
    information they receive from DOE is nonpartisan and, quite
    frankly, is delivered without political bias. Congress must get
    access to these facts. We have to make good policy. There's no
    way around that.
        Unfortunately, the Department violated Congressional trust
    by attempting to censor information provided to committee
    staff. And what's worse, a DOE scientist was punished for
    speaking to Congress. That is simply unacceptable.
        Congress must be able to expect a high standard of
    accountability and honesty from federal agencies to effectively
    legislate and fulfill our constitutional duty to the public.
    When scientists get fired for speaking honestly about their
    work, it is clear that politics are negatively impacting the
    work of Congress and stifling public dialogue, not to mention
    stifling research in those key areas that I alluded to.
        I want to thank our witnesses for testifying today,
    particularly Dr. Metting for being willing to share her
    unfortunate experience with the committee. I hope that by
    exposing DOE's misconduct in this case, we can prevent this
    kind of inappropriate action in the future and preserve
    scientific integrity and transparency at the Department.
    American taxpayers deserve nothing less.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Loudermilk. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
        And now, I'd like to introduce our witnesses. Our first
    witness today is Dr. Sharlene Weatherwax, Associate Director
    for Biological Environmental Research at the U.S. Department of
    Energy. She has previously served in a number of different
    positions within the DOE, including as the Division Director
    and Program Manager for the Biological System Science Division
    of the Office of Biological and Environmental Research, and
    Program Manager in the Office of Basic Energy Sciences.
        Dr. Weatherwax received her bachelor of science in
    biochemistry from the University of California at Los Angeles
    and her Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of California
    at Berkeley.
        Our final witness today is Dr. Noelle Metting, Radiation
    Biologist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of
    Environment, Health, Safety, and Security within the Office of
    Public Radiation Protection. Dr. Metting previously worked in
    the DOE's Office of Science, Office of Biological and
    Environmental Research where she managed the DOE's Low Dose
    Radiation Program. In addition, she worked for 20 years as a
    laboratory research scientist at Pacific Northwest National
    Laboratory.
        Dr. Metting received her master's degree in radiological
    sciences from the University of Washington and her doctor of
    science in cancer biology from Harvard.
        I now recognize Dr. Weatherwax for five minutes present her
    testimony.

                 TESTIMONY OF DR. SHARLENE WEATHERWAX,

                          ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH,

                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Dr. Weatherwax. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members, and Members
    of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
    before you today to discuss the Department of Energy's Low Dose
    Radiation Research Program and the decision to end the program
    in fiscal year 2016.
        My name is Dr. Sharlene Weatherwax, and I'm the Associate
    Director for Science and Biological and Environmental Research,
    or BER, in DOE's Office of Science. I have earned my Ph.D. in
    biochemistry from the University of California at Berkeley, and
    I have research expertise in microbial enzymology and plant
    molecular biology.
        I joined the Department of Energy in 2001 as a career
    federal employee and--first as a Program Manager for the Office
    of Basic Energy Sciences and then in BER. I rose to the Senior
    Executive Service position of Biological System Science
    Division Director in 2008 and became the Associate Director for
    BER in 2011. I am responsible for strategic program planning,
    budget formulation and execution, and coordination with other
    DOE program offices and other federal agencies.
        BER supports fundamental research in scientific user
    facilities to support DOE's energy, environment, and basic
    research missions, drawing upon the scientific expertise of
    researchers at academic and industrial institutions and the DOE
    national labs.
        The BER Biological Systems Science Division supports a
    diverse portfolio of fundamental research and technology
    development, serving as the basis for the competent redesign of
    microbes and plants for sustainable biofuel production,
    improved carbon storage, and controlled biological
    transformation of materials such as nutrient and contaminants
    in the environment.
        There is a very competitive environment for funding within
    BER with exciting new scientific opportunities due to the
    rapidly changing nature of biological science. Since completion
    of the human genome sequence in 2003, the genome sequencing and
    analysis tools at the DOE's Joint Genome Institute have enabled
    BER's Genomic Science Program to be at the forefront of
    developing the scientific basis for translating genetic parts
    list for plants and microorganisms into scientific knowledge
    about biological system functions.
        This research is exemplified in the Bioenergy Research
    Centers, which were started 2007. The centers continue to
    produce the innovative science needed to foster production of
    fuels and chemicals from renewable biomass and are working to
    translate these basic science results to practical outcomes for
    industry and society.
        BER is also at the forefront of deciphering the underlying
    principles of genomic expression in order to design new
    biological functions. With continued understanding of the
    genomic potential of plants and microbes comes the ability to
    manipulate and design new pathways into plants and microbes
    work. Biosystem design concepts are at the heart of the ongoing
    biotechnology revolution and key to maintaining international
    leadership.
        In addition to these major efforts in bioenergy-related
    research, BER has managed a basic research program in low-dose
    radiation research since 1998. Over the past 18 years, the
    program has provided new type technological advances and
    fundamental scientific understanding of the mechanisms cells
    use to sense, repair, and adapt the impacts of low-dose
    radiation. Research investigations have included a number of
    critical biological phenomena induced by low-dose exposure,
    including adaptive response, bystander effects, genomic
    instability, and genetic susceptibility.
        The program was not intended to address regulatory policy
    but rather to advance the fundamental science of radiation
    impacts on biological processes. To date there are no studies
    that have been able to establish with sufficient certainty a
    threshold level of radiation below which the risk for cancer is
    zero despite decades of research in this area. Any changes to
    the current protection standards would require strong and
    compelling evidence that a higher amount of radiation exposure
    is safe.
        The low-dose--the DOE Low Dose Radiation Research Program
    is ending in fiscal year 2016 as BER's biology portfolio
    continues to shift more towards bioenergy, biodesign, and
    environmental microbiology research missions. Funding levels
    have been steadily decreasing since 2012 with $1 million
    appropriated to complete the program in fiscal year 2016.
        The total amount of appropriated funding that the DOE
    Office of Science has devoted to the Low Dose Research from its
    inception is over a quarter of $1 billion, and the program
    outcomes and data are available to the community and other
    interested agencies through peer-reviewed scientific
    publications.
        Biology is rapidly transforming to a more quantitative and
    predictive science, and the BER biology portfolio continues to
    extend its genome science efforts to plants and microbes to
    develop the fundamental scientific understanding needed for
    solutions to energy challenges of the future.
        Thank you for inviting me to speak about the Low Dose
    Radiation Research Program. I look forward to answering the
    committee's questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Weatherwax follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Loudermilk. I now recognize Dr. Metting for five
    minutes.

                    TESTIMONY OF DR. NOELLE METTING,

                          RADIATION BIOLOGIST,

                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Dr. Metting. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members,
    and other Members of the Subcommittees on Energy and Oversight.
    Thank you for this opportunity to testify at the hearing this
    morning.
        I'm a scientist, a radiation biologist currently working
    for the Department of Energy Office of Environment, Health,
    Safety, and Security. I'm actually on detail from DOE's Office
    of Science and BER where from the year 2000 until December of
    2014 I had, among other duties, been tasked with managing DOE's
    Low Dose Radiation Research Program.
        Over the previous 20 years, I was a laboratory research
    scientist, an experimentalist working in Pacific West--
    Northwest National Lab. I have a master's of science from the
    University of Washington and a doctor of science from Harvard
    University.
