    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     WHEN SCIENCE GETS TRUMPED: SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
                                 THE INTERIOR

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

                               OVERSIGHT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                            Thursday, July 25, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-20

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    37-241 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2019

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                          RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                        DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
       GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                   ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member

    Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Don Young, AK
    Jim Costa, CA                        Louie Gohmert, TX
    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Doug Lamborn, CO
        CNMI                             Robert J. Wittman, VA
    Jared Huffman, CA                    Tom McClintock, CA
    Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Paul A. Gosar, AZ
    Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Paul Cook, CA
    TJ Cox, CA                           Bruce Westerman, AR
    Joe Neguse, CO                       Garret Graves, LA
    Mike Levin, CA                       Jody B. Hice, GA
    Debra A. Haaland, NM                 Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
    Jefferson Van Drew, NJ               Daniel Webster, FL
    Joe Cunningham, SC                   Liz Cheney, WY
    Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Mike Johnson, LA
    Diana DeGette, CO                    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
    Wm. Lacy Clay, MO                    John R. Curtis, UT
    Debbie Dingell, MI                   Kevin Hern, OK
    Anthony G. Brown, MD                 Russ Fulcher, ID
    A. Donald McEachin, VA
    Darren Soto, FL
    Ed Case, HI
    Steven Horsford, NV
    Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
    Matt Cartwright, PA
    Paul Tonko, NY
    Vacancy

                         David Watkins, Chief of Staff
                            Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
                    Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                  ----------

                                   CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Thursday, July 25, 2019..........................     1

    Statement of Members:

        Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Utah....................................................     4
        Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arizona...........................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3

    Statement of Witnesses:

        Bakst, Daren, Senior Research Fellow, Roe Institute for
          Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation,
          Washington, DC.............................................    30
            Prepared statement of....................................    32
        Caffrey, Maria, Ph.D., Former Partner, National Park Service,
          Denver, Colorado...........................................    38
            Prepared statement of....................................    39
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    47
        Clement, Joel, Senior Fellow, Arctic Initiative, Belfer
          Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard
          University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.......................    22
            Prepared statement of....................................    24
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    28
        Rosenberg, Andrew, Ph.D., Director, Center for Science and
          Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge,
          Massachusetts..............................................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     8
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    16

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
          Committee's official files.................................    86

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Bishop

            DOI Scientific Integrity Complaints and FOIA Requests by
              Year, PowerPoint Slides................................    52

            Department of the Interior OIG Summary of Alleged
              Scientific Integrity Violations Related to NPS Report,
              dated July 10, 2018....................................    80

        Submission for the Record by Representative Gosar

            Critique of the DOI Scientific Integrity Policy, by Dr.
              Paul R. Houser dated August 8, 2012....................    60

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

            Clement, Joel, October 4, 2017 Letter of resignation to
              Secretary Ryan Zinke...................................    81

            Department of the Interior, Statement for the Record.....    82

            Washington Post OpEd, ``I'm a scientist. I'm blowing the
              whistle on the Trump administration,'' by Joel Clement
              dated July 19, 2017....................................    84

    OVERSIGHT HEARING ON WHEN SCIENCE GETS TRUMPED: SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY AT
                         THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, July 25, 2019

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:14 p.m., in
    room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul M.
    Grijalva [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Grijalva, Costa, Huffman,
    Lowenthal, Neguse, Haaland, Cunningham, DeGette, Clay, Soto,
    Case, Cartwright, Tonko; Bishop, McClintock, Gosar, Hice,
    Gonzalez-Colon, Curtis, and Fulcher.

        The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources will come
    to order. Thank you. The Committee is meeting today to hear
    testimony on scientific integrity at the Department of the
    Interior. Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening
    statements at the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the
    Ranking Minority Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent
    that all other Members' opening statements be made part of the
    hearing record if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m.
    today. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        I will now recognize myself for my opening statement.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        The Chairman. First of all, I want to extend a special
    thank you to our witnesses for taking the time to be here. Two
    of our witnesses in particular will be sharing experiences that
    have been difficult for them, and I want to extend our
    appreciation for you doing so and sharing those stories with
    us.
        Today's hearing will examine scientific integrity or,
    rather, the lack of scientific integrity under the current
    administration at the Department of the Interior. It is no
    secret that this administration is not a big fan of science,
    especially when it comes to science that has overwhelmingly
    determined that climate change is caused by humans and is
    threatening nearly every aspect of our lives, and certainly the
    work of this Committee.
        We have seen story after story about climate change being
    deleted from government websites, senior advisors suggesting we
    consider alternative facts, and science and climate change
    deniers being appointed to leadership positions. But there are
    few places in the Trump administration where the attack on
    science has been more intense than in the Department of the
    Interior.
        Today, we are going to hear from two people who were
    employed with the National Park Service and the Department of
    the Interior. Their stories are deeply disturbing but not
    unique. Narrowing those stories down to two was difficult.
        We could have talked about Steve Spangle, the now-retired
    Fish and Wildlife Service employee in my home state of Arizona.
    Mr. Spangle says he was pressured by a ``high-level politico''
    to change his decision about the impacts of a housing
    development on endangered and threatened species. The
    development in question is massive, with over 28,000 homes,
    golf courses, and other amenities. In the already parched
    Arizona desert, there is no question that this development
    would devastate the nearby San Pedro River, the last major
    free-flowing river in the entire Southwest.
        But, as it turns out, that development just happens to be
    owned by one of the President's good buddies and donors, Mike
    Ingram.
        We could have also talked about the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's Biological Opinion on three major pesticides that was
    ready to be released to the public, but is now just gathering
    dust, shelved until the next election. We know that one of
    those pesticides alone could put 1,400 threatened and
    endangered species in jeopardy. This is the same pesticide that
    is so harmful to babies' brain development that some states
    have already passed bans on the use of it at all.
        Of course, there are also stories we probably have not
    heard yet. These are stories that career scientists at Interior
    are afraid to share, and with good reason. They have seen their
    colleagues, like our witnesses today, get threatened, harassed,
    reassigned, and retaliated against. Interior's leadership has
    created a culture of fear and intimidation for scientists, not
    integrity.
        And let me be clear. It is not just the scientists who are
    the victims in all this. It is our public lands, our wildlife,
    and indeed us.
        When Federal agencies ignore science and the facts, major
    decisions no longer represent what is best for the health or
    safety of the American people and our environment. They
    represent the interests of the highest bidder.
        I was hoping that Interior would be able to clear up some
    of the questions about their treatment of science. We extended
    an invitation ahead of the unofficial deadline, but they
    refused to come. And that decision is hard to defend.
        I would also add the situation that occurred 2 years ago
    when we visited Appalachia to look at the aftermath of the
    mountain. After that trip, community groups and health
    advocates in the area, in the Appalachia area, lobbied very
    hard to get a study.
        The previous administration awarded a health study to take
    3 years. When President Trump was elected, it was canceled
    shortly thereafter with not even a year's worth of study data
    being collected about the overall effects of mountaintop
    removal, the drainage, the waste accumulated, and the effects
    on the public health of individuals in that area.
        I mention that as well because I think after the break we
    have requested information on that particular issue and on
    other issues over and over again, and one of the reasons for
    this oversight hearing as well as actions to follow is that we
    are at the point that the lack of response to that question and
    others is requiring us to fully explore and prepare for
    whatever legal actions we need to take to compel that
    information to be brought forth.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
     Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair, Committee on
                               Natural Resources
        I want to extend a special thank you to our witnesses for taking
    the time to be here. Two of our witnesses in particular will be sharing
    experiences that have been difficult for them, so I also want to
    recognize their remarkable courage in speaking out and sharing their
    stories with us.
        Today's hearing will examine scientific integrity--or rather, the
    lack of scientific integrity--under the current administration at the
    Department of the Interior. It's no secret that the Trump
    administration is not a fan science. Especially when it comes to the
    science that has overwhelmingly determined that climate change is
    caused by humans and is threatening nearly every aspect of our lives,
    and certainly of the work of this Committee.
        We have seen story after story about climate change being deleted
    from government websites, senior advisors suggesting we consider
    ``alternative facts,'' and science and climate change deniers being
    appointed to leadership positions. But there are few places in the
    Trump administration where this attack on science has been more intense
    than the Department of the Interior.
        Today, we are going to hear from two people who were employed with
    the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior. Their
    stories are deeply disturbing, but unfortunately not unique. In fact,
    one of the hardest parts of putting together this hearing was narrowing
    down the list of troubling incidents to just two.
        We could have also talked about Steve Spangle, the now-retired Fish
    and Wildlife Service employee in my home state of Arizona. Mr. Spangle
    says he was pressured by a ``high level politico'' to change his
    decision about the impacts of a housing development on endangered and
    threatened species.
        The development in question is massive, with nearly 28,000 homes,
    plus golf courses and other amenities. In the already parched Arizona
    desert, there is no question that this development would devastate the
    nearby San Pedro River, the last major free-flowing river in the entire
    Southwest.
        But, as it turns out, that development just happens to be owned by
    one of Trump's good buddies and donors, Mike Ingram.
        We could have also talked about the Fish and Wildlife Service's
    biological opinion on three major pesticides that was ready to be
    released to the public but is now just gathering dust because Secretary
    Bernhardt has shelved it until after the next election.
        We know that one of those pesticides alone could put 1,400
    threatened and endangered species in jeopardy. This is the same
    pesticide that is so harmful to babies' brain development that some
    states have already passed bans on any use of it at all. But, as it
    turns out, pesticide and chemical manufacturers like Dow Chemical
    didn't like what the science had to say.
        And that just begins to scratch the surface of the many attacks on
    science we've heard about at Interior.
        Of course, there are also all the stories we probably haven't heard
    yet. There are the stories that career scientists at Interior are too
    afraid to share. And with good reason. They have seen their colleagues,
    like our witnesses, get threatened, harassed, reassigned, and
    retaliated against. Interior's leadership has created a culture of fear
    and intimidation for scientists, not integrity.
        And let me be clear--it's not just the scientists who are the
    victims in all of this. It is our wildlife, our public lands--and us.
        When Federal agencies ignore science and the facts, major decisions
    no longer represent what is best for the health or safety of the
    American people and our environment. They represent the interests of
    the highest bidder.
        I was hoping that the Interior Department would be able to help
    clear up some of the questions about their treatment of science. We
    extended them an invitation ahead of their unofficial deadline. But
    they refused to come. I can see why. It's hard to defend.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. With that, I now recognize Ranking Member
    Bishop for his opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                         FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by giving
    you some kudos--you might as well have them when they exist--
    for having a very clever title in today's hearing. I want you
    to know it is a cute title. Give us some slack because it is
    obviously harder to try to work catchphrases in when you are
    working with the name Obama. But we will try to do that.
        This show could also be titled, ``Democrats Accuse Trump of
    Whitewashing Climate Science,'' or ``Democrats Accuse Bernhardt
    of Giving Handouts to Their Buddies.'' We could do a lot of
    interesting stuff on handouts like if you remember the
    production tax credit in Solyndra and all that kind of fun
    stuff that was going on there.
        It is interesting that we talk so much about bipartisan
    work and venerate in releases from this Committee, like the
    Gosar-Levin bill that is working in a bipartisan way for a
    problem that both you and I have co-sponsored, and then at the
    same time then come around with a very partisan hearing, not
    only in the title but also in the substance that takes place.
        It is interesting where this hearing can lead because,
    simply, if there was legislation on this topic to be developed,
    it would be assigned to the Science Committee, as several of
    our witnesses are doing an encore performance because they have
    already testified before the Science Committee that does have
    the jurisdiction on all this.
        So, we can talk about Interior and it will be cute, but it
    doesn't really reach where we need to go. If you turn on the
    TVs for a second, I would appreciate it. If we are talking
    about scientific integrity complaints, those are the number of
    scientific integrity formal complaints that have been given
    since Fiscal Year 2011.
        As you realize, they were much higher in the years during
    the Obama administration, when Ms. Jewell and Mr. Salazar were
    running the agency, than they are right now. In fact, if
    anything, you could ask, why are they decreasing so
    significantly today, or where were Democrats in 2008, 2009,
    2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015 especially, when we were
    having so many complaints. Because it cannot be forgotten that
    it was under the Obama administration where there were two
    cases of continuous data manipulation that were exposed at USGS
    Energy Resource Program Laboratory, where a scientific review
    panel found scientists to have intentionally manipulated the
    data.
        And it was under the Obama administration where a
    Scientific Integrity Officer, Dr. Paul Houser, was ultimately
    fired for bringing to light major discrepancies between data
    and conclusions reached by the administration. He stated that
    his challenging of the Obama administration's conclusions
    resulted in systematic reprisals and termination of his
    employment.
        It was under the Obama administration that USDA was accused
    of suppression and alteration of scientific work for political
    reasons. It was Dan Ashe who admitted in 2005 that he broke the
    law by not conducting a Section 7 consultation in respect to
    the administration's plan to eliminate warm water habitat for
    the endangered manatee.
        It was the same Dan Ashe who refused to provide the data
    used to list the White Bluffs bladderpod, to the point that
    then-Chairman Hastings had to issue a subpoena in an attempt to
    force data transparency from the self-proclaimed most
    transparent administration in history.
        It was the Fish and Wildlife Service that signed closed-
    door ESA mega-settlements, which established arbitrary
    deadlines for hundreds of added listing decisions, including
    that bladderpod, and siphoning resources away from ongoing
    science-based protection and recovery.
        It was the Fish and Wildlife Service that asked, ``This is
    our proposal. Does anyone have any evidence out there to
    sustain it? And if it cannot be done, then we will do our best
    guess as our policy decision.''
        In fact, in the Trump administration, it is Secretarial
    Order 3369 that was signed in September of last year by then-
    Deputy Secretary Bernhardt that directs the Department to make
    its decisions on the best available science and provide
    American people with enough information to thoughtfully and
    substantially evaluate the data, methodology, and analysis used
    by the Department to inform decisions.
        In essence, we are going to hear claims, some of them
    unfounded, some of them founded, but claims that I think can go
    through all administrations. And the bottom line is, if we
    really are serious about finding solutions to specific
    problems, then we should be able to work on those.
        But if not, if we are just going to come up with some
    partisan propaganda and throw it out here, then we will spin
    our wheels with partisan propaganda, realizing that any
    legislation coming from this topic would never be assigned to
    this Committee. It is in the jurisdiction of the Science
    Committee totally, where the hearing was properly held.
        In essence, we will have another fun hearing. It will not
    be as cool as the one yesterday, but may probably have the same
    impact that takes place. I yield back.

        The Chairman. Thank you very much. And before I introduce
    the panelists and the witnesses, just to remind my colleagues
    that in the 114th Congress, when the ONI Committee and the
    function was established, one of the first hearings that we had
    was entitled, ``Zero Accountability: The Consequences of
    Politically Driven Science.''
        I mention that because this was a Republican hearing,
    essentially, the agenda and the witnesses. So, this is not
    turnaround is fair play. This is essentially being consistent
    with having some accountability in terms of how science is
    functioning in the Department of the Interior. And we hope to
    continue that tradition.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, as part of your introduction, I
    will still remind you--I appreciate that comment--that we can
    talk about what the Department of the Interior ought to be
    doing internally. But my statement still stands. If there
    indeed is legislation, and there is, it will be assigned to the
    Science Committee solely. We will not get a referral on it.
        So, this is going to be fun and interesting and cute, but
    any legislation that comes from this Committee is not going to
    be assigned to us and will not be part of our jurisdiction. And
    that is the problem. And that is not my decision, what we
    should or should not be doing, that is simply the
    Parliamentarian's decision on where jurisdiction in this case
    lies.
        So, let's go on with it, and let the games begin.