        In my remarks today I will share my personal experience of
    being fired by DOE and suffering long months of unemployment
    that occurred as a direct outcome of my participation in a
    briefing for Congressional staff.
        In a nutshell, the circumstances surrounding this
    intimidation and retaliation are these: Congressional staffers
    requested an overview of the Low Dose Program so my immediate
    supervisor, Dr. Todd Anderson, asked me to prepare a PowerPoint
    presentation. It was duly reviewed, amended, and finalized.
        In a pre-briefing meeting attended by myself and Drs.
    Anderson, Carruthers, and Huerta, it was decided that for the
    Congressional staff briefing I would present my slides and
    handouts and respond only to the scientific questions, while
    Drs. Anderson and Carruthers would handle the budget and policy
    issues.
        During the Congressional briefing the following day on
    October 16, I presented the agreed-upon material and answered
    accurately the many scientific missions directed to me by House
    staff member Dr. Aaron Weston and Senate fellow Dr. Ron
    Faibish. The staffers were very knowledgeable in the science,
    their questions thorough and comprehensive, showing real
    interest in the subject. In fact, this deep knowledge was
    unexpected by all of us.
        After the briefing ended and the Hill staff had left, Dr.
    Carruthers accused me of advocating and lobbying for the
    program and of being too enthusiastic about research results. I
    was shocked. During the briefing, I had answered all the
    questions based on my knowledge as a scientific subject matter
    expert, all the questions based on--with no intention of
    lobbying for the program itself. My only motivation was to
    fully and truthfully inform Congress about the state of DOE's
    Low Dose program research.
        Drs. Carruthers and Anderson repeatedly accused me of
    lobbying. Confronted with this unwarranted and unjustified
    onslaught, I reminded them that they had already--that they
    already knew I disagreed with their plan to end support of the
    program. I also mentioned my concern as to how SC management
    had handled a specific Congressional directive to designate an
    extra $16 million to the fiscal year 2012 budget for Fukushima-
    related low-dose research.
        Thus began an unjust and painful saga of unrelenting
    intimidation. In just over one uncomfortable month--week after
    the briefing--one uncomfortable week Dr. Anderson removed me as
    Manager of the Low Dose Program and detailed me to unclassified
    duties. My management obviously did not want me answering any
    more questions, scientific or--the questions about the Low Dose
    Program.
        A month later on December 4, 2014, a notice of proposed
    removal was issued, charging me with insubordinate defiance of
    authority and inappropriate workplace communication. I was put
    immediately on administrative leave, subsequently denied access
    to the contents of my former office. There followed a very long
    period of stressful activity at my home, alone during the usual
    workweek, cut off from my peers, trying to build a defense to
    the charges, guided by my NTEU representative.
        In early January, I filed a disclosure and complaint with
    the Office of Special Counsel regarding the $16 million budget
    directive, also sending information to DOE's Inspector General.
    Five months later, a final decision of removal was issued by
    the deciding official Dr. Steven Binkley and effective May 16
    of 2015.
        I'm sorry I'm going over. Shall I continue?
        On the next business day, Dr. Sharlene Weatherwax,
    Associate Director of BER, was seen rolling a dumpster to my
    old office, and thus began or perhaps continued the removal of
    the contents, including irreplaceable hardcopy notes, files,
    and documents and some of my personal possessions. You may now
    appreciate that intimidation and retaliation in this case is
    somewhat self-evident.
        It's revealing that after an appeal to the Merit Systems
    Protection Board and just before the appeal hearing started,
    DOE reached settlement with me. I'm currently employed but feel
    there's continuing intimidation of scientists.
        To this day I've not been granted the right to inspect
    remaining materials from my old office or to retrieve missing
    personal items.
        I suggest it's unacceptable that scientists are put under
    pressure to espouse views that are not their own and that
    federal scientists are persecuted for presenting accurate
    information, professional opinion to those charged with
    providing funds for this research.
        Now, in my written testimony I have a lot of information,
    timeline, and information about the Low Dose Program.
        Thank you for inviting me to share this experience.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Metting follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Loudermilk. And thank you, Dr. Metting. I now
    recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
        Dr. Metting, I appreciate your testimony. In your
    testimony, as well as your written testimony, I believe you
    stated that when you were confronted by the Department of
    Energy management that they accused you of lobbying on behalf
    of the program, is that correct?
        Dr. Metting. Yes.
        Chairman Loudermilk. Okay. Thank you.
        Dr. Weatherwax, was one of your goals for the October 16,
    2014, briefing with the Congressional staff to dissuade the
    Senate from offering a companion bill to the House bill?
        Dr. Weatherwax. Chairman Loudermilk, I had no explicit
    goals for the briefing other than to provide information that
    was requested at the briefing. The briefing--I did not
    personally attend the briefing.
        Chairman Loudermilk. So if the intention would have been to
    dissuade the Senate from introducing their own bill, then would
    you consider that a form of lobbying?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I am not aware of the official definition
    of lobbying, but since I had no intention of doing any of that
    activity, I can't really answer to it.
        Chairman Loudermilk. Well, someone in the DOE must know
    what the official definition of lobbying is since they accused
    Dr. Metting of doing the same.
        Could we bring up the slide, please?
        [Slide.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Loudermilk. Dr. Weatherwax, in this email from you
    to Todd Anderson to whom I understand--and according to Dr.
    Metting's testimony--was the one that you preferred to speak to
    the Congressional staff. In this email you directed Dr.
    Anderson to conduct the briefing so that he would dissuade the
    Senate from offering their own bill with regard to low-dose
    radiation research.
        Now, that seems contrary to what you just told me in
    answering that question. In fact, the email says, ``That's why
    you need to brief the Senate folks so they don't develop their
    own bill. These are technically different staffers than the
    ones who introduced the bill. Yes, when it was officially
    introduced, it had sponsors.''
        Can you explain the purpose of this email if it wasn't to
    lobby Congress to do something?
        Dr. Weatherwax. So in the body of the email the question
    arises around a House bill, so my understanding is that the
    briefing was designed to inform the staffers about the Low Dose
    Radiation Program in general. So my understanding is that
    scientific issues are presented by the Program Manager, but the
    responsibilities of the Division Director, who was Dr.
    Anderson, are to communicate the strategic direction and the
    portfolio balance that he has developed so----
        Chairman Loudermilk. Well, I appreciate that but that is
    not what the text of the email says. The text of the email
    says, ``That's why you need to brief the Senate folks so they
    don't develop their own bill.''
        Dr. Weatherwax. So since it's Dr. Anderson's responsibility
    to communicate what is in his portfolio and to convey the
    program priorities that he has balanced for all of the
    competing scientific opportunities, his job was to present that
    to House and Senate so that they can see how he arrived at his
    conclusions for presenting his particular portfolio.
        Chairman Loudermilk. Okay. I'd like to go to Dr. Metting
    now. And I think it's clear that--and I think that's why you're
    having a hard time answering the question is that this was
    indeed an intention of going and persuading Congress to do
    something, which is a practical definition of lobbying, which
    Dr. Metting was fired for doing. I think there's some hypocrisy
    here.
        Dr. Metting, is the narrative that Dr. Weatherwax
    instructed Dr. Anderson to lobby against H.R. 5544 consistent
    with your memory of how the briefing went?
        Dr. Metting. Actually, the briefing--it wasn't. It wasn't
    because I believe that my management--and Todd is my--Todd
    Anderson is my manager and with the help of Dr. Carruthers, I
    think they were trying to inform--they were trying to lobby
    against this bill itself. They were trying to--they told me
    to----
        Chairman Loudermilk. Okay. To make clear that you were
    directed to basically lobby against the Senate introducing
    their own bill? Are we clear? Or that was the intention?
        Dr. Metting. Actually, I don't think anything was mentioned
    to me about the Senate in any way. I was told that I would be
    doing the science and that's it, but I was told in the pre-
    briefing that we are against this bill and we don't want this
    bill to pass.
        Chairman Loudermilk. So as you stated in your testimony
    that the result of you being released--or fired was that you
    honestly answered the questions by the staff, which you said
    you were impressed that they had the knowledge they had, and
    you were not lobbying to--or you--they felt you were lobbying
    to keep the program just because you were answering the
    questions honestly?
        Dr. Metting. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was only answering
    the questions.
        Chairman Loudermilk. Dr. Weatherwax, Congress relies on
    briefings with federal agencies and in particular a scientist
    like Dr. Metting to provide candid technical expertise on
    matters. Would you agree with that?
        Dr. Weatherwax. Yes.
        Chairman Loudermilk. It also seems that when it came to a
    briefing on the Low Dose Radiation Research project you viewed
    this briefing not as an attempt to inform Congress with
    technical expertise but an attempt to prevent legislation. Is
    that accurate?
        Dr. Weatherwax. As I stated previously, our intent was to
    provide information about how we develop our budget priorities
    to balance the program portfolio that includes many broad
    elements of which the low-dose radiation research is one. So we
    were there to provide a full accounting of all of the science
    that's presented so that Congress can make its own
    determinations about how we come to our decisions.
        Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you. And I have exceeded my
    time. I apologize, members of the committee, but I'll extend
    that same latitude to the other members because I was not very
    well in managing my own time.
        I now recognize Mr. Beyer.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Over 40 years of managing employees, I've had the
    unfortunate responsibility of sometimes having to fire people.
    Rarely though do I fire people on the spot. It's usually--on
    the spot it tends to be because they just got into a fistfight
    with somebody or were caught lying outright to a customer.
        So, Dr. Metting, we've heard a lot about your firing. Is it
    your sense that you were removed because you were advocating
    for a program that you lead for more than ten years or were you
    removed because of ``insubordinate defiance of authority,''
    that you were argumentative, that you called their actions
    idiotic? Was it basically because you disagreed with them on
    the science or because they saw you as unmanageable?
        Dr. Metting. I--at the time I thought that they were
    actually reacting to the $16 million question that I talked to
    them with after the briefing, but I also knew that they were
    very upset with me talking about the science in the briefing
    itself, which was a wonderful--actually a good opportunity to
    talk about the program and I was--that's why I was just very
    surprised when they were upset about that. That was not
    lobbying. That was talking to the science.
        Mr. Beyer. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Weatherwax, it's hard for
    us it--for any of us here to know what happened in that
    briefing after the fact. We have the transcripts and stuff, but
    I'm curious to know what you and others took at DOE to help
    mediate this and resolve the tensions between Dr. Metting and
    Dr. Anderson and other DOE employees.
        You know, it's a big step to take someone out of a career
    they've devoted a significant part of their life to. So did you
    seek mediation? Was there anything else that attempted to
    resolve the bad blood between Dr. Metting and the other folks
    at DOE?
        Dr. Weatherwax. So, Congressman Beyer, so the process works
    to actually defend the rights of the employee and also the
    interests of the Department. And in this case, the supervisor,
    Dr. Todd Anderson, submitted the proposal to remove Dr.
    Metting. So he issued the proposal. At that point, it was
    deemed that it had to go for human resources to actually advise
    on what the process--what the next steps would be, and so we
    followed the process at the Department, which is that the
    proposing official submits some kind of request and then the
    human resources and general counsel provide advice as to
    whether or not there are sufficient grounds to take any action,
    any kind of personnel action.
        And so in this case it's a process as with all personnel
    actions is that it has to be then handed over to HR and GC, and
    at that point if they feel that it's--there is sufficient
    grounds to warrant further action, then the process--the entire
    matter goes to the deciding official, who is a neutral third
    party.
        Mr. Beyer. Well, let me simplify. Does it seem to you in
    retrospect that it's an overreaction to fire somebody for
    advocating for a program that she spent perhaps 14 years of her
    life working on?
        Dr. Weatherwax. So I believe that the proposal to dismiss
    Dr. Metting enumerated a number of issues, and some of those
    issues obviously--there are a number of those issues which are
    not related at all to the briefing. And so I think that that
    was something then that the process had to look at, and that's
    what the deciding official was viewing. And so I feel it's not
    my position to make the determination of what course of action
    should be taken on something that is so serious, and so we
    relied on HR to advise us.
        Mr. Beyer. So who was the deciding official?
        Dr. Weatherwax. In this case the deciding official was Dr.
    Steve Binkley. He's another Associate Director in the Office of
    Science. He manages the Advanced Scientific Computing Research
    Office.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Dr. Metting, prior to October 2014,
    had you ever been disciplined or reprimanded by your
    supervisors at DOE?
        Dr. Metting. Mr. Congressman, actually never. I have never
    had anything written against me or had any disciplinary action
    neither at the--at--as a fed or----
        Mr. Beyer. So was the first time in your career then that
    any supervisor had sought to reprimand or punish you?
        Dr. Metting. Oh, yes. That's the first time. I was shocked.
        Mr. Beyer. Do you feel your actions immediately after the
    briefing, that heated exchange, were appropriate?
        Dr. Metting. The heated exchange was in response to what
    they were saying, and after Dr. Anderson had raised his voice
    and then we--it was--there was actually some scientific content
    there. We were actually talking about the use of the--you know,
    of science in BER, so it was under the rubric of a scientific
    exchange after everyone was gone in the privacy of the--of BER
    really.
        And it was--I was--I really actually feel like I was
    goaded, and I did say that I thought the--I thought their
    decision was idiotic on there and I was--I was also not--I
    didn't like the way some of the questions were in the briefing
    itself. The question of--well, actually, Dr. Carruthers brought
    up the fact that DOE does not have regulatory--does not set
    regulatory standards and that was not true. And so I did
    correct that in a--kind of a collegial fashion, and I think
    that was what Dr. Carruthers was reacting to at the--after the
    briefing in the post-briefing.
        Mr. Beyer. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
        I now recognize the fine gentleman from the great state of
    Texas, Mr. Weber.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Weatherwax, you stated in your discussion with Chairman
    Loudermilk that you didn't go there to lobby, you were--you
    didn't go there at all to the meeting but that you felt like
    your intent was to actually impart the scientific facts. And in
    your opening statement, in your testimony you went through a
    litany of scientific facts.
        But let me ask you this. At what point did you become aware
    of the fact that there--this was indeed--there was a lobbying
    attempt going on, to use the term ``subtly yet firmly''
    dissuade the Senate from filing their companion bill? When did
    you become aware of that?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I can't recall when I became aware of any--
    --
        Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, let me help you with that. It----
        Dr. Weatherwax. --lobby.
        Mr. Weber. Let me help you with that. On your email--can we
    put the email back up on the slide?
        [Slide.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Weber. It says--Dr. Carruthers writes--and this is, by
    the way, October the 4th, 2014. That's the exact date. ``I
    think this is an opportunity to subtly yet firmly let the
    Senate know'' blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So you did become
    aware on October the--you knew at least before October the 4th,
    2014, or on that date that there was this effort going on. Is
    that accurate?