        The Chairman. With that, let me now introduce our panel.
    And thank you very much again.
        Dr. Andrew Rosenberg is the Director of the Center for
    Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Mr.
    Joel Clement is a Senior Fellow at Belfer Center for Science
    and International Affairs at Harvard University. Mr. Daren
    Bakst is Senior Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy at The
    Heritage Foundation. At this point, let me yield to the
    gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, who will introduce our
    last witness.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I am so
    honored to introduce my constituent, Maria Caffrey. You have
    come a long way to tell your story today. And I want to thank
    you for your really important work on climate change, sea level
    rise, and the national parks. I think the scientific expertise
    that you and your colleagues have provided our Federal agencies
    is really important because our policies should be based on
    science.
        I don't think what happened to Dr. Caffrey, Mr. Chairman,
    is cute. I just want to report that for the record. And it is
    something we all need to hear today, and I am really proud of
    you for coming. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you. To the witnesses, the lights in
    front of you will turn yellow when you have a minute left to
    finish your oral presentation. Your written testimony in its
    entirety will be part of the record. When the light turns red,
    it means you stop. And then, after all the witnesses have given
    their testimony, the Members will have the opportunity to ask
    questions.
        With that, I now recognize Dr. Andrew Rosenberg for your 5
    minutes.

      STATEMENT OF ANDREW ROSENBERG, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
         SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACY, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS,
                        CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

        Dr. Rosenberg. Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify today about scientific
    integrity reform and attacks on science in the Trump
    administration. I am Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center
    for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
    I have over 30 years of experience in research, providing
    scientific advice for governments, and in implementing science-
    based policies.
        Science must play a central role in the Department of the
    Interior. Without scientific evidence and other evidence such
    as local knowledge of threats and concerns, policy decisions
    are guided solely by political influence rather than facts.
        Scientific integrity can be compromised by political
    censorship, manipulation, and/or intimidation of scientists.
    Some examples of attacks at the Department of the Interior,
    selected from our research, are as follows:

        The Fish and Wildlife Service bowed to political pressure
    and circumvented the need for a comprehensive assessment of
    impacts on endangered species of a proposed city-sized
    development in southeastern Arizona, as the Chairman mentioned.
        The Department suppressed 18 memos from staff scientists
    raising concerns about proposed oil and gas operations in the
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And they defunded landscape
    conservation cooperatives, effectively censoring climate change
    adaptation information for state and local governments.
        The Department of the Interior published an analysis of
    grey wolves that was riddled with scientific errors, as
    identified by peer reviewers, and that analysis then ostensibly
    supported removing Endangered Species Act protections for this
    species.
        And DOI officials blocked the release of a comprehensive
    analysis on potential dangers of widely used pesticides for
    hundreds of endangered species, as the Chairman noted, 1,400.
        In addition, there are broader-scale attacks on science
    that impact Interior and other agencies. These include:
        Tossing aside analyses that use confidential information,
    such as health records, and endangered species location
    information. I believe that was referred to by the Ranking
    Member.
        Eliminating expert advisory panels across the Government,
    including at Interior.
        Changing the way benefits to the public are calculated and
    misusing the very concept of cost/benefit analyses.
        And arbitrarily restricting the length of and public access
    to environmental analyses, regardless of the amount of
    information needed to inform the public and the policy.
        I want to be clear. We don't highlight attacks on science
    to protect scientists. I am not concerned that my feelings will
    be hurt or that the controversy over political decisions is not
    appropriate and real. I worked with fishermen for many years,
    and they can be, I might say, direct. I can take the heat, and
    so can many of my colleagues. But censorship and manipulation
    of results is misuse of our work, and most importantly, results
    in bad policies.
        Since 2005, the Union of Concerned Scientists has conducted
    surveys of Federal Government scientists to measure the level
    of political, corporate, and other pressures on their work.
    And, in 2018, scientists reported high levels of censorship and
    self-censorship.
        At the Department of the Interior, a majority of
    respondents felt that consideration of political interests is a
    burden to science-based decision making. Staff time and funding
    resources are moved away from work considered politically
    contentious, according to those employees. And senior managers
    censor scientists and consistently remove references to climate
    change, a majority of those scientists said.
        Two quotes, I think, are instructive from National Park
    Service scientists: (1) ``We are no longer authorized to share
    scientific findings with the public if they center on climate
    change. Materials are marked `For Internal Use Only'.'' And (2)
    ``Consistent removal of references to climate change have
    hindered our ability to have honest discussions about the
    potential threats of climate change to the National Park
    System.''
        The Scientific Integrity Act, introduced by Representative
    Tonko and co-sponsored by over 200 Members of Congress, is good
    government legislation. Scientific integrity refers to the
    processes in which independent science fully and transparently
    informs policy decisions free from inappropriate political
    influence. That is what is meant by scientific integrity, and
    in fact, we have other processes in place to deal with
    scientific misconduct and other matters that often are
    mistakenly labeled as scientific integrity.
        The Scientific Integrity Act is agnostic on the matter of
    policy. Rather, it aims to ensure that policies are fully
    informed by science. The legislation contains many of the best
    practices that have been identified for the development and
    maintenance of a thriving scientific enterprise, including
    prohibiting any employee from manipulating or misrepresenting
    findings, ensuring scientists can carry out their research.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I conclude my remarks and look
    forward to answering any questions.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Rosenberg follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Dr. Andrew A. Rosenberg, Director, Center for
              Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists
        Chairman Grijalva, and Ranking Member Bishop, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today on scientific integrity and attacks on
    science in the Trump administration and beyond, along with solutions to
    restore scientific integrity to Federal policymaking. My name is Andrew
    Rosenberg. I am the Director of the Center for Science and Democracy at
    the Union of Concerned Scientists. The Center works to advance the role
    of science in the public policy process and in the Nation's democratic
    dialogue. We have many years of experience examining and documenting
    political interference in science in the Federal Government and
    advancing policies that protect science and scientists.
        I am a marine scientist with over 30 years of experience in
    research, providing scientific advice for governments and in
    implementing science-based policies. Among my previous positions,
    before joining the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2012, I was a
    scientist for NOAA, a NOAA Regional Administrator for Fisheries and
    Deputy Director of NOAA Fisheries, the senior career position in the
    agency overseeing all regulatory matters. I also served as the Dean of
    Life Sciences and Agriculture and Professor of Natural Resources at the
    University of New Hampshire.
        Science must play a central role in the Department of the Interior,
    NOAA and in fact across the government. Science provides the
    ``sideboards'' if you will, for public policy decisions. By that I mean
    that science doesn't mandate nor is it the only input to decisions, but
    it guides the process. Scientific evidence identifies issues and
    concerns that may merit policy action and elucidates some of the
    consequences of different possible action options. Without scientific
    evidence, and other evidence such as local knowledge of threats and
    concerns, decision making becomes wholly political. That is, policy
    decisions will become solely guided by political influence rather than
    evidence and facts. We know from many examples that this approach harms
    public health and the environment.
        Since 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists has regularly
    monitored agencies for actions that compromise the use of science in
    policymaking. We have learned about such issues through the media,
    through congressional oversight, and from scientists themselves. We
    conducted surveys of Federal scientists about the level of political
    interference in their work during this and the two previous
    presidential administrations. We have pushed for and participated in
    congressional oversight related to scientific integrity, and regularly
    work with reporters to bring abuses of science to light. We developed
    model good government policies for Federal scientific agencies and
    analyzed and made recommendations about both the content and
    implementation of Federal agency scientific integrity policies since
    they were developed nearly a decade ago. We have worked with DOI and
    other agencies to improve peer review policies and other polices to
    strengthen the role of science in policymaking. And we constantly
    monitor and bring to light challenges with regard to science-based
    policymaking.
      strong scientific integrity standards are essential for government
                                 accountability
        The U.S. Government has long worked to ensure the integrity of the
    science that is maintained within executive branch agencies.
    Originally, this meant ensuring that a scientist's research was
    conducted ethically and in accordance with high scientific standards.
    Policies were put in place to protect human research subjects, ensure
    that confidential data is protected against disclosure, promote
    effective peer review, address scientific misconduct, and more.
        In recent years, the definition of scientific integrity has been
    focused on ensuring that science produced and considered by the Federal
    Government is not censored or politically influenced, that this science
    fully informs public policy decisions, and that the public is more
    fully aware of the knowledge and data that are produced by Federal
    scientists that pertains to policymaking.

        The importance of safeguarding scientific integrity within our
    Federal Government cannot be overstated.\1\ Science-informed decisions
    made by executive agencies have direct impacts on all of our lives.
    Whether those decisions are determining how safe or clean our waters
    are to drink, or our air to breathe, or whether certain species are
    deserving greater protections under law, four fundamental principles
    should be embraced:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Preserving Scientific Integrity in Federal Policymaking,
    Goldman, et al., Jan 2017. https://www.ucsusa.org / sites / default /
    files / attach / 2017 / 01 / preserving-scientific-integrity-in-
    federal-policymaking-ucs-2017.pdf

      1.  Decisions should be fully informed by (but not dictated by)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                science;

      2.  Scientists working for and advising the government should be
                unobstructed in providing scientific evidence to inform the
                decision-making process;

      3.  The public should have reasonable access to scientific
                information to be able to understand the evidentiary basis
                of public policy decisions; and

      4.  The public and Congress should be able to evaluate whether the
                above principles are being adhered to.

             scientific integrity at the department of the interior
        Political interference in science during the George W. Bush
    administration penetrated deeply into the culture and practices at the
    Department of the Interior. Endangered Species Act (ESA) decisions in
    particular were a flash point for politics and science even though the
    statute clearly mandates the primacy of science in many ESA decisions.
    Political appointees falsified, fabricated, hidden, suppressed,
    disregarded, and tampered with science and intimidated, coerced,
    censored and suppressed scientists all behind closed doors. The results
    of a survey of Fish and Wildlife Service scientists showed high numbers
    of scientists knew of cases of political interference, felt that agency
    decision making was not sufficiently protective of species and
    habitats, feared retaliation, and suffered from poor morale.

        For example, during the George W. Bush administration, a senior
    political appointee named Julie MacDonald personally rewrote endangered
    species determinations to preclude their protection under the
    Endangered Species Act. The Interior Inspector General eventually found
    that MacDonald had heavily edited the report and shared non-public
    information with special interests: \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of the
    Interior, Dec 1, 2006. https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/
    Macdonald.pdf

            Through interviewing various sources, including FWS employees
            and senior officials, and reviewing pertinent documents and e-
            mails, we confirmed that MacDonald has been heavily involved
            with editing, commenting on, and reshaping the Endangered
            Species Program's scientific reports from the field. MacDonald
            admitted that her degree is in civil engineering and that she
            has no formal educational background in natural sciences, such
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            as biology.

            While we discovered no illegal activity on her part, we did
            determine that MacDonald disclosed non-public information to
            private sector sources, including the California Farm Bureau
            Federation and the Pacific Legal Foundation. In fact, MacDonald
            admitted that she has released non-public information to public
            sources on several occasions during her tenure as Deputy
            Assistant Secretary for FWS.

        As the Inspector General noted, it was not illegal for a senior
    political appointee to manipulate the work of Federal Government
    experts. No protections existed for Federal Government scientists to
    defend the integrity of their work. And while scientific integrity
    policies have since been developed within Interior that address this
    kind of malfeasance, they lack the authority of law and could be
    rescinded at any moment.

        Abuses of science at Interior, of course, were not simply done by
    one bad apple. UCS documented more than two dozen examples of political
    interreference in science during the George W. Bush administration. For
    example:

         Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officials compromised the
                integrity of a BLM study by removing scientific concerns
                about the effects newly relaxed grazing regulations would
                have on public lands.

         The southwest regional director of the U.S. Fish and
                Wildlife Service (FWS) pressured veteran wildlife refuge
                manager Ken Merritt to approve plans routing a planned
                border wall through the Lower Rio Grande Valley national
                wildlife refuge. Merritt stated that regional director
                Benjamin Tuggle asked him in 2007 to approve the initial
                survey for the wall and that when Merritt refused, Tuggle
                called that choice a ``career-ending decision.'' Merritt
                retired from FWS shortly thereafter and the Department of
                Homeland Security (DHS) eventually used its authority to
                waive numerous environmental laws in order to go ahead with
                the border wall project.

         In several cases, the Minerals Management Service excluded
                or directed its scientists to exclude analyses that found
                harm to wildlife from oil exploration activities. In a June
                2006 e-mail, former MMS biologist Jeff Childs warned his
                chain-of-command that ``bringing vessels, rigs, platforms,
                etc. to Alaska from Outside are likely to'' introduce
                invasive species that ``may very well yield much greater
                significant adverse impacts than a large oil spill.'' MMS
                then removed Childs from working on the issue of invasive
                species because he ``refused to implement DOI [Interior]
                and MMS policy vis-a-vis invasive species,'' which was that
                these findings were to be excluded from reports. A March
                2010 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
                confirmed that Childs' analysis of invasive species impacts
                was deleted by management from a 2006 environmental
                assessment.

         Political interference by J. Stephen Griles, then deputy
                secretary of the Department of the Interior and a former
                lobbyist for the National Mining Association, derailed an
                Environmental Impact statement related to a rule to protect
                Appalachian streams and communities from a coal-mining
                technique known as mountaintop removal mining. Internal
                documents reveal Griles violated a signed statement to the
                Senate, in which he recused himself from issues affecting
                his former clients, and met no fewer than 12 times with top
                Bush administration officials and coal industry
                representatives to discuss the EIS. Griles also issued a
                memo stating that the EIS should ``focus on centralizing
                and streamlining coal-mining permitting'' instead of
                minimizing adverse environmental effects.

         Six leading ecologists who were appointed to a scientific
                advisory panel by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service
                (NMFS) claim that they were asked to remove science-based
                recommendations from an official report.

         A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) e-mail directive
                instructed its Alaskan employees who request travel not to
                discuss polar bears, sea ice, or climate change unless they
                are explicitly authorized to do so.

         High ranking officials from the Fish and Wildlife Service
                (FWS) and the other Federal land agencies intervened in the
                recovery plan for the northern spotted owl, compromising
                the science-based protections in order to reduce barriers
                to increased logging in old-growth forests.

         Agency officials knowingly used flawed science in the
                agency's assessment of the endangered Florida panther's
                habitat and viability in order to facilitate proposed real
                estate development in southwest Florida.

         Bureau of Land Management (BLM) suspended an Oregon State
                University (OSU) grant after university researchers
                published a study in the prestigious journal Science which
                concluded that logging in the wake of an Oregon fire
                retarded the forest's recovery.

         The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had on multiple
                occasions manipulated economic analyses of its plans for
                protecting endangered species by counting only the costs of
                protection while ignoring the benefits. In 2004, for
                example, the FWS artificially inflated the estimated cost
                of protecting the threatened bull trout. Two years later,
                the agency downplayed the benefits of protecting the
                California red-legged frog.