        Dr. Weatherwax. So, yes, I obviously knew----
        Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, let me move on.
        Dr. Weatherwax. But I don't see the word ``lobby.''
        Mr. Weber. Let me move on. Well, to let the Senate firmly
    know, I mean that is the definition, as our Chairman pointed
    out. Dr. Metting had said she--in the pre-briefing she had been
    informed of some things. Did you attend any kind of pre-
    briefing?
        Dr. Weatherwax. No.
        Mr. Weber. Did you have emails about the pre-briefing?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I might have been copied on them, but I
    don't recall actually engaging----
        Mr. Weber. So if we sent you a request for more emails
    about this briefing, you could find this for us?
        Dr. Weatherwax. Of course. If you inquired about any
    emails, we would provide them.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, let me do it this way then. Why was
    it thought that Dr. Anderson was better on staying on message
    in this particular instance? Do you have any knowledge of that,
    email written communication as to why Dr. Anderson needed to be
    chosen?
        Dr. Weatherwax. So typically, when we have briefings to
    Congressional staff, it is the Division Director who usually
    attends. And so in this case the Division Director is more
    experienced.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. That's what I need. So if he's more--and
    if he can stay on message, particularly if the message is to
    subtly yet firmly--to use the email's terminology--basically
    lobby the Senate against filing the companion bill, he was the
    logical choice?
        Dr. Weatherwax. So he's the appropriate choice to convey
    what our program priorities are.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. It's my understanding committee staff
    meets with technical experts all the time. Our gentlemen over
    here on the other side of the aisle said it was unusual or the
    Democrats weren't--but I'm sure that they've met with
    committee--their staff has met with technical experts, too. In
    your opinion is Congress entitled to the opinion of experts or
    just the ones that maybe Dr. Todd Anderson and the others in
    this instance agree with? Are we entitled to the opinions of
    experts or just the ones that you all agree with?
        Dr. Weatherwax. Congress is entitled to what they ask for.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. So you would agree with me, then, that
    this lobbying effort--apparent lobbying effort to subtly yet
    firmly dissuade the Senate was inappropriate?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I don't believe that's what my statement
    says.
        Mr. Weber. Well, I wasn't asking you about your statement,
    Dr. Weatherwax. I'm asking you about what occurred in the email
    and your obvious apparent attempt to convince the Senate--
    dissuade them from not filing their companion bill. That is
    lobbying in its truest form. Do you think that's inappropriate?
        Dr. Weatherwax. So since I never actually said that Dr.
    Anderson should lobby, his job is to provide----
        Mr. Weber. But that's--I didn't ask--that's not my
    question. My question is this attempt to subtly yet firmly
    influence the Senate, is that not improper to you? Yes or no?
        Dr. Weatherwax. Dr. Anderson was there to convey the
    overall program priorities.
        Mr. Weber. You're not going to answer the question. I'm
    going to move on.
        Dr. Weatherwax, it appears that you and other DOE officials
    wanted to ensure that Congress would not receive information
    about the Low Dose Radiation Program in an attempt to prevent
    legislation, and thus, that's the subject hearing matter for
    this hearing. Is that accurate to say? It at least appears that
    you all wanted to dissuade this Congress from getting--Senate
    particularly from getting that information. Would you agree
    that it appears that way?
        Dr. Weatherwax. The Senate--if the Senate asked us to
    provide information, we provided the briefing.
        Mr. Weber. Well, according to this, you have to have
    someone staying on message to subtly yet firmly let the Senate
    know. You did read that in the email, I take--you do read your
    emails?
        Dr. Weatherwax. Yes, sir, I do.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. That did not raise a red flag for you?
        Dr. Weatherwax. If the intent is to provide information
    about the science, we did not interfere with that whatsoever.
        Mr. Weber. All right. Let me do it this way real quick. On
    your testimony--you referred to your testimony on page one. You
    say competitive funding on their BER--I'm going from memory
    now--programs. Was is so competitive that it seemed to justify
    an attempt to lobby the Senate not to file a companion bill and
    in order to direct that funding that Congress was seeking to
    establish? Is it that competitive?
        Dr. Weatherwax. It is a very highly competitive funding----
        Mr. Weber. So it sounds like that you all might have
    thought it was justifiable. I get that. And then on page three
    you go into the technical stuff and you say that a lot of the
    things that you all do is to ``provide an analysis'' and then
    you list some groups that can draw their own conclusions. And I
    won't go through it and bore you. It's on page three if you
    want to read it.
        So my question is should Congress be allowed to draw
    conclusions as well?
        Dr. Weatherwax. Of course.
        Mr. Weber. So you admit that. And so--but you don't say
    that the attempt to subtly yet firmly dissuade the Senate was a
    contravention of that idea that they can draw their own
    conclusions?
        Dr. Weatherwax. No.
        Mr. Weber. Wow. Okay. Very good. Let me go to you very
    quickly, Dr. Metting. You said that somebody was your boss.
    ``Todd Anderson is my manager.'' Is that still true today?
        Dr. Metting. Well, he's not supervising me today. I'll just
    say that I'm still a member on--of BER in Todd's--in Dr.
    Anderson's division----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Dr. Metting. --but I am on detail with the Office of
    Environment, Health, and Safety.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. And you still as of this date have not
    been able--allowed to get your personal effects back?
        Dr. Metting. No, not at all. When I--the second day after I
    got back--actually finally got back to DOE I asked--I called up
    BER. I was calling Kathy Holmes, Dr. Weatherwax's admin person,
    to see if I could go--come in finally and get my things.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. And I don't mean to pry but do you have
    grandchildren?
        Dr. Metting. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Weber. Were there pictures of your grandchildren
    included in that?
        Dr. Metting. There could have been some pictures. There
    could have been so----
        Mr. Weber. Yes. Yes. Okay. So you mentioned that somebody
    was seen pushing a dumpster into your office to get rid of this
    stuff. And who was that?
        Dr. Metting. I'm sorry, that--I have to admit it's hearsay
    but I have the email from a colleague----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Dr. Metting. --in BER who watched my Associate Director
    actually personally pushing a dumpster----
        Mr. Weber. Is it the norm that they push around these
    dumpsters and do these kinds of things?
        Dr. Metting. I have never heard of such a thing.
        Mr. Weber. No? Okay. Thank you, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Loudermilk. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
        I find it very interesting that the statement was that it
    was appropriate for Dr. Anderson to brief Congressional staff,
    but the DOE did not find it appropriate for Dr. Anderson to be
    here for the Full Committee.
        At this point I'd like to recognize the gentleman from
    California, Mr. Rohrabacher, five minutes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. And so you do have
    grandchildren? You know, I have children and I got married
    later on in life and one of my daughters has had some health
    problems. And I just want you to know that this research on
    low-dose radiation is vital to a lot of people's grandchildren
    and children, including my daughter. And I thank you for your
    dedication to finding out about this issue because it is just
    essential for the health of so many people. And thank you very
    much for--my daughter had leukemia so we know what that's
    about.
        And I am very, very honored and pleased that we have
    someone like yourself that is going to withstand pressure to go
    beyond your scientific responsibilities but to basically try to
    achieve a political end, meaning that they--trying to stop
    someone from achieving a political end by compromising your
    scientific commitment because that's what it sounds like to me.