        It is important to note that some of these abuses are direct
    (censorship and manipulation) and some are systemic (changes in how
    scientific assessments are done related to endangered species).
                  development of scientific integrity policies
        Under President Obama, the Department of the Interior recognized
    the need for changes. Indeed, Secretary Salazar didn't even wait for
    White House guidance on scientific integrity, issuing a Secretarial
    Order on September 29, 2010 establishing scientific integrity
    principles and directing departmental staff to develop a Departmental
    Manual to help protect science in the department.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Secretary Ken Salazar, U.S. Department of the Interior, Order
    No. 3305, Sep 29, 2010. http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/USBR/
    SecOrderNo3305ScientificIntegrity.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The DOI scientific integrity policy and manual that was
    subsequently developed was one of the best in government. Notably, DOI
    was only department to report out results of investigations into losses
    of scientific integrity.
        In 2016, responding to concerns expressed by external scientists,
    the USFWS revised its peer review policy for endangered seis ac listing
    decision. The new policy improved transparency, strengthened the
    guidelines for dealing with conflicts of interest and made a clear
    separation of the Scientific advice and policy recommendations. In fact
    overall the new policy was clearer and responsive to scientist
    concerns.
        One of the major problems was how peer reviewers were chosen and
    how their advice was subsequently treated by the agency. When decisions
    are controversial it is important to carry forward the nuance of
    concerns, not just a thumbs up or down approach. To be sure, more
    improvements are still needed, including most importantly ensuring
    there is accountability for adhering to strong peer review guidelines.
    Most endangered species decisions are controversial, but it must be
    borne in mind that the Act is the last opportunity to halt species
    extinctions. Losing a species from this Earth is never trivial and
    conservation efforts deserve our best science.
                    attacks on science under president trump
        The erosion of scientific integrity in government has hit a fever
    pitch in the last 2 years. Barely a week goes by without hearing of
    scientists who are prevented from sharing their expertise with the
    public, or analytic work that is censored, or experts who are prevented
    from communicating with Congress, or data is made less accessible
    through websites, or science that is misrepresented.\4\ Since January
    2017, the Union of Concerned Scientists has documented more than 110
    attacks on science under the Trump administration, a mark that George
    W. Bush did not meet in his two terms.\5\ Other organizations, such as
    the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, are also tracking attacks on
    science during the current administration.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Attacks on Science tracker, UCS Staff. https://www.ucsusa.org/
    center-science-and-democracy/attacks-on-science
        \5\ Abuses of Science: Case Studies, UCS Staff, 2009. https://
    www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-
    scientific-integrity/abuses-science-case-studies
        \6\ Silencing Science Tracker. http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/
    resources/silencing-science-tracker/

        Recently, several former EPA administrators expressed concern about
    political interference in science at the EPA at a hearing in the House
    Energy and Commerce Committee. Former New Jersey Governor Christine
    Todd Whitman, who served as EPA administrator under George W. Bush,
    went on to write an Op-Ed in The Hill with UCS President Ken Kimmell
    supporting the Scientific Integrity Act.\7\ Whitman and Kimmell wrote:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Scientific integrity is crumbling under Trump, Ken Kimmell,
    Christie Todd Whitman, Jul 9, 2019. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-
    environment/452222-scientific-integrity-is-crumbing-under-trump

            We all rely on Federal scientists--and we need to be able to
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            trust that we're getting the best available science.

            But there's a problem here: Federal scientists often face
            political pressure that undermines their research and their
            ability to share it with the public. Political leaders have
            buried critical reports, keeping the public in the dark about
            real threats. They have prevented scientists from publishing
            their research or attending scientific conferences. They have
            disciplined scientists for talking about their findings to
            journalists.

        Scientific integrity can be compromised by political censorship,
    manipulation, and/or intimidation. Here are some examples from the 20
    attacks at the Department of the Interior selected from our research:
    \8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Science Under Siege at the Department of the Interior, Carter
    et al., Dec 2018. https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-
    democracy/science-under-siege-department-interior-2018

         In October 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
                reversed their long-standing requirement that a proposed
                city-sized development in southeastern Arizona needed a
                comprehensive biological assessment to evaluate the
                potential impacts to endangered species in the area. The
                FWS official in charge of this process recently said that
                the only reason he reversed his decision was because he was
                pressured by a high-level political appointee at the
                Department of the Interior (DOI). The result of the FWS
                reversal led to the development, Villages at Vigneto, to
                receive a permit to build by the U.S. Army Corps of
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Engineers.

         The Department of the Interior (DOI) failed to consider
                and excluded from public view 18 memos from staff
                scientists who had raised scientific and environmental
                concerns about proposed oil and gas operations in the
                Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. These documents
                were excluded from the DOI's draft environmental
                assessment, and were not released during Freedom of
                Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by advocacy groups.

         In an effort to censor science around adaptation to
                climate change, and in direct contrast to instructions from
                Congress, the Trump administration has defunded Landscape
                Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), causing 16 of the 22 LCCs
                to be eliminated or placed on indefinite hiatus. LCCs are
                governmental research centers located across the United
                States that integrate science-based information on climate
                change and other stressors to better conserve and protect
                natural and cultural resources.

         A proposal from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
                remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
                was found to be full of errors regarding wolf conservation
                and taxonomy. One member of the scientific panel asked to
                review the proposal said it seemed as if the proposal was
                written by cherry-picking evidence that would support de-
                listing.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Scientists Find Serious Flaws in Proposal to Delist Endangered
    Gray Wolf, Jacob Carter, Jun 24, 2019. https://blog.ucsusa.org/jacob-
    carter/flaws-in-proposal-to-delist-gray-wolf

         In 2017, scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
                completed a comprehensive analysis of the potential dangers
                three widely used pesticides may present to hundreds of
                endangered species. Two of the pesticides, chlorpyrifos and
                malathion, were deemed by the scientists to ``jeopardize
                the continued existence'' of more than 1,200 endangered
                birds, fish, and other animals and plants. However, before
                the scientists could publish their report in November 2017,
                top officials from the Department of the Interior (DOI),
                including then deputy administrator of the DOI, David
                Bernhardt, intervened. The DOI officials blocked the
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                release of the report.

         In a 2-year period, the Department of the Interior's (DOI)
                Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) had
                given offshore oil drillers 1,679 waivers to regulations
                that tested the safety of equipment, rather than collect
                critical data that could demonstrate the need for safety
                improvements. More than a third of the waivers were for
                engineering testing procedures for blowout preventors, the
                device that failed to seal off BP's well when it erupted in
                2010 and killed 11 workers during the Deepwater Horizon oil
                spill.

         Two National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
                Medicine (NASEM) studies were halted in mid-course for the
                first time in NASEM's 150-year history. One was requested
                by Appalachian states to better understand the impact on
                drinking water of mountaintop removal mining. The other was
                investigating how to improve safety of offshore oil and gas
                development as recommended by a National Commission after
                the Gulf oil spill.

         DOI officials removed climate change references from the
                press release of a USGS study on California coastline
                infrastructure and sea level rise.

         DOI blocked Bureau of Land Management archeologists and
                USGS scientists from attending prominent research
                conferences in their fields.

         Fish and Wildlife Services rushed a scientific assessment
                of the American burying beetle reportedly to avoid
                disrupting agribusiness. Two biologists left the project,
                feeling like they were being forced to do shoddy science.

         The superintendent of Joshua Tree National Park was
                summoned to Washington to be personally reprimanded by
                Secretary Zinke after the Park's official Twitter account
                posted about climate change.

         Government scientists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                Service (FWS) warned that the use of seismic surveys in
                Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) could
                further threaten the polar bear population. Officials of
                the Trump administration appear to ignore or censor this
                information from consideration as the process of opening up
                the refuge to oil exploration continues.

        Even worse are policies and practices that structurally sideline
    science from policymaking, from limiting the types of science that can
    inform decisions to political review of scientific grants to the
    elimination or compromising of science advisory committees. These
    include:

         Restricting the science that agencies can consider to only
                those studies where all raw data and computer code is
                publicly available, precluding using information that
                appropriately should be kept confidential (e.g. health
                records, endangered species location information). This
                restriction on science is supposedly to improve
                transparency but that is a false justification. Making
                information publicly available is laudable but rarely is it
                necessary to make raw data available for a study to be
                understandable and carefully scrutinized. I review dozens
                of papers for academic journals and do not review the raw
                data. But requiring raw data disclosure really restricts
                the ability of agencies to use the best information. And in
                particular it prevents the use of population level studies
                that can be vitally important to address public health,
                safety and environmental threats across the Department's
                bureaus Indian Affairs, Land Management to Fish and
                Wildlife. A similar proposal at EPA received universal
                condemnation from scientific organizations.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ A List of Scientific Organizations That Have Supported and
    Opposed Limiting What Research EPA Can Use to Make Decisions, Michael
    Halpern, Apr 24, 2018. https: / / blog.ucsusa.org / michael-halpern /
    a-list-of-scientific-organizations-that-have-supported-and-opposed-
    limiting-what-research-epa-can-use-to-make-decisions

         Reducing by fiat the number of expert advisory panels
                agencies rely on, and favoring regulated industry interests
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                over independent experts on those panels.

         President Trump recently issued an Executive Order cutting
                the number of agency advisory panels by one-third. This
                would not save much money since most committees are pro
                bono, and it would remove a critical avenue for peer review
                and scientific advice for absolutely no benefit other than
                to sideline science.

         Altering the consideration of costs and benefits to
                downweight public benefits, thereby calling into question
                the appropriateness of certain regulations, and misusing
                the very concept of cost/benefit analysis.

         Arbitrarily restricting the length and time frame for NEPA
                analyses regardless of the amount of scientific information
                needed, as well as circumventing the NEPA process depriving
                the public of the consideration of options and the
                information that supports different policy alternatives.

         DOI directed political appointees to begin reviewing
                discretionary grants to make sure that they align with
                Trump administration priorities. The discretionary grants
                include any grants worth $50,000 or more that are intended
                to be distributed to ``a non-profit organization that can
                legally advance advocacy'' or ``an institution of higher
                education.'' Discretionary grants are normally reviewed by
                independent experts who assess grant proposals using a
                uniform rating or scoring system established by the
                awarding agency. The proposals are evaluated based on
                criteria specific to the grant--for some programmatic
                grants these criteria are dictated by statutory authority
                (e.g., grants in the brownfields program at the EPA).
                Therefore, as former Secretary of Interior David J. Hayes
                noted, ``Subjugating Congress's priorities to 10 of the
                Secretary's own priorities is arrogant, impractical and, in
                some cases, likely illegal.'' \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Trump Political Appointees Interfere in Scientific Grants
    Process Take Two: The Department of Interior, Jacob Carter, Jan 10,
    2018. https://blog.ucsusa.org/jacob-carter/trump-political-appointees-
    interfere-in-scientific-grants-process-take-two-the-department-of-
    interior

        I want to be clear. We don't highlight attacks on science to
    ``protect'' scientists. I am not concerned that my feelings will be
    hurt or that controversy is not appropriate and real. I worked with
    fishermen for many years--and they can be, you might say, direct. I can
    take the heat and so can many of my colleagues. But censorship and
    manipulation of results is inappropriate use of our work, and most
    importantly, in bad policies.
        As a decision maker in government in my previous positions at NOAA
    fisheries I know that lots of considerations must be weighed in any
    given decision. I believed then, as I do now, that the science is
    always important but only prescriptive if required by statute. But I
    also believe that the reasons a decision is made should be as clear as
    possible for the public. It is never appropriate to censor or
    manipulate evidence to support a decision being made for other reasons.
             surveys of scientists demonstrate sustained challenges
        Since 2005, the Union of Concerned Scientists has conducted surveys
    of Federal Government scientists to measure the level of political,
    corporate, and other pressures on the conduct and communication of
    their work. A survey in 2018 was conducted in partnership with the
    Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology at Iowa State University.
    Responses were received from 4,211 Federal Government scientists across
    16 agencies and departments.
        The results of the survey \12\ provided evidence of political
    interference in the science policy process at many Federal agencies. At
    some agencies, the situation for scientists is worse than it was during
    the Bush or Obama administrations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Results of Our 2018
    Federal Scientists Survey, Jacob Carter, Aug 14, 2018. https://
    blog.ucsusa.org/jacob-carter/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-the-results-
    of-our-2018-federal-scientists-
    survey?_ga=2.185252906.241573531.1563190776-108700043 9.1563190776

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Scientists reported high levels of censorship and self-censorship:

         631 respondents (18 percent) at agencies that work on
                climate change agreed or strongly agreed that they had been
                asked to omit the phrase ``climate change'' from their
                work.

         798 respondents (20 percent) reported that they had been
                asked or told to avoid work on specific scientific topics
                because they are politically contentious.

         1,040 respondents (26 percent) reported that they had
                avoided working on certain scientific topics or using
                certain scientific terms because they are politically
                contentious, though they were not told explicitly to avoid
                them.

        From the 2018 Federal scientists' survey: \13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ 2018 Federal Scientists Survey FAQ. https://www.ucsusa.org/
    our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/
    2018-federal-scientists-survey

         NPS: 168 respondents (76 percent) felt that consideration
                of political interests is a burden to scientific decision
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                making.

         NOAA: 416 respondents (38 percent) said that a focus on
                business interests inappropriately influences science-based
                decisions; 311 respondents (29 percent) said that senior
                decision makers from industry or who have a financial stake
                in regulatory outcomes inappropriately influences decision
                making

              -- ``I've been told to avoid scientific work that might link
            environmental problems with the actions of U.S. industry.''

              -- ``Industry is given power to direct policy involving
            regulations or scientific conclusions (and opinions based on
            the science) that would affect them, thus providing outcomes
            that benefit them. This comes at the cost of our agencies
            ability to accomplish our mission for the American public and
            natural resources we are entrusted to manage and conserve.''

         FWS: 235 respondents (69 percent) noted the level of
                consideration of political interests as a burden to
                science-based decision making.

         USGS: 328 respondents (59 percent) reported resources such
                as funding and staff time distributed away from work
                considered politically contentious.

         FWS: 213 respondents (59 percent) felt that the
                effectiveness of the office decreased compared with 1 year
                ago, and 210 respondents (58 percent) said personal job
                satisfaction decreased.

         NPS: 55 respondents (26 percent) reported avoiding working
                on climate change or using the phrase ``climate change''
                even when not explicitly told to do so.
              -- ``There has definitely been a chill on climate research
            and climate change awareness,'' said an NPS scientist.
            ``Although there have been few published prohibitions to point
            to, there is uncertainty about what forms of retaliation might
            take place if the powers-that-be are unhappy with you.''

              -- ``Consistent removal of references to climate change have
            hindered our ability to have honest discussions about the
            potential threats associated with climate change to the
            National Park System.''

              -- ``Management refused permission to publish a
            (successfully) peer-reviewed report for fear of political
            repercussions.''

         FWS: 101 respondents (30 percent) reported being asked to
                omit certain politically contentious words from their
                scientific work products.

         USGS: 119 respondents (22 percent) reported they have been
                asked or told not to work on topics viewed as politically
                contentious; 169 respondents (32 percent) reported they
                avoid working on climate change or using the phrase
                ``climate change'' even without explicit orders to do so.

              -- ``We are being told not to use the words `climate change'
            in any memos that require clearance, and press releases are not
            being approved. This really hinders our ability to communicate
            with the public and lowers morale.''

         NPS scientist: ``The constant attacks on science and facts
                by the current administration has negatively impacted
                scientists in the agency. Effects range from anger and
                frustration to depression and even opting to retire early.
                Twenty-five years of experience with three Federal agencies
                and I've never seen anything like this--it is appalling.''

         From the U.S. Geological Survey: ``Senior USGS management
                has censored scientists on multiple occasions. For example,
                video of a research talk on earthquake early warning was
                removed from the USGS website because there was concern
                that congressional staffers might see it (the research
                pointed out difficulties with earthquake early warning,
                which had yet to be funded fully by Congress). Often
                politically contentious scientific results are watered down
                in the internal review process. If scientists do not accept
                edits that water down the language, they are not allowed to
                submit the manuscript to a journal.''

         From the National Park Service: ``Consistent removal of
                references to climate change have hindered our ability to
                have honest discussions about the potential threats
                associated with climate change to the National Park
                System.''

        (Note that percentages vary because not every respondent answered
    every question)

        Science has been the engine which has driven prosperity in this
    country since its founding. There is no model of an effective democracy
    in which the best and brightest scientific minds either elect to keep
    their work to themselves for fear of reprisal, or, are muzzled by a
    frightened government unwilling to accept their findings.
                          the scientific integrity act
        The Scientific Integrity Act introduced by Rep. Paul Tonko (NY),
    and co-sponsored by over 200 members of the House, is good government
    legislation. It is agnostic on matters of policy; rather, it aims to
    ensure that policies are fully informed by science. The legislation
    contains many of the best practices that have been identified for the
    development and maintenance of a thriving Federal scientific
    enterprise.
        Putting such legislation in place is vital because current
    policies, including the Department of the Interior's Scientific
    Integrity Policy do not have the force and effect of law. They can and
    are being ignored all too often as the examples above show.
        The legislation prohibits any employee from manipulating or
    misrepresenting scientific findings.\14\ On issues from endangered
    species to toxic chemical contamination to worker safety, political
    appointees have personally made changes to scientific documents (or
    ordered that changes be made) in order to justify action or lack of
    action on public health and environmental threats.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Attacks on Public Health and Safety that the Scientific
    Integrity Act Could Have Prevented, Dr. Jacob Carter, Jul 15, 2019.
    https://blog.ucsusa.org/jacob-carter/attacks-on-public-health-and-
    safety-that-the-scientific-integrity-act-could-have-
    prevented?_ga=2.243047298.1690950967.15633 66482-1532896556.1535565435
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The legislation helps ensure that government communication of
    science is accurate by giving scientists the right of last review over
    materials that rely primarily on their research. It also gives
    scientists the right to correct official materials that misrepresent
    their work. This provision makes it less likely that Federal agencies
    will put out inaccurate information, either intentionally or
    inadvertently. The legislation ensures that scientists can carry out
    their research--and share it with the public--without fear of political
    pressure or retaliation. It enables scientists to talk about their
    research in public, with reporters, in scientific journals, and at
    scientific conferences. The bill empowers Federal scientists to share
    their personal opinions as informed experts, but only in an individual
    capacity, not as government representatives. This is essential due to
    the amount of censorship and self-censorship that has been documented
    on issues from climate change to food safety.
        The legislation requires agencies to devote resources to designate
    scientific integrity officers and provide Federal employees with
    appropriate training to help prevent misconduct. Some agencies have
    developed policies that have no enforcement mechanisms, rendering them
    virtually meaningless.
        The legislation would not empower scientists to speak for their
    agency on policy matters. It would not enable scientists to circumvent
    the agency leadership with regard to policy decisions. It would be
    clearly applied to expressing views with regard to their scientific
    expertise.
                               concluding remarks
        Not all attacks on science are matters of scientific integrity.
    Policy decisions that fail to consider scientific evidence are just
    that and harm our Nation. But allowing scientists to be free from
    censorship, manipulation of their results or intimidation would go a
    long way toward improving the decision process. And pushing back on
    other attempts to sideline science from policymaking is also important
    for accountability, public trust, and the overall strength of
    environmental and public health decisions.
        The United States has a strong and vibrant science community. That
    community is part of the strength of our democracy. But when science is
    sidelined from public policy or scientific integrity is compromised
    public health, safety and our environment is undermined. Simply put, we
    cannot make good policy in the public interest unless we fairly
    consider the weight of scientific information fully.

        Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I would be happy to
    respond to questions.

                                     ______

    Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Director of
      the Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists
                      Questions Submitted by Rep. Grijalva
        Question 1. In his opening statement, Ranking Member Rob Bishop
    referred to the decreasing number of scientific integrity complaints at
    the Department of the Interior during the Trump administration. Is the
    number of scientific integrity complaints an adequate measure of a
    scientific integrity problem in an organization?

        Answer. No, the number of complaints is dependent on many factors,
    importantly including whether agency scientists feel secure and trust
    the process. Our survey of DOI scientists shows a marked decline in
    trust of agency leadership. That is a significant factor in changes in
    formal scientific integrity (SI) complaints. In addition to a lack of
    confidence in the process by the aggrieved party, scientists concerns
    over retaliation by colleagues or supervisors for speaking out, and
    incidents which may have been reported by the aggrieved party but not
    properly documented, many complaints are dealt with informally and
    through consultation that is not documented.

        Specifically, at the Department of the Interior, we note that the
    Agency only lists two scientific integrity complaints in 2018. However,
    UCS has documented eight instances of political pressure on science and
    scientists from publicly disclosed information.

         Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt issues Order No. 3369
                that will restrict scientific studies from being used to
                inform decisions at DOI.

         Senior officials at DOI dismissed evidence showing the
                value of national monuments via increased tourism and
                archaeological discovery in a review of monuments conducted
                by the agency.

         The Trump administration rescinded Director's Order #100,
                which established that management of national parks would
                be made using the best available science.

         The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began requiring
                scientists to get permission to speak to reporters in July
                2018, representing a dramatic change from decades of past
                media practices.

         In 2018, the DOI restricted its scientists from attending
                two national prominent scientific meetings, the annual
                meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the
                annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

         In January 2018, the Trump administration instructed
                political appointees to review grants to ensure they
                aligned with 10 priorities set by the administration.
                Typically, scientific grant proposals are reviewed and
                awarded based on their intellectual merit, not political
                priorities.

         Officials from the Department of the Interior (DOI)
                stripped language that was written by Federal scientists on
                a key environmental impacts letter to the U.S. Customs and
                Border Protection (USCBP) about the U.S.-Mexico border wall
                during December, 2018. The deleted sections, written by
                Federal biologists and wildlife managers from the U.S. Fish
                and Wildlife Service (FWS), brought up scientifically valid
                concerns about the potential impact of the border wall on
                endangered species whose populations are located along the
                border.

         In September 2018, two university scientists ended a
                contract with the Fish and Wildlife Service saying that the
                administration was pressuring them to use inaccurate
                methodologies in their work.

        Finally, scientific integrity policies do not address many of the
    ways that science is sidelined from policy making, including by
    politicizing or disbanding science advisory committees; weakening the
    department's interpretation of laws such as the Endangered Species Act;
    reassigning staff in a retaliatory manner; and allowing for political
    review of scientific grants, all of which has been well-documented.

        1a. The Union of Concerned Scientists has conducted surveys of
    scientists in several Federal agencies, including those within the
    Department of the Interior. Is this a more accurate way to measure the
    extent of a scientific integrity problem at an agency?

        Answer. There is both anecdotal and quantifiable evidence that
    illustrates the challenges of Agency self-reporting scientific
    integrity violations. Relative to that process, the scientist survey
    conducted by UCS is a more accurate way to capture more data about
    allegations of scientific integrity violations. The data from the
    surveys paint a bleak picture of how this Administration is censoring
    scientists, both directly and indirectly, subjecting critical work
    force capacity to harmful atrophy, and directly interfering with the
    work conducted by scientists. Yet even our data only scratches the
    surface of what scientific integrity challenges may exist. Our survey
    results are limited by the number of responses we receive, and without
    an Agency mandating participation in the study, we can only analyze and
    report on what we hear back.
        It is also of concern that reporting by the agency is limited. Even
    for complaints that are reported, the resolution of those cases is
    unclear. Overall, more transparency by the agency would help improve
    the trust scientists have in the process.

        1b. Can you briefly describe some of the key findings of those
    surveys?

        Answer. Our 2018 survey results show that scientists are concerned
    about work force reductions. Seventy-nine percent of respondents
    reported work force reductions occurring during the 2017-2018 frame,
    and 87 percent of those respondents reported that such reductions made
    it more difficult for agencies to fulfill their missions. Our results
    also show concern about political interference. Twenty percent of all
    respondents named ``influence of political appointees in your agency or
    department'' or ``influence of the White House'' as one of the greatest
    barriers to science-based decision making. Fifty percent of all
    respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that consideration of
    political interests hindered their agencies' ability to make science-
    based decisions. Respondents from the EPA showed particular concern
    about political influence, with 81 percent agreeing or strongly
    agreeing that it was a hindrance, and nearly a third naming it as a top
    barrier, to science-based decisions.
        Censorship has also been a persistent problem, especially at the
    National Park Service where scientists struggle to be accurate in their
    work without the ability to mention climate change and its impacts. Our
    Survey results show that 18 percent of respondents (including 47
    percent at NPS and 35 percent at EPA) had been asked to omit the phrase
    ``climate change'' from their work. And 20 percent of respondents
    reported engaging in self-censorship regarding climate change.
        These issues of course manifest in low morale and low confidence in
    any existing scientific integrity policies. Many respondents reported
    decreased job effectiveness and satisfaction in addition to low morale.
    Across all agencies, 39 percent of responding scientists reported that
    the effectiveness of their divisions or office had decreased over the
    past year, while only 15 percent reported an increase. Forty-two
    percent of respondents said that they would be willing to report a
    scientific integrity violation and trust that they would be treated
    fairly.

        Please refer to the attached summaries of our survey at the end of
    my responses.

        Question 2. In his testimony, Mr. Daren Bakst drew attention to the
    fact that scientific integrity violations have occurred under previous
    administrations at the Department of the Interior. Are the attacks on
    science under the Trump administration at Interior a reflection of the
    status quo or is this administration unique?

        Answer. Mr. Bakst conflated a wide range of issues of scientific
    misconduct, genuine policy differences, the interpretation of legal
    mandates and scientific integrity as defined in our work and agency
    policies. That makes his statements rather confused and unclear. It is
    important to note, that issues such as scientific misconduct, which
    certainly occurs though it has been shown to be rare, have a mechanism
    in place to resolve issues--peer review, expert panels, and
    consideration of weight of evidence rather than any one study for
    example. So too do issues of legal mandates (adjudication) and even
    policy differences (congressional oversight, adjudication). But the
    system for political suppression or manipulation of science has no
    formal system for resolving problems that includes real accountability.
        Scientific integrity violations have been documented as far back as
    the Eisenhower administration. However, the degree to which science has
    been politicized, and the ferocity with which this Administration and
    its allies attack science they find too inconvenient for their goals,
    is both alarming and unprecedented. As I noted at the hearing, we have
    documented over 100 attacks against science by the Administration to
    date. To put this into historical context, the Trump administration has
    attacked science more often in less than 3 years compared to 8 years of
    the President George W. Bush administration. The number is certainly
    shocking, but what is most important to guard against is not simply the
    next attack, but the consequences of those attacks for the American
    people--less public health protection, poorer environmental quality
    with impacts on our quality of life, less safety and resilience of our
    communities. And these are often impacts that will be with us for years
    if not decades. Further, we are concerned about the potential shift in
    political culture that would make attacks on science commonplace, and
    censoring of scientists acceptable. Neither are precedents for a
    successful democracy.

        Question 3. In his testimony, Mr. Daren Bakst highlighted EPA's
    ``secret science'' rule. The Department of the Interior issued the
    nearly identical Secretarial Order 3369 ``Promoting Open Science.'' Can
    you explain how these initiatives will affect science and scientists at
    Federal agencies like the Department of the Interior?

        Answer. To be clear, while scientists at Federal agencies will
    certainly be impacted, the clear losers of allowing such policies to be
    enacted at EPA and DOI are the American people. There is a thorough
    record of the ``secret science'' rule, first considered by the House
    Science Committee under the leadership of then-Chairman Lamar Smith,
    where the intention of this policy was laid bare. At its core, policy
    proposals like EPA's ``secret science'' rule and Secretarial Order
    3369, serve to restrict the science that can be considered by agency's
    when developing responses to critical public health challenges posed by
    climate change.
        As my colleague Michael Halpern once said about the EPA rule,
    ``This is a fundamentally flawed concept wholly conceived and promoted
    by industry lobbyists to limit the types of science that EPA can use in
    making decisions. Not even the EPA Office of the Science Advisor had
    any clue what was going on until the proposal was published. When
    legislation that tried to accomplish the same goal repeatedly died on
    the vine in Congress, they tried to ram it through the agency. The
    proposed rule should be framed in the National Archives as a notable
    example of how a government agency can be co-opted by extremists and
    failed tobacco lobbyists.''
        Any initiative that makes it harder for scientists at Federal
    agencies to have access to the science they need to conduct their work
    is problematic. When such initiatives also leave open the opportunity
    for third-parties to challenge the underlying data, the work of the
    agency slows and the role of the Federal scientist transforms from
    analyzing to defending. Much like a trojan horse, these initiatives are
    specifically designed to put scientists on the defensive thereby
    slowing the work of the agency.
        Rather than promote transparency, the Secretarial Order further
    politicizes the process of science informing policy choices, because it
    gives the Secretary or his designee the authority to pick and choose
    which science can be used despite so-called transparency concerns. And,
    the order is specifically designed to circumvent the process by which
    scientists determine the weight of evidence and place that into
    political hands. That inherently means that the decisions that are made
    will be more political, less defensible, and the policies will be less
    effective for a whole host of reasons.
        When the rule was announced at EPA, then-Administrator Pruitt said
    that the order was consistent with guidelines from specific scientific
    organizations, all of which subsequently disavowed and distanced
    themselves from the rule. Dozens of scientific organizations urged that
    the rule be scrapped; not a single mainstream scientific organization
    supported it.
        Please refer to the attached comments submitted by UCS to the EPA
    rule at the end of my responses.

        Question 4. Last month, President Trump issued an Executive Order,
    titled ``Evaluating and Improving the Utility of Federal Advisory
    Committees.'' This order gives Federal agencies until September 30,
    2019 to terminate at least one-third of all of their Federal advisory
    committees.

        4a. Can you please explain the role of these Federal advisory
    committees?

        Answer. Federal advisory committees are formal bodies comprised of
    experts that can provide advice to policy makers on highly technical
    matters, particularly on issues relating to science. The EO is a purely
    cosmetic act to cut advisory committees without rhyme or reason. It is
    the very definition of arbitrary and capricious. This extends the
    administration's attacks on receiving independent science advice as we
    have seen at both EPA and Interior--appointing poorly qualified
    advisors with major conflicts of interest, excluding highly qualified
    advisors on contrived grounds, failing to hold advisory committee
    meetings on major science based actions. Now, committees will be
    eliminated wholesale with no stated rationale. It can't be to save
    money since most advisors serve pro bono (as I have on numerous
    committees). And it won't allow agencies to access the best talent.