        And what this whole thing sounds like, Mr. Chairman, to me
    is that what we have here is an example of where scientists are
    feeling, at least in the Department of Energy and this Office
    of Science are feeling that they have to go in a certain
    direction in order to placate the--basically the priority of
    the Administration and--which obviously did not--was not
    holding low-dose radiation research as a priority.
        I am a cosponsor of the legislation that would have
    basically formalized that the money being spent--this money
    that's being spent be spent there in the Department of Science
    on low-dose radiation research.
        Dr. Weatherwax, could you tell me, do you agree that those
    of us who are elected officials have the right to have those
    kind of--set those type of priorities with the spending--with
    money that's being spent on federal research?
        Dr. Weatherwax. Congress certainly has the right for----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. So we have the right----
        Dr. Weatherwax. --generating legislation.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And so we do and it's recognized, yet we
    have someone here who has dedicated her life to a specific
    research area that is being talked about now and she is being
    given direction beforehand as what direction her answers should
    be to the people who constitutionally have responsibility of
    making the decision.
        This type of--you know we hear all the time from our
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we because we
    have doubts about manmade CO2 warming the planet
    that we are politicizing science, and I will have to tell you
    my feeling here is what we've got is an example of politicizing
    science. Someone there in the Department in your Office of
    Science, although not a political appointee, feels compelled to
    try to placate the rest of the Department of Energy's
    commitment to global warming as being a manmade situation that
    they're going to--and that goes all the way down that--what I
    call fanaticism on the global warming issue is being felt the
    effects of that all the way down to this very honorable
    scientist who spent 14 years of her life trying to do something
    that would be important for her grandchildren and my children
    and children all over the United States.
        This is--and I realize that you're trying to be as honest
    with us as you can, but it also--quite frankly, your answers
    indicate to me that there's a lack of willingness to take on
    other people in the Department of Energy who would be upset if
    you said anything to back her up.
        And, Mr. Chairman, this type of politicization has impacts
    not only in our responsibility because what we're talking about
    now today is our responsibility as elected people in a
    democracy, the people elect someone to make major decisions as
    to how money will be spent. Not only does it undermine
    democracy, but in the end it hurts people. In the end this
    research, which we believed was vital, much more vital than
    proving that CO2 causes the earth to get warm, that
    we felt that that money should go to low-dose radiation
    research. And instead, someone in the Department of Science
    tried to pressure her so that we couldn't back up that concept
    that we have, that that scientific investigation is more
    important than spending it on manmade global warming.
        So with that said, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
    hearing, and I would like to compliment Dr. Metting for your
    courage, for your willingness to say the truth as you see it
    which is what all science has to be. And undermining that and
    having someone trying to tell you what you should emphasize and
    shouldn't emphasize in order to obtain a political goal, which
    is basically to influence the decision-makers who are elected
    to make the decision, you showed great courage and great
    patriotism. Thank you very much for being with us today.
        Dr. Metting. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
        Mr. Weber. [Presiding.] The Chair now recognizes
    Congressman Randy Neugebauer from also the great State of
    Texas.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Well, thank you, Chairman.
        Dr. Weatherwax, you're a scientist, is that correct?
        Dr. Weatherwax. That's correct.
        Mr. Neugebauer. At the Department of Energy?
        Dr. Weatherwax. Yes.
        Mr. Neugebauer. And so I think your title is Associate
    Director of Science for Biological and Environmental Research,
    is that correct?
        Dr. Weatherwax. That's correct.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Yes. So when you're doing research or
    investigations, are the facts important?
        Dr. Weatherwax. Yes.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Why are they important?
        Dr. Weatherwax. So scientific research is all predicated on
    obtaining facts. Facts obtained from experiments, often using
    controlled hypotheses, and collecting the facts helps us to
    refine our theories and then suggests further experiments.
        Mr. Neugebauer. So what if you were working on a scientific
    project and you were evaluating some previous projects that had
    been done, scientific research, and someone was directing you
    as to what science that you were able to view and precluded you
    from looking at, say, other experiments that had been done in
    the same area? Would that be productive to your work?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I don't think that typically that's how
    science is done so----
        Mr. Neugebauer. Well, no, but I mean answer the question.
    I'm not asking your opinion on how you think it's a done or
    not. Would that be productive to your scientific research?
        Dr. Weatherwax. No.
        Mr. Neugebauer. No. So if you're a Member of the United
    States Congress and you're trying to evaluate how we spend the
    taxpayers' money and what are the things that are in the best
    interest of the American people, wouldn't you think the facts
    are important?
        Dr. Weatherwax. Yes.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Now, you know, do you think your opinion on
    an issue should influence the facts that you're willing to
    share with me?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I--if you ask me for a fact, then I'll
    provide it. I don't think my opinion----
        Mr. Neugebauer. Yes. Yes.
        Dr. Weatherwax. --matters.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Well, that's what we asked for, and I think
    that's what we expect. And I think what members of this
    committee find very troubling is that there was an effort here
    that we had an oversight committee trying to, you know, do its
    job and then we had people within the Administration--and
    what's more troubling it's--I expect it from the
    Administration, but from professional scientists I don't expect
    that.
        And I think what's discouraging here is that we had
    professional scientists trying to filter or influence the
    information and how that was presented to the United States
    Congress. And, you know, I find that distasteful, and I also
    find it very unprofessional that you, from the scientific
    community, don't rely on the facts. It's important to have the
    facts because we're counting on you to--both in your research
    and in your investigations to make sure that, you know, we are
    doing everything we can to keep the American people healthy and
    safe and that this kind of behavior is counterproductive to
    that.
        And so I would say that I'm hopeful that this is not a
    pervasive culture within the Department of Energy or any other
    department of the United States Government. With that, Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Weber. I thank the gentleman.
        The gentlelady from California is now recognized for five
    minutes.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm sorry
    I'm late. The Judiciary Committee is having a hearing at the
    exact same time.
        You know, I want to explore how we can improve our
    scientific integrity policy at the agency. As you know, I'm
    sure the Union of Concerned Scientists has made an observation
    that the policy is rather short and it's just three pages. And
    although I think it hits all the high points, it--compared to
    the scientific integrity outlines of some other agencies, you
    know, it's on the short side.
        And I'm wondering how we might move forward and use this
    observation as a way to further improve the agency and whether
    you have comments on that, either one of you?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I can't comment on how the Department has
    developed the scientific integrity policy, but I can certainly
    say that as a scientist and the daughter of a scientist who
    worked on the space missions, I certainly agree that scientific
    integrity is important.
        Dr. Metting. I'm just a scientist. I'm not a--in the
    management chain, but I would think that management could do
    better at Department of Energy.
        Ms. Lofgren. All right. So it's not something that you as
    scientists would necessarily want to weigh in on. I just think,
    you know, the need--when you get to scientific integrity or any
    integrity policies, it's important that they be robust, but
    it's also important that they be communicated to--not only to
    management but to every person in the institution so that
    everybody knows what the rules are.
        And I think that, you know, I have great regard for the
    current Secretary of Energy. I mean, he's a fabulous scientist
    and individual. Steve Chu was--and also, I mean, a Nobel Prize-
    winner, I mean, was the Energy Secretary when the current
    integrity policy was adopted. And I think that to ask--well, I
    don't know if there's time left in this Administration, but to
    ask that this be reviewed and amplified would be a good outcome
    from this hearing, a productive outcome rather than just a
    negative one.