        4b. How does this Executive Order affect scientific integrity at
    Federal agencies?

        Answer. First, the order is arbitrary in setting what number of
    committees to eliminate. Second, the justification for seeking to
    eliminate committees (cost), is not supported by any evidence provided
    to date. What it means is that agencies will not have the independent
    advice of external scientists to guide their work. That means, once
    again, that the role of science will likely be weakened in the decision
    process and policy choices will be made on a wholly political basis.

        4c. Based on what we have seen so far in the Trump administration,
    how do you think agencies will decide which advisory committees to
    terminate?

        Answer. At this point it is unclear. There is no consistency in
    approach or rationale. Agencies must just report which committees will
    be canceled to meet an arbitrary and capricious standard.

        Question 5. Dr. Rosenberg, please describe the difference between
    scientific integrity violations and research misconduct that might
    occur among agency scientists.

        Answer. Research misconduct describes the behavior of the
    scientist, scientific integrity violations describe the behavior of
    others toward the scientist. The former is referring to relatively rare
    cases where a scientist intentionally circumventing or corrupting the
    scientific process rendering their results suspect. The latter is
    others misconstruing, suppressing or manipulating scientific results or
    attacking scientists personally in order to corrupt the evidence and
    misrepresent the science.

        5a. What mechanisms are in place to address research misconduct?
    Are such mechanisms sufficient?

        Answer. There are a host of mechanisms, from peer review by
    knowledgeable experts, to science advisory panels, institutional review
    boards and other checks and balances that prevent, or in some cases
    bring to light, research misconduct. But in addition, when used in a
    policy context, adhering to a standard of relying on the weight of
    evidence rather than any one study generally reveals aberrant results.
    These mechanisms can always be strengthened, better funded and more
    rigorously applied, but research misconduct is relatively rare, and
    rarer still is an inappropriate study given significant weight in
    policy making.

        5b. What mechanisms are in place to address scientific integrity
    violations? Are such mechanisms sufficient?

        Answer. Scientific integrity policy at Federal agencies provide
    some, but a rather inconsistent mechanisms to raise issues of political
    interference in science within the agency. But there is no full
    accountability to meet the policies. Inspector General Offices have not
    taken on these challenges in most cases. Accountability, reporting and
    follow through have all been difficult to varying degrees at different
    agencies.

        5c. Is it necessary to have separate policies that address
    scientific integrity violations and research misconduct?

        Answer. Yes, these are entirely separate issues and should not be
    conflated.

        Question 6. Dr. Rosenberg, many believe that transparency in
    research is important to public accountability. Can you describe what
    methods scientists currently use to share data and research methods? In
    addition, can you address efforts to exploit the idea of transparency
    in science to undermine science-based policy making?

        Answer. Transparency in research is important. But being clear on
    what steps lead to greater transparency is essential. Sharing
    information on what studies were considered and how important an agency
    believed each to be in the decision it made is a major step. Also,
    agency decision records should clearly state why a specific policy
    choice was made and not try to contort the science to support a
    decision. Scientific evidence does not mandate any particular policy
    choice, but it should inform policy makers and the public about the
    efficacy of that choice. If a decision is being made for other reasons
    (e.g. to allow businesses time to adjust) then say that rather than
    pretend that decision is based on science.
        Unfortunately, some interest groups have falsely claimed that
    transparency depends upon the sharing of raw data and other
    underpinning of a particular study. But from a scientists perspective,
    I want to understand the methods used to collect the data, the basic
    patterns in the data and how the results were then derived. I don't
    want to look at each data point unless one is given undue influence,
    which should be revealed in the data methods and patterns. Requiring
    release of raw data immediately precluded a wide range of information
    that must be kept confidential for privacy reasons. That in turn means
    that certain kinds of studies such as epidemiological analyses cannot
    be considered, but they provide critical public health information. So,
    chasing after raw data really is a trick to preclude epidemiological
    information.

        Question 7. Dr. Rosenberg, please describe the results of your
    survey of scientists at the Department of the Interior and how these
    measure up to previous administrations.

        Answer. As noted above, we have seen marked increases since the
    previous administration of concerns over political interference and
    special interest influence on science and policy making. There are also
    major increased concern over the capacity of the agencies in Interior
    to meet their mission because of staff losses and political
    micromanagement. Morale is very low and job satisfaction is declining.

        Question 8. Dr. Rosenberg, please describe other ways that the
    Department of the Interior officials have sidelined science from the
    policy process or otherwise politicized science in ways previously
    unseen. Are there methods other than scientific integrity policies that
    would help prevent these kinds of practices?

        Answer. We have catalogued attacks on science in the department as
    detailed in my written testimony. Not all are issues of scientific
    integrity. Some attacks are the result of political appointees ignoring
    input from professional staff, including scientists, others are
    political micromanagement of grant programs, or mandating unscientific
    standards such as a time limit for projecting future impacts, or page
    limits on analyses. Overall, the ethos of the department has turned to
    a focus on political rather than evidence-based decisions.

        Question 9. Dr. Rosenberg, why do you think that formal scientific
    integrity complaints at the Department of the Interior are down? Does
    this demonstrate that the Trump administration is more science-friendly
    than the Obama administration?

        Answer. As I stated in my answer above--there may be a number of
    reasons why the number of formal scientific integrity complaints at the
    Department of the Interior do not match up with the number of
    scientific integrity violations we have documented in our work.
    Censorship, intimidation, lack of confidence in the process, low
    morale, or a combination of factors could all be involved. Whether by
    this metric or another, the Trump administration has demonstrated a
    unique hostility toward science that has not been seen in other
    administrations.

        Question 10. Dr. Rosenberg, please describe how violations of
    scientific integrity within Agencies can impact the lives of people
    around the country.

        Answer. Inherently, scientific integrity violations mean that the
    American public has less information and it is of poorer quality. It
    also means that decision makers at other levels of government have less
    high quality information. That puts public health, safety and
    environmental quality at risk.

        Question 11. Dr. Rosenberg, how do strong scientific integrity
    policies operate to protect against attacks on science that we have
    seen in this Administration and others?

        Answer. Strong policies set a presumption that scientific
    information will be available to the public and decision makers without
    political interference. While the policies are not fully enforceable,
    at least these protections become part of the agency's mandate.

        Question 12. Dr. Rosenberg, why are strong scientific integrity
    policies needed to protect the Federal work force from stagnation and
    attrition?

        Answer. Scientists want to do their work and have their efforts be
    fairly considered in the policy process. They want the results of their
    efforts to be meaningful and impactful. When the results are
    manipulated or suppressed, that really undermines the reason that
    people do the work they do. These are highly trained professionals with
    years or decades of training and experience. They have chosen public
    service and are committed to working in the public interest. If their
    work is suppressed or manipulated it goes against the core of their
    motivation for doing the hard work of science in the public interest.

        Question 13. What are the impacts to the country of a Federal work
    force that lacks scientists to do research?

        Answer. Decisions become more wholly political, and are made on the
    basis of influence, not evidence. Scientists need to on the front
    lines. Their research is of the highest quality, but is directed by the
    needs of the agency and the country. Without them, why would we expect
    our policy decisions to be as good as they should be?

                        Questions Submitted by Rep. Cox
        Question 1. There have been recent reports of Federal agencies
    looking to hide or keep from the public studies that show the negative
    impacts climate change will have on farmers across the country. As
    someone who represents a district that relies heavily on natural
    resources and is the No. 1 agriculture producing district in
    California, how should the Department of the Interior be coordinating
    with other Federal agencies to collectively determine what effects
    climate change is going to have on districts like mine?

        Answer. While I agree that there should be some degree of inter-
    Agency coordination on this issue, and many others, that relate to
    climate change, any specific recommendation I might give to the
    Department would begin with ensuring that all agency scientists are
    able to communicate their findings to each other, other agencies,
    Administration officials, and the public, without fear of censorship or
    retribution. My training is in fisheries and marine resources and
    fishermen share many of the same challenges as farmers. I know from my
    own experience that business and families that depend directly on
    natural resources need as much information as they can get about what
    is coming at them. Climate change is having a definite, major impact on
    farming. This is a matter of evidence not belief. Farmers need the best
    information they can get to plan for their businesses in a changing
    world. Always have, always will.

        Question 2. Other recent reports have described how the effects of
    climate change threaten our national parks. My district in California's
    Central Valley is adjacent to some of our Nation's most-renowned
    national parks. My constituents enjoy our proximity to these natural
    treasures. Fresno, part of which I represent, benefits from the travel
    and tourism activity generated by nearby parks and public lands. It's
    clear that climate change is happening and will continue to impact our
    parks.

        2a. How should Interior be ensuring that the National Parks Service
    has the information to plan accordingly for climate change?

        2b. If we don't have the science, what are we going to miss?

        Answer. Any specific recommendation I might give to the Department
    would begin with ensuring that all agency scientists are able to
    communicate their findings to each other, other agencies,
    Administration officials, and the public, without fear of censorship or
    retribution. Certainly, without having access to science, we would lack
    any information to make informed policy choices on how best to preserve
    our public lands and otherwise respond effectively to a changing,
    rapidly warming, climate. Every national park needs to have a plan for
    the changing climate. And every park needs to play a key role in
    educating the public about climate change. These are living
    laboratories where Americans can see with their own eyes how nature
    works and how it is changing. The parks should be part of a great
    effort for citizen science and science education, not a political tool.
    Without an understanding of the science of climate change we will be
    less educated, aware, prepared and engaged.

                      Questions Submitted by Rep. Horsford
        Question 1. Where I come from, state and local governments face
    serious land management and resource challenges. With limited access to
    water, high threat of wildfires, and the spread of invasive species,
    Nevada land managers face significant challenges.

        1a. Dr. Rosenberg, should city and state officials in Nevada have
    the ability to consult directly with the Department of the Interior
    experts about how they expect water resources of fuel loads to change
    in the future, or should people in Washington decide whether those
    conversations should happen?

        Answer. The information produced by experts at the Department of
    the Interior ought to be clear, complete, and free from political
    influence so that city and state decision makers can rely on such
    information without concern over the authenticity of the science. To
    that end, it is important that scientists at the Department are able to
    communicate their findings to each other, other agencies,
    Administration officials, and the public, without fear of censorship or
    retribution. Local officials need to be able to have access to the
    expertise that they need to do their critical jobs. But no local agency
    has the scientific expertise of the Federal Government. Therefore it is
    incumbent upon the Federal Government to make that expertise as
    available as possible to all levels of government and the public.

        1b. In follow up to issue of transparency, should reporters who
    work for local newspapers, including those in Nevada, be able to speak
    directly with taxpayer-funded Federal Government experts about their
    research and expertise? Is it right that they should be limited to
    consult press releases from DC political appointees?

        Answer. Similar to my response above, it is important that
    scientists at the Department are able to communicate their findings to
    each other, other agencies, Administration officials, and the public
    (which includes members of the press), without fear of censorship or
    retribution.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Rosenberg.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Joel Clement. Sir, the floor
    is yours.

     STATEMENT OF JOEL CLEMENT, SENIOR FELLOW, ARCTIC INITIATIVE,
     BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, HARVARD
                  UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