        And I'm hoping that we might--I'll--if I could, I would ask
    unanimous consent that we put into the record the analysis
    undertaken. It's entitled ``Federal Agency Scientific Integrity
    Policies, A Comparative Analysis'' and it's done by the Union
    of Concerned Scientists. It's dated March 2013, but I think
    it's still pertinent and would be helpful to be part of the
    record.
        Mr. Weber. Without objection.
        [The information appears in Appendix I]
        Ms. Lofgren. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I think my time
    is nearly expired and I'd be happy to yield back.
        Mr. Weber. I thank the gentlelady.
        The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
        Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you both for being
    here.
        Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd also ask unanimous consent
    to be able to insert into the record three different letters.
    The first is dated March 18, 2013. It's from a group of
    researchers in Madison, including Columbia University, which
    states ``Our limited understanding of low-dose health risks
    seriously impairs the nation's decision-making capabilities
    both in the short- and long-term after a large-scale
    radiological event.''
        The next--I'd also like to include letters from the
    American College of Radiology and the Health Physics Society
    supporting my legislation, which passed the House in January
    2015. This bill is H.R. 35, the Low Dose Radiation Research Act
    of 2015. This is another quote from the Health Physics Society
    letter. ``A greater understanding of the effects of low-dose
    radiation on humans will not only add to our body of knowledge
    on the subject but it would also enable us to make better
    decisions on what are the proper levels, procedures, and
    protections needed when our citizens are subject to exposure to
    sources of low-dose radiation.''
        So I'd ask for unanimous consent to be able to enter those
    into the record.
        Mr. Weber. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears in Appendix I]
        Mr. Hultgren. Thank you. Questions--if I could direct
    initial questions, Dr. Weatherwax, if I could direct it to you.
    Was it your intention and the intention of other such as Dr.
    Anderson, Dr. Carruthers, and Dr. Huerta to attempt to prevent
    the benefits of low-dose radiation research from being
    presented to Congress?
        Dr. Weatherwax. No.
        Mr. Hultgren. Dr. Weatherwax, if Dr. Metting provided that
    information in response to questions from Congressional staff,
    then why was she removed from her position?
        Dr. Weatherwax. So my understanding is that the proposal to
    dismiss Dr. Metting details all of the issues, and those were
    the issues that were actually reviewed by general counsel and
    human resources, and the procedures were followed. The deciding
    official is the one who viewed the entirety of all of those
    issues and made the decision.
        Mr. Hultgren. Dr. Weatherwax, is it the role of the federal
    agency officials to prevent information from being accurately
    presented to Congress, as it was in this case?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I don't believe that the federal government
    inaccurately presented information in this case.
        Mr. Hultgren. Well, clearly, there was a slide that was
    removed and I guess--I think I have a slide that we can put up.
        [Slide.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Hultgren. Dr. Weatherwax, this is an email from Dr.
    Anderson to Dr. Metting, which you were copied. It appears to
    suggest that Dr. Metting remove slide 4 from the briefing
    documents, a slide that lists all the federal agency uses for
    low-dose radiation research. Isn't that precisely the
    information that Congress would want to know in a briefing
    about the program?
        Dr. Weatherwax. So I cannot comment as to why Dr. Anderson
    recommended removal of a particular element within a briefing.
    It could have been for brevity. I can't actually speak to why
    he suggested removal.
        Mr. Hultgren. Yes, I wish Dr. Anderson again were here to
    be able to respond to that directly.
        Also, I guess I think I've got another slide.
        [Slide.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Hultgren. There it is, the slide that notes the
    beneficial nature of low-dose radiation research for Homeland
    Security and the Department of Defense in responding to
    radiological attacks.
        Dr. Metting, in your scientific opinion could the research
    developed by the Low Dose Radiation Research Program benefit
    federal emergency response agencies?
        Dr. Metting. Yes, very much so in setting evacuation
    standards, the levels at which we need to address different
    types of emergencies, yes.
        Mr. Hultgren. Again, it's a great disappointment. I do look
    towards these hearings and the requests that we make to
    agencies as our ability to be able to be educated on what is
    happening, how funding ought to happen, what important programs
    ought to continue to be funded. And in this case it seems like
    we were not given that opportunity. In fact, very directly
    certain things were excluded from our ability to see.
        Dr. Metting, last question. Is this the sort of information
    that you think DOE management preferred to keep from committee
    staff during the briefing? And did the DOE management tell you
    to stick to talking points that excluded the sort of
    information?
        Dr. Metting. Yes, it did.
        Mr. Hultgren. Again, thank you so much. This is disturbing.
    This is frustrating. And I hope we can continue to get to the
    bottom of this and make sure that this never happens again but
    also that there is justice in this.
        So with that, I will yield back. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Weber. I thank the gentleman.
        The gentlelady from Virginia is recognized. No? You're
    good? Okay.
        All right. The gentleman from--on my right here from
    Virginia, which is not often you're on my right. He wants to do
    another round so we will do that.
        Let me start by simply saying--I'll tell you what. You go.
        Mr. Beyer. You sure?
        Mr. Weber. You bet you. You go.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I'd first like to respond to my friend Mr. Rohrabacher from
    California who talked about the fanaticism of climate change
    science and just point out that 97 percent of the scientists in
    the world--China, India, Europe, et cetera--believe often
    reluctantly that climate change is real and that it's manmade
    and that we represent an enormous threat to mankind. This is
    not fanaticism, nor is it politics. It's just what the science
    is.
        I know there are three percent that agree that it's--
    believe it's not real. Two good friends of mine sent me pieces
    that believe that climate change is not manmade or there's
    nothing we can do about it. I don't think they're fanatics
    either. These are--we should let the science be what the
    science is and then together try to make good decisions about
    how to move forward.
        Dr. Weatherwax, is it the responsibility of the Department
    of Energy to communicate the Administration's science
    priorities to Congress? And would--it seems like we got off on
    the wrong foot when someone accused of Dr. Metting of lobbying,
    which then led to lots of accusations of you and Dr. Anderson
    of lobbying. Isn't this more just the responsibility to
    communicate what the executive branch believes the priority
    should be and then the legislative branch can do what they want
    to do?
        Dr. Weatherwax. Yes.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Let me ask this, the same question of
    both of you. Dr. Weatherwax, is there obviously more to learn
    from the Low Dose Radiation Program after a quarter billion
    dollars' worth of research or have we had a plateau period
    where we know most of what we think we need to know?
        Dr. Weatherwax. So I believe that, as with many scientific
    areas, always more can be gained. However, in this case the
    program's priorities were certainly shifting more towards large
    epidemiological studies, which is studies of humans and
    populations and their exposure. And so those kinds of studies
    are probably the future of where this research is--field is
    going, and I believe that that type of research is ongoing. We
    are continuing to support a study, and those studies are being
    done by entities such as the National Cancer Institute.
        Mr. Beyer. So, Dr. Metting, the same question. Do you
    believe that the research had plateaued after a quarter billion
    dollars or did you feel you were on the cusp of dramatic new
    insights?
        Dr. Metting. Actually, I don't believe there was a plateau
    at all. We were--we had basically gone through all of what we
    could do with cell culture and we were going into whole systems
    biology. And when--once we started moving into that, what we
    did--what we realized is that for very low doses there's really
    not a cancer aspect to it. There is real interesting science
    that is asking what is actually--what does the low-dose
    actually do. And so we were looking at adaptive responses, we
    were looking at really excellent--like the metabolic shift that
    occurs at very low doses that actually triggers an adaptive
    response.
        And it has very exciting directions to go because low
    doses--they affect your immune surveillance and at the very low
    doses it's much different from the types of mechanisms that
    occur at very high doses.
        And I'm--I agree with Dr. Weatherwax that we need a new way
    to look at the epidemiology. We've been only having the high-
    dose epidemiology for so long. Now, we're looking at low-dose
    epidemiology, and that is exactly the type of science that we
    need to compare our new biology to, that the old--the A-bomb
    survivor epidemiologists are still using old biological
    assumptions. We have a whole new set of assumptions. The low-
    dose area is getting very exciting.
        Mr. Beyer. I'm about to run out of time. I'd like to submit
    for the record, if there's no objection, the Department of
    Energy's response to the Inspector General and the Office of
    Special Counsel regarding the $16 million disclosure where the
    Department of Energy details how that $16 million was spent
    according to the Congressional appropriation if there's no
    objection, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Weber. Without objection.
        [The information appears in Appendix I]
        Mr. Beyer. And then one last question for you, Dr. Metting.
    Is there anything inappropriate with both you for radiation,
    the low-dose radiation, Dr. Weatherwax, Dr. Todd Anderson, and
    others communicating those understandings to Congress and then
    let Congress authorize and allocate the money it wishes to
    spend in its legislative wisdom? I mean, shouldn't----
        Dr. Metting. I don't----
        Mr. Beyer. Is there a reason why it's bad to have the
    necessary conflict between the Administration's perspective and
    Congress' perspective?
        Dr. Metting. Mr. Congressman--Ranking Member, I really
    don't think there is anything wrong with a conflict. Both sides
    should be looked at. Both sides should be heard but----
        Mr. Beyer. And hopefully the wisdom will emerge, right?
        Dr. Metting. Yes.
        Mr. Beyer. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Mr. Weber. I thank the gentleman.
        The Chair from Ohio is recognized.
        Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Weatherwax, I'm curious what is the process like when
    you prepare for meeting for Congress?
        Dr. Weatherwax. So typically, when the request comes in, it
    will come to the Department's Congressional Affairs and they
    will then notify us as to what the request is and direct it to
    the appropriate office. If it's a matter of briefing
    appropriation staffers, then it would be budget-related and
    then the most senior person will typically go, the person has
    who has authority to develop the budget priorities and
    responsibility for justification.
        Mr. Davidson. Okay. So when you come to a hearing before
    Congress, do you have objectives for the meeting?
        Dr. Weatherwax. So this is actually my first meeting with
    Congress, so clearly my objective is just to answer your
    questions.
        Mr. Davidson. Okay. So how--in the Department of Energy
    when you talk about the culture and you talk about--surely
    you've prepared others to come and give testimony before
    Congress. What's considered success? What's that like in the--
    you know, hey, you did a good job or you didn't do a good job?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I think if Congress is satisfied with the
    information that the Department has provided, then that would
    be a successful outcome.
        Mr. Davidson. Why then was Dr. Metting's testimony before
    Congressional staffers not viewed as success?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I don't believe that we actually made any
    kind of decision about success or no success after that
    particular briefing. I believe that the decision to--the
    proposal to remove, as I said, included other aspects that were
    not related to the specific briefing to Congress.
        Mr. Davidson. Thank you. Dr. Metting, after your October 16
    briefing were you officially removed from your position at the
    Department of Energy?
        Dr. Metting. Yes, I was.
        Mr. Davidson. Without objection, I'd like to share an email
    exchange between Dr. Weatherwax and Dr. Anderson. They appear
    to be debating whether to provide Dr. Metting with an official
    notice of proposed removal from federal service on the day of
    the office holiday party. So this was December.
        Dr. Metting, when were you informed about your dismissal
    from the Department, and could you please elaborate on how that
    happened?
        Mr. Weber. Without objection, so ordered. You wanted that
    in the record?
        Mr. Davidson. Thank you.
        [Slide.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Dr. Metting. Yes, Mr. Congressman. I--okay. So it had been
    very tense, you know, since the October 16 and then when I was
    taken off of my duties as managing the Low Dose Program. And I
    had talked to my union representative, and everyone knew I was
    a little upset, but then there wasn't anyone who would really--
    Dr. Anderson, Dr. Weatherwax would not talk to me about the
    subject so it was very tense.
        The morning of the--of December 4 we had a big potluck.
    It's a lot of fun. We're out in Germantown so we can bring
    large amounts of food. And I was tasked--or I volunteered to
    bring the turkey dressing, the mashed potatoes and gravy, and
    we had our party. And then directly after the party I was
    informed that there would be a personnel action in 2 hours and
    that--or something like that. I don't really remember the exact
    thing I was so shocked, and that you should probably bring your
    union representative with you at that time.
        Mr. Davidson. Was this consistent with the culture that
    something like this would happen or was this kind of a new
    trend or new event, new single data point in the culture?
        Dr. Metting. Oh, you mean the personnel----
        Mr. Davidson. Yes, just the--you know, you're coming right
    off of a holiday party, you're coming off of testimony where
    you gave----
        Dr. Metting. It was shocking.
        Mr. Davidson. --testimony?
        Dr. Metting. It was shocking and it was out of the ordinary
    for me. I mean, I've never, ever had anything even against
    anything that I've done. I've always had very fully successful
    program reviews.
        Mr. Davidson. Thank you. Dr. Weatherwax, in your experience
    at the Department of Energy is it general practice for an
    agency scientist to be told what they can and cannot say during
    their Congressional testimony?
        Dr. Weatherwax. No.
        Mr. Davidson. Have you ever been instructed to censor
    scientific opinions when communicating with Congress or other
    agencies?
        Dr. Weatherwax. No.
        Mr. Davidson. So is it your opinion that this was an
    outlier of an event with Dr. Metting?
        Dr. Weatherwax. We never told Dr. Metting to--we never
    attempted to censor scientific content.
        Mr. Davidson. Okay. It does appear that you--you were
    dissatisfied with the way the conversation went and took
    action, and it seems to have potentially had a stifling effect.
        So my time is expired. Thank you.
        Mr. Weber. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
        Dr. Weatherwax, in your exchange just--the last exchange
    with the gentleman from Virginia, he talked about an opinion on
    climate change and it's okay if the Administration has an
    opinion and you think they ought to be free--he asked you
    didn't you think they ought to be free to pursue what they
    thought was important. Do you remember that exchange?
        Dr. Weatherwax. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. So the gentleman from--well, let me do it
    this way. Just hold that thought. Dr. Metting, did you feel
    attacked after that meeting and obviously leading up to the
    party you were talking about?
        Dr. Metting. After the briefing?
        Mr. Weber. Yes.
        Dr. Metting. I was completely attacked. And at the time it
    felt like it was--you know, it was a surprise and it was----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Dr. Metting. --unforeseen.
        Mr. Weber. Well, I apologize to you for that. And from what
    I know, that should not have occurred and you should not have
    to endure that. And I hope you get the pictures, if there are
    some, of your grandchildren back.
        But suffice it to say that I agree with an earlier comment.
    Thank you for coming up here because more--as important is the
    fact that the process has been attacked, and I think we're
    seeing that today.