        Mr. Clement. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking
    Member Bishop, for the opportunity to testify about the
    challenge of ensuring integrity, both scientific and otherwise,
    at the Interior Department.
        As a 7-year senior executive at Interior and someone who
    stays in close touch with the scientists and experts still
    there, I would like to offer some insight into current
    conditions at the agency. By way of example, I will recap how I
    was treated by agency leadership, and I will conclude with some
    recommendations to address the problems we are here to discuss.
        As Director of the Office of Policy Analysis, it was my job
    to understand the most recent scientific and analytical
    information regarding matters that affected the mission of the
    agency and to communicate that information to agency
    leadership. I never assumed that agency leadership would make
    their decisions based entirely on that information, but I did
    assume they would take it into consideration.
        And that proved true for the first 6 years of my time at
    Interior. It all ended with the arrival of the Trump political
    team which, as I will describe later on, has sidelined
    scientists and experts, flattened the morale of the career
    staff, and by all accounts is bent on hollowing out the agency.
        The career staff at Interior are not partisan in their
    work. They have a job to do and they do it well. Of course,
    they know that an incoming Republican administration is likely
    to favor resource extraction over conservation, and the vice
    versa is true, but they have pledged to support and defend the
    Constitution and advance the mission of the agency, regardless
    of their beliefs.
        But what if their leaders are trying to break down the
    agency? What if their directives run counter to the agency
    mission, as directed by Congress? What if the political
    appointees are intentionally suppressing the science that
    indicates they are doing more harm than good, and putting
    Americans and the American economy at risk?
        These days, career staff have to ask themselves these
    questions nearly every day, or at least decide where their red
    line is. For me, the Trump administration crossed it by putting
    American health and safety at risk and wasting taxpayer
    dollars. Here is how that went down.
        Science tells us that rapid climate change is impacting
    every single aspect of the agency mission, and it was my job to
    evaluate and explain these threats. For example, as the Federal
    trustee for American Indians and Alaska Natives, Interior is
    partially responsible for their well-being. But with over 30
    Alaska Native villages listed by the Government Accountability
    Office as acutely threatened by the impacts of climate change,
    it should be a top priority for Interior to help get these
    Americans out of harm's way as soon as possible.
        I was working with an interagency team to address this
    issue and speaking very publicly about the need for DOI to
    address climate impacts, and I paid the price. One week after
    speaking at the U.N. on the importance of building climate
    resilience, I received an evening e-mail telling me I had been
    reassigned to the auditing office that collects royalty checks
    from the oil, gas, and mining industries. I have no experience
    in accounting or in auditing. It was pretty clear to me and my
    colleagues that this was retaliation for my work highlighting
    Interior's responsibilities as they pertain to climate change
    and protecting American citizens.
        So, I blew the whistle. I was not alone. Dozens of other
    senior executives received reassignment notices in that night's
    purge. The ensuing Inspector General investigation revealed the
    political team had broken every single one of the Office of
    Personnel Management guidelines for reassigning senior
    executives, and they left no paper trail to justify their
    actions.
        Very importantly, in my view, they sent a signal that
    scientific information, and the needs of Americans in danger,
    were no longer a priority. This is just one example of how the
    agency has been sidelining experts, but there are many more
    instances of the agency directly suppressing science.
        Among them are reports that Secretary Bernhardt ignored and
    failed to disclose over a dozen internal memos expressing
    concern about the impacts of oil and gas exploration on the
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; Former Secretary Zinke
    canceling a National Academy study on the health impacts of
    coal mining right before lifting a moratorium on coal leasing;
    Zinke again instituting a political review of science grants
    led by an old football buddy that has bottlenecked research
    funding and led to canceled research; and the U.S. Geological
    Survey eliminating their entire climate change mission area.
        The list goes on and on. Not only does this group ignore
    science and expertise, they cross the line by actively
    suppressing it at the expense of American health and safety,
    our public lands, and the economy. They are intentionally
    leaving their best player on the bench. This is not what public
    service looks like.
        Political appointees have shown no hesitation to reassign,
    relocate, or otherwise make life difficult for career
    employees. As a result, agency scientists are self-censoring
    their reports and deleting the term ``climate change'' to avoid
    being targeted. They are being barred from speaking to
    reporters without advance permission. They face new barriers to
    attending professional conferences. And their work is being
    incompletely communicated to the public if it is shared at all.
        It goes without saying that this is a betrayal of the
    public trust and that this culture of fear, censorship, and
    suppression is cheating American taxpayers. These are dark
    times for science. The abuses have been taken to an extreme,
    and I am sure nearly everyone in this room agrees we need to do
    better on these things.
        More broadly, we have seen a collapse of ethics and
    integrity norms at the agency in general. The question is, what
    can Congress do now to ensure that the Federal science
    enterprise and the agency itself can rebound?
        I have a few recommendations that I will not have time to
    get to as my time is up. I can certainly address those during
    the Q&A. But thank you very much again for the opportunity to
    testify.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Clement follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Joel Clement
        Thank you Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop for the
    opportunity to testify about the challenge of insuring integrity, both
    scientific and otherwise, at the Interior Department.
        As a 7-year senior executive at the Interior Department, and
    someone who stays in close touch with the scientists and experts still
    holding strong in the agency, I'd like to offer some insight into
    current conditions at the agency. By way of example, I'll recap how I
    was treated by agency leadership as I continued to call for strong
    actions to protect vulnerable Americans threatened by the impacts of
    climate change. I'll conclude with some recommendations to address the
    problems we're here to discuss.
                            when to say ``enough?''
        As Director of the Office of Policy Analysis, it was my job to
    understand the most recent scientific and analytical information
    regarding matters that affected the mission of the agency, and to
    communicate that information to agency leadership. I never assumed that
    agency leadership would make their decision based entirely upon that
    information, but I did assume that they would take it into
    consideration. That proved true for 6 years as my office provided the
    latest economic and scientific information to leaders looking for
    sustainable solutions.
        That all ended with the Trump political team, which, as I'll
    describe, has sidelined scientists and experts, flattened the morale of
    the career staff, and by all accounts is bent on hollowing out the
    agency.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Science Under Siege at the Department of the Interior (2018):
    https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/science-
    under-siege-department-interior-2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The career staff at Interior are not partisan in their work, they
    have a job to do and they do it well. Of course they know that an
    incoming Republican administration will focus on resource extraction
    rather than conservation, but they've pledged to support and defend the
    Constitution and advance the mission of the agency, not their own
    political agenda. They do their job.
        But what if their leaders are trying to break down the agency? What
    if their directives run counter to the agency mission as dictated by
    Congress? What if political appointees are intentionally suppressing
    the science that indicates they are doing more harm than good, and
    putting Americans and the American economy at risk?
        These days career staff have to ask themselves these questions
    nearly every day, or at least decide where their red line is. For me,
    the Trump administration crossed it by putting American health and
    safety at risk and wasting taxpayer dollars.
                           putting americans at risk
        Rapid climate change is impacting every single aspect of the agency
    mission, and it was my job to evaluate and explain these threats. For
    example, as the Federal trustee for American Indians and AK Natives,
    Interior is partially responsible for their well-being. With over 30
    Alaska Native villages listed by the Government Accountability Office
    as acutely threatened by the impacts of climate change, it should be a
    top priority for Interior to help get these Americans out of harm's way
    as soon as possible.
        I was working with an interagency team to address this issue and
    speaking very publicly about the need for DOI to address climate
    impacts, and paid the price. One week after speaking at the United
    Nations on the importance of building resilience to climate change, I
    received an evening e-mail telling me I'd been reassigned to the
    auditing office that collects royalty checks from the oil, gas, and
    mining industries. I have no experience in accounting or auditing.
        It was pretty clear to me and my colleagues that this was
    retaliation for my work highlighting Interior's responsibility to
    address climate change and protect American citizens, so I blew the
    whistle.
        I was not alone. Dozens of other senior executives received
    reassignment notices in that night's ``purge.'' The ensuing Inspector
    General investigation revealed that the political team had broken every
    single one of the Office of Personnel Management guidelines for
    reassigning senior executives, and left no paper trail to justify their
    actions.\2\ They checked every box for management failure, including
    discrimination, as over a third of the reassigned executives were
    American Indian. Most importantly, in my view, they sent a signal that
    scientific information, and the needs of Americans in danger, were no
    longer a priority.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Reassignment of Senior Executives at the U.S. Department of the
    Interior (2018): https://www.doioig.gov/reports/reassignment-senior-
    executives-us-department-interior.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This is just one example of how the agency has been sidelining
    experts and science. Dr. Caffrey's story is another. To make matters
    worse, there are many instances of the agency directly suppressing
    science. Among them are reports of Secretary Bernhardt ignoring and
    failing to disclose over a dozen internal memos expressing concern
    about the impacts of oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge; former Secretary Zinke canceling a National Academy
    study on the health impacts of coal mining right before lifting a
    moratorium on coal leasing; and Zinke instituting a political review of
    science grants, led by an old football buddy, that bottlenecked
    research and led to canceled studies.
        The list goes on and on and other witnesses will provide examples.
    Not only does this group ignore science and expertise, they cross the
    line by actively suppressing it--at the expense of American health and
    safety, our public lands, and the economy. They are intentionally
    leaving their best player on the bench.

        This is not what public service looks like.
                               ``they broke it''
        The morale has bottomed out in the agency as career staffers are
    looking over their shoulders and trying to keep their heads down.
    Political appointees have shown no hesitation to reassign, relocate, or
    otherwise make life difficult for career employees--particularly the
    scientists and experts that they consider a threat. As I noted in my
    testimony to the Science Committee last week, agency scientists are
    self-censoring their reports and deleting the term climate change to
    avoid being targeted by political appointees, they are barred from
    speaking to reporters without advance permission from the agency, they
    face new barriers to attending the professional conferences that are
    part of the job, and their work is being incompletely communicated to
    the public, if shared at all.
        Secretary Bernhardt has even restricted telework despite its
    overwhelming success in achieving management outcomes; unable to treat
    professionals like professionals, he is now struggling to treat them
    like adults.
        These conditions do not reflect a culture of scientific integrity,
    but a culture of fear, censorship, and suppression that is keeping
    incredibly capable Federal scientists from sharing important
    information with the public or participating as professionals in their
    field.
        I'll never forget one conversation I had with a career staffer who
    was bearing witness as the political appointees hollowed out the agency
    and crushed morale. Practically in tears, she quietly said ``they broke
    it, they broke the agency.''
        This is no accident. As empowered by Congress, an effective
    Interior Department with high-functioning bureaus and offices operates
    on behalf of Americans to ensure the conservation or sustainable use of
    our natural resources into the future, it looks out for American
    Indians and Alaska Natives, and it prevents private industries from
    laying waste to public lands.
        If, however, the agency is being led by representatives from those
    very same industries, it is in their interest to hobble the agency so
    that even when they are no longer in the driver's seat, the agency will
    struggle to enforce regulations and stand against them. An added bonus
    to hobbling the agency and its scientific enterprise is that it also
    compromises the public's trust in the agency, furthering an industry-
    first agenda.

        It goes without saying that this is a betrayal of the public trust.
                                recommendations
        These are dark times for science, the abuses have been taken to an
    extreme and I'm sure nearly everybody in this room agrees that we have
    to do better. More broadly, we've seen a collapse of ethics and
    integrity norms at the agency. The question is what can Congress do now
    to ensure that the Federal science enterprise and the agency itself can
    rebound?

        I have four suggestions, for starters.

      1.  Support, strengthen, and pass the Scientific Integrity Act--it
                provides essential protections to prevent political
                interference in science and the harassment of scientists
                and experts. DOI's existing policy is one of the best and
                yet it has proven of very little use in the face of hostile
                leadership. We need a law in place to put some teeth in
                these policies and provide reliable enforcement.

      2.  Require that scientific integrity be one of several new ethics
                and integrity goals that must be included in the agency's
                GPRA (Government Performance and Results Act) performance
                plan. The integrity and ethics failings among the political
                appointees at DOI are legion, and Congress should require
                that OMB do its job by collecting quarterly reports on
                DOI's progress addressing these measures, and providing
                them to Congress in a timely fashion.

      3.  The Federal science enterprise depends upon a full complement of
                staff and scientists who keep it firing on all cylinders.
                Right now it's barely running due to harassment and long-
                term vacancies. Congress should consider setting a ceiling
                for science vacancies, and, when that threshold is crossed,
                require that the agency prioritize science hires and make
                it easier to attract and hire new talent.

      4.  Multiple lines of scientific evidence have definitively shown
                that we are in the early stages of a catastrophic climate
                crisis. Risks to American health and safety and the
                American economy are rapidly increasing, and the costs of
                adapting and responding to the crisis will soon skyrocket.
                Congress should require Interior to ``climate-proof'' it's
                operations by (a) placing an immediate moratorium on new
                fossil fuel leases on Federal lands and sunsetting unused
                leases, (b) re-purposing leasing staff to develop and
                implement a long-term carbon sequestration plan for public
                lands ecosystems, (c) reinstating and implementing the
                agency's climate change adaptation policy, and (d)
                reinstating the National Park Service Director's Order
                #100, generated in collaboration with the National Academy
                and at least one Nobel Prize laureate, which modernized NPS
                management approaches to address 21st century issues such
                as climate change.

        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify to the Committee.

                                     *****

    Addendum 1: Links to Whistleblower OpEd and Resignation Letter

        By way of describing the circumstances that led to my whistleblower
    action and my eventual resignation 10 weeks later, I have submitted two
    additional documents for the record, my Washington Post Op-Ed the day I
    filed the whistleblower complaint, and my resignation letter. These
    documents can also be found at the following links:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-a-scientist-the-trump-
    administration-reassigned-me-for-speaking-up-about-climate-change/2017/
    07/19/389b8dce-6b12-11e7 -9c15-
    177740635e83_story.html?utm_term=.ba43538db554

        and

    https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-joel-
    clements-resignation-letter/2566/

    Addendum 2: Integrity Standards

        During my time as Director of the Office of Policy Analysis, I
    worked with staff to articulate our core values as an organization. I
    think it's worth listing those values here to demonstrate the integrity
    of career staff at Interior, and what is at stake when the political
    leadership does not share or demonstrate those values:
    Core Values

        The Office of Policy Analysis (PPA) embraces the following set of
    core values associated with its analysis, work products, staff,
    professional relationships, and coordination activities:

         Objectivity. PPA work products are based on objective
                analysis, responsive to decision makers' needs, bureau-
                neutral, well-written, and intellectually honest. Neutral
                competency is essential to the integrity of the office.

         Quality. PPA staff are held to high standards and have the
                ability to approach work assignments in an analytic,
                systematic, and task-oriented fashion. They are able to
                work independently or as part of a team, can handle
                multiple assignments simultaneously, and are able to
                proactively respond to emerging issues.

         Opportunity. The PPA leadership team believes in a level
                playing field for all staff and ensures that staff members
                are valued and recognized for their contributions. Staff
                members have short- and long-term opportunities to
                strengthen their intellectual capital both through work
                assignments and training. PPA fosters cognitive diversity
                in an open, interactive work environment to facilitate the
                free exchange of ideas. Leadership provides mentorship for
                junior staff with an eye to developing the leaders of the
                future, and in general endeavors to establish an office
                that is seen as a good career move for emerging leaders.

         Collaboration. PPA leadership and staff are encouraged to
                develop productive professional relationships both internal
                and external to the office, including but not limited to
                engaging in collaborative work with the bureaus, other DOI
                offices, other government agencies, and academia.

         Expertise. PPA has the diversity and intellectual capacity
                to effectively address the wide range of issues that face
                the Department and its diverse bureau responsibilities.

         Integrity. PPA staff demonstrates integrity through
                honesty, efficiency and reliability.

                                     ______

     Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Joel Clement, Senior Fellow,
      Arctic Initiative, Belfer Center for Science and Democracy, Harvard
                                   University
                      Questions Submitted by Rep. Grijalva
        Question 1. Last month, President Trump issued an Executive Order,
    titled ``Evaluating and Improving the Utility of Federal Advisory
    Committees.'' This order gives Federal agencies until September 30,
    2019 to terminate at least one-third of all of their Federal advisory
    committees.

        1a. Can you please explain the role of these Federal advisory
    committees at the Department of the Interior?

        Answer. Federal Advisory Committees allow agencies to incorporate a
    wide range of expertise, scientific and otherwise, into decisions and
    processes that affect Americans. They also allow for engagement of the
    public and insure a transparent and fair means for gaining input from a
    variety of stakeholders, including industry, non-governmental
    organizations, academia and the public. There are many such committees
    involved in the work of the Interior Department, from advising National
    Park Service and BLM management of public lands and resources to
    providing priorities and agendas for the Landscape Conservation
    Cooperatives.

        1b. How does this Executive Order affect scientific integrity at
    Federal agencies?

        Answer. By establishing an arbitrary limit on Advisory Committees,
    the Trump administration is sending a signal that expertise is not
    valued, that scientific input is unwelcome, and that the number of
    Advisory Committees is more important that the management outcomes that
    they inform. This order reduces transparency and helps to remove
    scientific expertise from management deliberations, enabling
    politically-driven decision making for the benefit of special interests
    such as fossil fuel industries.

        1c. Based on what we have seen so far in the Trump administration,
    how do you think agencies will decide which advisory committees to
    terminate? Do you believe that the process will be conducted with
    objectivity and transparency?

        Answer. This order provides Interior leadership with permission to
    terminate Advisory Committees on purely political grounds. Committees
    with a proven record of balancing out the influence of fossil fuel or
    mining industries will likely be eliminated, as will those that provide
    unbiased scientific expertise. Based on their performance thus far, the
    political leadership of the agency is unlikely to proceed in a
    transparent or objective fashion.

        Question 2. In his opening statement, Ranking Member Rob Bishop
    referred to the decreasing number of scientific integrity complaints at
    the Department of the Interior during the Trump administration. Is the
    number of scientific integrity complaints an adequate measure of a
    scientific integrity problem in an organization?

        Answer. The number of complaints is a highly misleading, and
    perhaps contradictory, measure of scientific integrity. To register a
    formal complaint, a career scientist must have a high degree of trust
    that agency leaders will address the complaint fairly. Such trust would
    not exist in an administration that is hostile to science unless there
    is a statutory process for overcoming that hostility. In my experience,
    and from the feedback I've received from career scientists currently at
    Interior, registering a scientific integrity complaint is seen as a
    risky career move to be avoided. SI complaints will probably be rare
    during this administration.

        Question 3. In May, this Committee held a hearing to examine the
    President's budget at the Department of the Interior, at which
    Secretary Bernhardt testified. During the hearing, Secretary Bernhardt
    said he's ``not losing any sleep over climate change.''

        3a. As the Director of the Office of Policy Analysis at Interior,
    you worked with Alaskan Native communities in helping them prepare for
    and adapt to climate change. Would you agree with Secretary Bernhardt's
    level of concern about climate change?

        Answer. I do not agree. Multiple lines of evidence and a high
    degree of scientific certainty indicate that the health and safety of
    Americans, particularly those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate
    change, are severely threatened by the impacts of climate change. This
    means that Alaska Native communities--and the missions of every bureau
    at the Interior department--are similarly at risk. With his remarks,
    Secretary Bernhardt has shown that he is either unimaginably ignorant
    of the weight of scientific evidence or callously indifferent to the
    risks described above.