        Now, Dr. Weatherwax, we talked earlier and you--I asked you
    a couple questions about the lobbying intent and you said you
    didn't have an opinion and you weren't sure that was lobbying,
    but we have another email. And I use the word subtle, you know,
    to keep the Senate from filing a bill. Can we get that email up
    on the screen? Can we get that one up on the screen? The email
    I had originally, yes. There you go.
        [Slide.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Weber. So, you know, I talked about the subtly yet
    firmly, which is the third bullet point, but if you go up to
    the second--or fourth bullet point, but if you go up to the
    second bullet point, it says ``If the goal is to squash the
    prospects of Senate support for the HSST.'' So I want to come
    back and say to you now you've expressed an opinion about
    climate change and what the Administration ought to be free to
    do or not do. Now do you also have an opinion that the goal to
    squash the prospects of Senate is inappropriate?
        Dr. Weatherwax. Dr. Anderson is responsible for conveying
    the program----
        Mr. Weber. But I'm not asking about--I'm asking you, Dr.
    Weatherwax, do you have--you expressed an opinion with
    Congressman Beyer about whether or not we disagree on global
    warming. We can get into that later. So there's discussion
    about that. Do you have an opinion that the goal to squash the
    Senate action is inappropriate? The email--now, this email came
    to you, I will remind you.
        Dr. Weatherwax. That's correct. The email came----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Dr. Weatherwax. --to me.
        Mr. Weber. So did you not have an opinion at that point
    that this might not be the best policy of this department?
        Dr. Weatherwax. So my interpretation of that comment was
    that Todd's job was to provide the broad overall context----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Dr. Weatherwax. --for how the program priorities within
    this area of----
        Mr. Weber. Yes, it's not about his--your interpretation of
    him. It's about the attempt to squash--it clearly says squash
    it. You're a scientist. You have a Ph.D. You know what squash
    is. Do you have an opinion on that?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I guess----
        Mr. Weber. You're just not going to--you're not going to
    offer an opinion on that?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I think I did not interpret that comment as
    squashing any scientific content.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, then, let's--let me move on. So
    Congressman Beyer and yourself had the exchange about whether
    or not you agree with global warming. I think you said the
    fantasism----
        Mr. Beyer. Fanaticism.
        Mr. Weber. There we go. Thank you. I have to get--according
    to Mr. Rohrabacher, yes. But the fanaticism in their opinion--
    and there's been some Attorneys General, as you're probably
    aware from reading the news accounts, that have gone after
    ExxonMobil because in their opinion they think they've
    suppressed some things. But isn't the fanaticism of suppressing
    what a scientist can say in a Congressional committee meeting
    as dangerous as the purported climate change no matter where
    you fall on that side of--isn't that fanaticism just as
    dangerous? Do you have an opinion about that?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I don't see that Dr. Anderson was squashing
    the conveying of science.
        Mr. Weber. It's interesting that you bring him back up
    because I was asking about a broad overall perspective about
    the fanaticism of suppressing a scientist from testifying
    before Congress committee staffers. That's just as bad as the
    purported fanaticism of denying global warming. Wouldn't you
    say that's just as bad?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I don't believe that we ever squashed a
    scientist presenting scientific views to Congress.
        Mr. Weber. All right. Well, let's do it this way. There's
    another--there's actually an excerpt from Dr. Todd Anderson in
    the transcribed interview that the question--and it's up on the
    screen that says, question, ``Is President Obama's Climate
    Action Plan a priority for the Department of Energy?'' Can you
    see the answer there? Are you able to read that? What does it
    say?
        Dr. Weatherwax. The answer that Dr. Anderson gave is yes--
    --
        Mr. Weber. Yes, it is. And what's that second question? Can
    you read that for us?
        Dr. Weatherwax. The second question says, ``And is that a
    greater priority than the Low Dose Radiation Program?''
        Mr. Weber. And he says, ``To the extent that we align our
    basic research efforts toward that goal, yes.'' So clearly
    they're prioritizing, right? Now, the question is this. This is
    testimony provided by Dr. Todd Anderson in a transcribed
    interview with committee staff. Dr. Anderson asserts, if you're
    following his question-and-answer here, ``Research that
    benefits the President's Climate Action Plan is a higher
    priority than low-dose radiation research.'' So here's my
    question. Is the DOE ending the Low Dose Radiation Research
    Program to divert funds--and I would say to subtly yet firmly
    encourage--if that's a better word for you--the Senate to
    divert funds towards research in furtherance of the Climate
    Action Plan? Does that look like that to you?
        Dr. Weatherwax. No.
        Mr. Weber. It doesn't? Okay. Well, then, Dr. Weatherwax,
    the DOE fired an employee--in your exchange with Mr. Davidson
    of Ohio, he said, did you think that the meeting was a success
    or a failure? She got fired because of it, so obviously
    somebody thought that what occurred in the meeting was bad. Do
    you have opinion on that?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I believe that the justification for
    dismissal was outlined in the proposing documents and that
    there were issues greater than----
        Mr. Weber. So----
        Dr. Weatherwax. --what transpired during the briefing.
        Mr. Weber. So the operation was a success but the patient
    died. Okay. So you don't have an opinion that that was a bad
    meeting.
        Is the Department of Energy in this process sending a
    message to research scientists that they better somehow tow a
    political party--a particular--I'll do it that way--party line?
    And if they don't agree, if they express a difference of
    opinion, it is in peril of their careers. Would you agree with
    that?
        Dr. Weatherwax. No.
        Mr. Weber. You don't agree with that? Okay. Last question,
    that's for you, Dr. Weatherwax. In your opinion is it okay for
    the Department of Energy to lobby the Senate to firmly but
    subtly prevent them from filing a bill?
        Dr. Weatherwax. If the Department of Energy actually
    lobbied for something, then I--you know, I don't believe that
    that's what happened.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. And so to follow up the last email, the
    goal to squash the Senate prospects is inappropriate, of filing
    that bill?
        Dr. Weatherwax. I think that the goal is to convey the
    broader context of how we set our budget priorities.
        Mr. Weber. Well, there certainly seems to be some control
    there. Dr. Weatherwax, I appreciate your testimony but it just
    looks like you're more focused on, I guess, the science--your
    part of the science research instead of the topics here today
    that would say, look, this is inappropriate.
        There is some inappropriate behavior going on, as one of my
    members over here said earlier, and we want to make sure that
    that stops. And the fact that you don't recognize that and
    won't provide at least an opinion that it was categorically
    inappropriate and that it might need to be a little attitude
    adjustment in the Department of Energy is frightening to me.
        But anyway, I appreciate you being here.
        Dr. Metting, anything you'd like to say before we close?
        Dr. Metting. Mr. Chairman, I think you've done a fabulous
    job at laying out all of the issues.
        Mr. Weber. Well, thank you. How many grandchildren do you
    have?
        Dr. Metting. I do have two grandsons.
        Mr. Weber. Two grandsons. They need a sister.
        Dr. Metting. That's what I'm telling my other son.
        Mr. Weber. Well, thank you both for being here, and this
    hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittees were
    adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

                     Statement submitted by Full Committee
                              Chairman Lamar Smith

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     Statement submitted by Full Committee
                      Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Document Submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
              Documents submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Document submitted by Representative Don S.Beyer

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                  Report submitted by Chairman Lamar S. Smith

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Document submitted by Representative Randy Weber
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]