        3b. Do you think the Alaskan Native communities with which you
    worked would agree with Secretary Bernhardt?

        Answer. Frontline Alaska Native communities are struggling to
    maintain health, safety, and their way of life and, in some cases,
    prevent their villages from disappearing due to the impacts of a
    rapidly warming Arctic. The communities at risk in the Arctic would not
    agree with Secretary Bernhardt's blithe disregard for their health and
    safety.

        3c. How do you think Secretary Bernhardt's statement impacts the
    morale of scientific community at Interior that has dedicated their
    public service careers to understanding and planning for the impacts of
    climate change on public lands and on communities like those with which
    you worked?

        Answer. The morale of the career staff at Interior, scientists and
    non-scientists alike, has plummeted as political appointees disregard
    their work and intentionally undermine the mission of the agency.
    Scientists assessing and addressing climate impacts have devoted their
    lives to this important work. Secretary Bernhardt's statement caused
    hearts to sink across the career ranks, adding insult to injury.
    Scientists feel particularly beset because they are witnessing systemic
    disregard for their work across the agency, and the Administration more
    generally.

        Question 4. Mr. Clement, please describe other ways that the
    Department of the Interior officials have sidelined science from the
    policy process or otherwise politicized science in ways previously
    unseen. Are there methods other than scientific integrity policies that
    would help prevent these kinds of practices?

        Answer. One particularly egregious and unprecedented action is
    forcing the National Academy of Science to cancel and cease important
    research underway on behalf of Americans at risk. There are now
    multiple examples of this under President Trump's Interior Department.
    One canceled study related to the health impacts of mountaintop coal
    mining to nearby communities--a study requested by the communities
    themselves. Former Secretary Zinke canceled that study midstream
    without explanation. A second study Secretary Zinke canceled related to
    the health and safety of offshore oil rig workers. Both studies were
    intended to gather information and produce recommendations that would
    reduce risk to Americans, but both studies were seen as a threat by
    fossil fuel interests and therefore targeted by the Trump
    administration. Interior has also politicized research at the agency by
    requiring that all science grants over $50,000 be reviewed in advance
    by a political appointee with no science background.

        Question 5. Mr. Clement, why do you think that formal scientific
    integrity complaints at the Department of the Interior are down? Does
    this demonstrate that the Trump administration is more science-friendly
    than the Obama administration?

        Answer. Interior political appointees claim that scientific
    integrity complaints are down, and I would expect that to be true.
    However, they insist that this is an indication of improvements in
    scientific integrity, which is likely false. It's more likely the
    opposite is true. Scientists at the agency are not likely to register a
    scientific integrity complaint in an agency that has suppressed
    science, marginalized and retaliated against scientists, and
    demonstrated hostility to the role of science in decision making. In
    this environment there is absolutely no incentive to attract attention
    to yourself or risk your research by complaining. By all accounts,
    including a survey of Federal scientists conducted by the Union of
    Concerned Scientists, scientific integrity has hit an all-time low
    under the Trump administration.

        Question 6. Mr. Clement, in your experience, why would scientists
    at Federal agencies need to speak freely about their work, and, what
    impact does censoring scientists have on the work of the agency, the
    work of the scientists, and the public at large?

        Answer. American taxpayers are funding this research and have a
    right to learn about the findings and implications for their health and
    safety, the economy, and the Federal lands estate. In the case of
    Interior, this research provides some of the best evidence and guidance
    for managing public lands and waters effectively and acting as a
    responsible trustee for American Indians and Alaska Natives.
    Transparency of science and inquiry are fundamental to a democratic
    society, and evidence of censoring such work on behalf of special
    interests is a major red flag for democracy.

        Question 7. Mr. Clement, what benefit do Landscape Conservation
    Cooperatives provide for the public, and how are LCCs being undermined?

        Answer. LCCs were established to provide non-partisan, stakeholder-
    informed research and management guidance in the face of environmental
    change. When fully operational, they covered the entire United States,
    and each LCC was guided by a steering committee comprised of state,
    local, and Federal Government officials, tribal members, non-profit
    organizations, and local business and economic interests. Such multi-
    stakeholder bodies are difficult and time-consuming to set up but once
    operational provide very robust tools and information tailored to the
    needs and priorities of local users--and this was certainly true of the
    LCCs, which were deeply appreciated by local communities and
    stakeholders. The Trump administration has undermined the LCCs by de-
    funding them (despite continued appropriations from Congress to keep
    them going) and shutting down the steering committees that provide them
    with their work plans. Because of the strong local interest in the
    products of the LCCs, a few have continued to limp along with support
    from local and state officials, but for the most part the program has
    been shut down despite ongoing interest from Congress and local
    officials to keep it going.

        Question 8. Mr. Clement, why are strong scientific integrity
    policies needed to protect the Federal work force from stagnation and
    attrition?

        Answer. The Federal science enterprise is driven by smart, devoted
    career scientists who came to public service to make a difference.
    Without assurances that they will be able to publish, present their
    findings, and collaborate with colleagues to advance their field, the
    careers of these scientists would suffer, their research would falter,
    and they would see no upside to public service. Scientific integrity
    policies are necessary to keep these committed public servants on board
    and attract the best and brightest to Federal service.

        8a. What are the impacts to the country of a Federal work force
    that lacks scientists to do research?

        Answer. Without scientists and experts to inform policy and
    management, the information necessary to guide policy will come from
    special interests, such as fossil fuel industries or chemical
    manufacturers with the resources to influence the agencies. This is
    made easier when the political appointees responsible for policy and
    management are hired directly from those industries. This is a major
    red flag for a functioning democracy.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Clement.
        I now recognize Mr. Daren Bakst, and I hope I said the last
    name right.
        Mr. Bakst. You did. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The floor is yours, sir.

    STATEMENT OF DAREN BAKST, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, ROE INSTITUTE
         FOR ECONOMIC POLICY STUDIES, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION,
                             WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Bakst. Thank you. Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member
    Bishop, and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you
    for this opportunity to discuss scientific integrity at the
    Department of the Interior and in the Federal Government. My
    name is Daren Bakst, and I am a Senior Research Fellow at The
    Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are
    my own and should not be construed as representing any official
    position of The Heritage Foundation.
        Concerns regarding scientific integrity in the Federal
    Government are nothing new. A President Barack Obama 2009
    memorandum on scientific integrity explained ``that the public
    must be able to trust the science and scientific process
    informing public policy decisions.'' I would add that the
    science and scientific process should be deserving of the
    public's trust. So, what can be done to better achieve those
    objectives? I would like to highlight three important
    solutions.
        The first is that Congress should strengthen the
    Information Quality Act. About 20 years ago, Congress passed
    the IQA. What better way to build public trust in the science
    than to allow the public itself to have the direct means to
    participate in improving the integrity of the science? That is
    what the IQA does. It helps to ensure the accuracy of the
    information disseminated by Federal agencies, along with
    ensuring that such information is reliable and unbiased.
        Admitted, the IQA's potential to ensure scientific
    integrity has been undermined by insufficient agency
    accountability, and judicial decisions have held the IQA does
    not authorize judicial review. To its credit, the Trump
    administration recently issued a new memorandum on ways to
    improve implementation of the IQA. Congress, though, needs to
    put teeth into the IQA, such as by clarifying that the law does
    allow for judicial review.
        My second recommendation is to promote the transparency of
    the science. Once again, the Trump administration should be
    commended for its efforts in this regard. The EPA, through what
    is referred to as its secret science rule, is proposing that
    the data and methodology underlying its regulatory science will
    be made publicly available. This transparency effort should
    apply across the Federal Government, with adequate protections
    for privacy and confidential information.
        This whole issue is like math classes we all took. The
    teacher says to show your work, and that is what the agencies
    need to do as well. There have been claims that outside peer
    review by itself is sufficient. But the independence of peer
    review is not something that can merely be assumed, especially
    when many of the peers could be close colleagues.
        It is one thing when the peer review process is purely for
    academic purposes. But once studies are being used as the basis
    for public policies to have serious implications for the lives
    of Americans, the standards must be strengthened.
        I would like to stress this point. When we are dealing with
    rulemakings and other policy formulation, the self-interests of
    scientists inside and outside government do not take precedence
    over the protections in place to encourage public participation
    and our open system of government.
        Finally, my third recommendation is for Congress and
    agencies to ensure that science and policy are not conflated
    together. There is plenty of legitimate concern about
    scientific integrity. But criticizing policy makers for looking
    beyond the science to answer policy and legal questions is not
    one of those legitimate concerns.
        Science does not answer policy questions. Science can
    inform policy decisions by providing answers to objective
    questions without making value judgments. Therefore, for
    example, agencies should ask advisory committees to answer
    science questions only.
        When legislators ask agencies to answer science questions,
    such questions should truly be those that do not involve
    scientific factors. Let me give you an example. The listing of
    threatened and endangered species should be based solely on the
    science. But since listings trigger regulatory requirements,
    the involved non-science-related concerns to promote scientific
    integrity, such as in the ESA, the listing decisions should be
    decoupled from any regulatory implications.
        In conclusion, scientific integrity is something that,
    regardless of ideology, we should all support. There might be
    differences in what solutions we think are necessary, but
    increasing public participation and improving the quality of
    the science should be widely supported goals.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bakst follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow in
                  Agricultural Policy, The Heritage Foundation
        My name is Daren Bakst. I am the Senior Research Fellow in
    Agricultural Policy at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in
    this testimony are my own and should not be construed as representing
    any official position of The Heritage Foundation.
        I want to thank the members of the House of Representatives
    Committee on Natural Resources for this opportunity to discuss
    scientific integrity at the Department of the Interior and in the
    Federal Government in general.
                                a brief overview
        President Barack Obama, in a 2009 memorandum on scientific
    integrity, explained that ``The public must be able to trust the
    science and scientific process informing public policy decisions.'' \1\
    This is a useful starting point in discussing scientific integrity in
    the Federal Government. It is also important that the science and the
    scientific process are in fact deserving of the public's trust.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Executive Office of the President, ``Presidential Memoranda:
    Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies 3-9-
    09,'' Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 46 (March 11, 2009), p. 10671,
    https: / / www.federalregister.gov / documents / 2009 / 03 / 11 / E9-
    5443/scientific-integrity (accessed July 24, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This need for trust in the science also goes beyond the science
    directly used in policy decisions. Whenever the Federal Government
    disseminates scientific information, the imprimatur of the government
    carries significant weight. The results of a single Federal scientific
    study may, for example, be widely disseminated in media reports shaping
    public opinion or be utilized by other Federal agencies in their
    rulemakings.
        Often, questions of scientific integrity focus on improper
    political interference in science decisions. This is only part of the
    picture. The politicization of science is not merely some after-the-
    fact decision by political officials to stifle science. It also
    includes processes in which sound science is undermined because the
    best science is not utilized, the science has significant flaws,
    qualified people are not involved, or there is insufficient vetting of
    the science (including through inadequate or a lack of public
    participation).
        Actions undermining scientific integrity are not limited to
    political officials meddling with the science. It also includes those
    in science going beyond the science and seeking to answer inherently
    policy-oriented questions. This can be a result of them, on their own,
    going beyond their responsibilities or it can be a function of them
    being asked to answer questions that are policy-oriented and subjective
    in nature.
              concerns regarding scientific integrity are not new
        While the title of today's hearing suggests a focus on the Trump
    administration, there is nothing new about concerns regarding
    scientific integrity in the Federal Government. Over the years, such
    concerns have spanned administrations and they cover numerous ways that
    the integrity of the science has come into question. For example:

        President Jimmy Carter fires USGS Director. In his first year of
    office, President Jimmy Carter fired Vincent McKelvey, the Director of
    the United States Geological Survey (USGS); then considered an
    apolitical position. Both Democrat and Republican legislators were
    concerned about political interference at the USGS, including
    Republican concern that he was fired over disagreements over the amount
    of oil and gas in the ground.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Emily Berman and Jacob Carter, ``Policy Analysis: Scientific
    Integrity in Federal Policymaking Under Past and Present
    Administrations,'' Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Vol. 13,
    Issue 1 (September 2018), p. 6, http://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/
    uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/berman_emily_carter_jacob.pdf (accessed July
    24, 2019).

        In 1977, Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY) made his views known on the House
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Floor:

            I do not believe it is a coincidence that McKelvey's forced
            removal from his post as Director of the U.S. Geological
            Survey, which is unprecedented in its history, followed closely
            on the heels of an important speech given by McKelvey to the
            TSAI forum in Boston on June 13. In that speech McKelvey
            refused the notion that the United States is rapidly running
            out of energy. There are vast amounts of hydrocarbons sealed
            away in forms not presently recoverable economically, such as
            gas in tight formations in the Rocky Mountains, gas in black
            shales in the Eastern United States, and gas occluded in coal
            beds throughout the country . . . I believe that this treatment
            of any Government official who deviates from the official
            administration line that the United States is on the very brink
            of running out of energy is an absolute scandal.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Jack Kemp (NY), ``Dr. Vincent McKelvey: Was He Replaced for
    Being Too Optimistic About Our Domestic Sources of Energy? ''
    Congressional Record (October 11, 1977), p. 33299, https://
    www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1977-pt26/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1977-
    pt26-3-3.pdf (accessed July 24, 2019).

        Department of the Interior fires whistleblower working on
    scientific integrity. Dr. Paul Houser was a member of the team working
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    on scientific integrity at the Department of the Interior.

        Ironically, he was allegedly a victim of the Department's lack of
    scientific integrity (when President Barack Obama was in office).\4\
    According to Dr. Houser, ``After I questioned science reporting and
    summary documents related to the Klamath River Dam Removal Secretarial
    Decision, I faced systematic reprisal and my job was terminated on
    February 24, 2012.'' \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See e.g. Paul Houser, ``Critique of the DOI Scientific
    Integrity Policy,'' Dr. Paul R. Houser Hydrometeorologist (August 8,
    2012), http://prhouser.com/houser/?p=929 (accessed July 24, 2019) and
    Kate Sheppard, ``Scientist Accuses Obama's Interior Department of
    Misconduct,'' Mother Jones (August, 14, 2012), https://
    www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/interior-department-whistleblower-
    science/ (accessed July 24, 2019).
        \5\ Paul Houser, ``Klamath Dam Removal Scientific Misconduct,'' Dr.
    Paul R. Houser Hydrometeorologist (April 19, 2012), http://
    prhouser.com/houser/?p=331 (accessed July 24, 2019).

        Sue and settle and Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings. The
    listing of species and the designation of critical habitat under the
    ESA should be developed through a transparent process based on sound
    science. Yet, many species are listed as a result of lawsuits by
    advocacy groups that are settled behind closed doors.\6\ The case of
    the Hine's emerald dragonfly provides a good example of how sue and
    settle works. As explained by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ See U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``Environmental
    Litigation: Information on Endangered Species Act Deadline Suits,''
    GAO-17-304 (February 2017), https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683058.pdf
    (accessed July 24, 2019); See also ``Sue and Settle: Regulating Behind
    Closed Doors,'' U.S. Chamber of Commerce (May 2013), https://
    www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/documents/files/
    SUEANDSETTLEREPORT-Final.pdf (accessed July 24, 2019).

            In 2008, environmental advocacy groups sued FWS to protest the
            exclusion of 13,000 acres of national forest land in Michigan
            and Missouri from the final ``critical habitat'' designation
            for the endangered Hine's emerald dragonfly under the
            Endangered Species Act. Initially, FWS disputed the case;
            however, while the case was pending, the new administration
            [Obama administration] took office, changed its mind, and
            settled with the plaintiffs on February 12, 2009. FWS doubled
            the size of the critical habitat area from 13,000 acres to more
            than 26,000 acres, as sought by the advocacy groups. Thus, FWS
            effectively removed a large amount of land from development
            without affected parties having any voice in the process. Even
            the Federal Government did not think FWS was clearly mandated
            to double the size of the critical habitat area, as evidenced
            by the previous administration's willingness to fight the
            lawsuit.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ ``Sue and Settle: Regulating Behind Closed Doors,'' U.S.
    Chamber of Commerce (May 2013), https://www.uschamber.com/sites/
    default/files/documents/files/SUEANDSETTLEREPORT-Final. pdf (accessed
    July 24, 2019) at pp. 21-22.

        The Fish and Wildlife Service may very well have agreed upon a
    listing and a critical habitat area that was not substantiated by the
    science. Even assuming it were, this type of closed process undermines
    scientific integrity because little faith can be placed in how the
    agency decision was reached. President Obama, in his scientific
    integrity memorandum, was right to discuss the public's trust both in
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    the science and the scientific process.

        EPA proposed its water rule before its science report was
    finalized. The Obama administration's EPA developed a report called the
    ``Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review
    and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence.'' \8\ In January, 2015, the
    EPA announced the release of this final report in a fact sheet.\9\ At
    the end of the document, it states:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Environmental Protection Agency, ``Connectivity of Streams and
    Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific
    Evidence,'' EPA/600/R-14/475F (January 2015), http://ofmpub.epa.gov/
    eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=523020 (accessed July 24, 2019).
        \9\ Environmental Protection Agency, ``Connectivity of Streams and
    Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific
    Evidence,'' Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 10 (January 15, 2015), p.
    2100, https: / / www.federalregister.gov/ documents / 2015 / 01 / 15 /
    2015-00 339/connectivity-of-streams-and-wetlands-to-downstream-waters-
    a-review-and-synthesis-of-the-scientific (accessed July 24, 2019).

            Now final, this scientific report can be used to inform future
            policy and regulatory decisions, including the proposed Clean
            Water Rule being developed by EPA's Office of Water and the
            U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.\10\ [Emphasis added.]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Environmental Protection Agency, ``Fact Sheet: Connectivity of
    Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters,'' http: / / ofmpub.epa.gov /
    eims / eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=521414 (accessed July 24, 2019).

        There was a problem though. This scientific report was finalized
    after the proposed rule was published. As a result, the proposed rule
    was not informed by the report, and the public ended up providing
    comments on a proposal that did not take into account the ``scientific
    basis needed to clarify CWA jurisdiction,'' as the EPA explained was a
    purpose of the report.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Daren Bakst, ``EPA Inadvertently Makes Case against Its Own
    Power Grab,'' The Daily Signal (January 23, 2015), https://
    www.dailysignal.com/2015/01/23/epa-inadvertently-makes-case-power-grab/
    (accessed July 24, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Further, those involved in developing the final report would have
    likely felt constrained in making changes that put into question the
    substance of the proposed rule; if a final rule is significantly
    different than a proposed rule, this can threaten an entire rulemaking
    and require the process to start over.\12\ According to the D.C.
    Circuit Court of Appeals, ``Given the strictures of notice-and-comment
    rulemaking, an agency's proposed rule and its final rule may differ
    only insofar as the latter is a `logical outgrowth' of the former.''
    \13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ To learn more about this issue, please see e.g. Daren Bakst,
    ``EPA and the Corps Ignoring Sound Science on Critical Clean Water Act
    Regulations,'' Heritage Foundation, Issue Brief No. 4122 (January 8,
    2014), https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/epa-and-the-corps-
    ignoring-sound-science-critical-clean-water-act-regulations (accessed
    July 24, 2019).
        \13\ Environmental Integrity Project v. U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, 425 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. 2005). There were other
    problems as well with the rule and the report, including the EPA
    deciding not to reopen the comment process on the final report. See
    Virginia Albrecht, Kerry McGrath, and Deidre Duncan, ``Insight: Court
    Says Water Rule Unlawful; Patchwork of Rules Left,'' Bloomberg
    Environment (June 20, 2019), https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/
    environment-and-energy/insight-court-says-water-rule-unlawful-
    patchwork-of-rules-left (accessed July 24, 2019).

        Dietary Guidelines veers off mission. Sometimes scientific
    integrity is undermined because of the scientists. They may go beyond
    the science in their work and even into unrelated substantive areas.
    This happened during the last Dietary Guidelines process. The Dietary
    Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) was working on recommendations to
    provide the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human
    Services (HHS) regarding the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, ``2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for
    Americans. 8th Edition. December 2015,'' http://health.gov/
    dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/ (accessed July 24, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Instead of focusing on dietary and nutritional factors, the DGAC
    started to work on issues such as climate change and sustainability,
    and allow those issues to inform their advice. It would have been
    misleading to develop Guidelines not focused solely on nutritional
    objectives, and even potentially dangerous. For example, if the best
    nutritional advice recommends increasing meat consumption, but the DGAC
    deemed that environmental considerations suggest reducing meat
    consumption, it is not clear which objective would win out. Quite
    simply, there are many instances when environmental factors will not
    align with nutritional benefits for humans.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Daren Bakst, ``Extreme Environmental Agenda Hijacks Dietary
    Guidelines: Comment to the Advisory Committee,'' Heritage Foundation
    Commentary (July 17, 2014), https://www.heritage.org/public-health/
    commentary/extreme-environmental-agenda-hijacks-dietary-guidelines-
    comment-the (accessed July 24, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These actions threatened the legitimacy of the Dietary Guidelines
    because the advisory committee that was supposed to work on science
    lost its focus.
                    misconceptions about science and policy
        The above discussion has highlighted issues that are connected to
    scientific integrity. There are some issues though that may get put
    into the scientific integrity discussion, but their inclusion is
    unwarranted and actually can be harmful. The most prominent example is
    the conflating of science and policy.
        There is a misconception permeating public discourse that
    policymakers should look to scientists for the answers, even answers to
    policy questions. There is plenty of legitimate concern about
    scientific integrity, but criticizing policymakers for looking beyond
    the science to answer policy and legal questions is not one of those
    legitimate concerns.
        Science does not answer policy questions. Science can inform policy
    decisions by providing answers to objective questions, without making
    value judgments. Policy decisions though require value judgments and
    subjective decision making. For example, science can inform
    policymakers about the likelihood that a product may cause harm to
    humans, but it does not answer the inherent value question as to what
    is an acceptable level of risk.
        There is also the flawed assumption that scientists only answer
    science questions and their conclusions will be independent of personal
    opinion. This should be the case when scientists are expected to be
    answering science questions, but too often, it is not. The Dietary
    Guidelines example above illustrates how scientists sometimes
    inappropriately undermine the integrity of the science. They may use a
    scientific process and the guise of science to actually conduct policy
    analysis with policy conclusions, or allow their own beliefs to
    inappropriately influence what are supposed to be scientific
    conclusions.

        Susan Dudley, who is Director of the GW Regulatory Studies Center,
    explained these concerns in 2017 congressional testimony:

            It is this tendency to ``camouflag[e] controversial policy
            decisions as science'' that Wendy Wagner called a ``science
            charade'' and it can be particularly pernicious. For instance,
            a 2009 Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) 2009 report, Improving
            the Use of Science in Regulatory Policy, concluded that ``a
            tendency to frame regulatory issues as debates solely about
            science, regardless of the actual subject in dispute, is at the
            root of the stalemate and acrimony all too present in the
            regulatory system today.'' Both of these problems, hidden
            policy judgments and the science charade, can be the result of
            officials falling prey to the ``is-ought fallacy'': incorrectly
            mixing up positive information about what ``is'' with normative
            advice about what ``ought to be.'' \16\ [Citations omitted].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ U.S. Senate. Hearing on Agency Use of Science in the
    Rulemaking Process: Proposals for Improving Transparency and
    Accountability. March 9, 2017. 115th Cong. 1st sess. (Statement of
    Susan E. Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center). https://
    www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DUDLEY%20TESTIMONY.pdf (accessed
    July 24, 2019).

        When scientists integrate policy judgments into their scientific
    work, this hurts scientific integrity. More importantly, ``science''
    that has such a policy focus is not even science.
                recommendations to improve scientific integrity
        There have been efforts to improve scientific integrity. As
    mentioned, President Obama issued a 2009 memorandum on scientific
    integrity. The Trump administration has also taken significant steps as
    well. The EPA has proposed an important rule to address secret science
    \17\ and issued a directive to end the practice of sue and settle.\18\
    On April 24, 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a
    memorandum \19\ to help improve the implementation of the Information
    Quality Act (IQA) by updating 2002 OMB Guidelines on the IQA.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Environmental Protection Agency, ``Strengthening Transparency
    in Regulatory Science,'' Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 83 (April 30,
    2018), pp. 18768-18774, https: / / www.federalregister.gov / documents
    / 2018 / 04 / 30 / 2018-09078 / strengthening-transparency-in-
    regulatory-science (accessed July 24, 2019).
        \18\ Environmental Protection Agency, ``Administrator Pruitt Issues
    Directive to End EPA `Sue & Settle','' News Release (October 16, 2017),
    https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-pruitt-issues-directive-
    end-epa-sue-settle (accessed July 24, 2019).
        \19\ Office of Management and Budget, ``Memorandum for the Heads of
    Executive Departments and Agencies: Improving Implementation of the
    Information Quality Act,'' Executive Office of the President (April 24,
    2019), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/M-19-
    15.pdf (accessed July 24, 2019).
        \20\ Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality,
    Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by
    Federal Agencies, 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), https://
    www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/02/22/R2-59/guidelines-for-
    ensuring-and-maximizing-the-quality-objectivity-utility-and-integrity-
    of-information.

        Strengthen the Information Quality Act. The IQA, enacted in 2000,
    makes it possible for the public to serve as a check on government
    dissemination of information and the soundness of agency science.\21\
    The text of the IQA requires Federal agencies to ``issue guidelines
    ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and
    integrity of information (including statistical information)
    disseminated by the agency.'' \22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Pub. L. No. 106-554, Sec. 1(a)(3) [Appendix C], Sec. 515,
    https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ554/PLAW-106publ554.pdf
    (accessed July 24, 2019).
        \22\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The IQA can help to ensure the accuracy of the information
    disseminated and promote transparency of the science used by agencies.
    The potential of the IQA to ensure scientific integrity has been
    undermined though by insufficient agency accountability and judicial
    decisions holding the IQA does not authorize judicial review.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ See e.g. William Kelly, Jr., ``A Closer and More Current Look
    at the `Information Quality Act,' Its Legislative History, Case Law,
    and Judicial Review Issues,'' SSRN Electronic Journal, 10.2139/
    ssrn.3122670 (March 2018), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
    papers.cfm?abstract_id= 3122670 (accessed July 24, 2019) and Curtis
    Copeland and Michael Simpson, ``The Information Quality Act: OMB's
    Guidance and Initial Implementation,'' Congressional Research Service
    (August 19, 2004), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32532.pdf (accessed July
    24, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One of the best ways to promote public trust in the science and the
    scientific process is to allow the public to have a means to directly
    challenge the science. There needs to be teeth put into IQA
    enforcement. This would involve requirements that agencies will respond
    thoughtfully and in a timely manner to public requests under the IQA.
    There would also be judicial review to ensure, in part, that agency
    science meets the established IQA guidelines, especially when informing
    policy decisions.

        Promote Transparency of the Science. In explaining its secret
    science rule, the EPA stated the, ``EPA will ensure that the regulatory
    science underlying its actions is publicly available in a manner
    sufficient for independent validation. Where available and appropriate,
    EPA will use peer-reviewed information, standardized test methods,
    consistent data evaluation procedures, and good laboratory practices to
    ensure transparent, understandable, and reproducible scientific
    assessments.'' \24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Environmental Protection Agency, ``Strengthening Transparency
    in Regulatory Science,'' Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 83 (April 30,
    2018), pp. 18768-18774, https: / / www.federalregister.gov / documents
    / 2018 / 04 / 30 / 2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-
    science (accessed July 24, 2019).

        If there is going to be public trust in the science, Federal
    agencies, not just the EPA, should utilize those scientific studies
    where the data and methodology is publicly available. This should be
    done in a manner that properly protects privacy and confidential
    information.
        Depending on journal peer review processes alone is insufficient.
    There can be a big difference in the quality of the peer review
    processes across journals. In addition, the independence of peer review
    is not something that can merely be assumed, especially when many of
    the peers could be close colleagues. It is one thing when the peer
    review process is used for strictly academic purposes, but once studies
    are being used as the basis for public policies that have serious real-
    world impacts on the lives of Americans, the standards must be
    strengthened.

        Concern over peer review is not merely about independence but also
    about its limitations. Dr. George Wolff, a former Chairman of EPA's
    Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee has explained:

            In the development of regulations based on environmental
            studies, numerous subjective assumptions and choices must be
            made regarding the selection of data and models that have a
            profound impact on the strength of any statistical associations
            and even whether the associations are positive or negative. The
            appropriateness of the assumptions and choices are not
            adequately evaluated in the standard peer review process. That
            is why it is essential that the data and models be placed in
            the public domain for a more rigorous evaluation by qualified
            experts. The proposed regulation, Strengthening Transparency in
            Regulatory Science [the proposed EPA rule], will provide an
            opportunity for such evaluations.\25\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ Environmental Protection Agency, ``EPA Administrator Pruitt
    Proposes Rule to Strengthen Science Used in EPA Regulations,'' News
    Release (April 24, 2018), https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-
    administrator-pruitt-proposes-rule-strengthen-science-used-epa-
    regulations (accessed July 24, 2019).

        It is also important to recognize that agency officials themselves
    who may have access to the data and methodology will benefit from
    hearing different views on the data and methodology, including from
    other scientists. This is another way that public participation in the
    rulemaking process can help inform and shape the decisions made by the
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    agencies.

        Scientific Integrity Concerns Should Focus on Science Questions
    Only. As has been mentioned, questions that involve policy and value
    judgments are not science questions. Therefore, for example, agencies
    should only ask science advisory committees to answer science questions
    only. Agency staff should ensure that the charge to such committees is
    on point and committee members do not veer off their mission,
    especially into policy.

        This issue also has implications for Congress. Legislators should
    not require agencies to answer questions on science alone when such
    questions are not purely scientific in nature. For example, the listing
    of threatened and endangered species should be based solely on the
    science, but since listings can trigger regulatory requirements, they
    involve non-science related concerns. To promote scientific integrity,
    the listing decision should be decoupled from any regulatory
    implications.
    Other Important Recommendations

         Agency scientists should be free to publish in
                professional journals, but there should be clear
                disclaimers when their research does not represent the
                agency's position. Other agencies using this research,
                especially in rulemaking, should not mischaracterize
                research as agency research when it is just the research of
                agency employees.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ This is a problem I have seen firsthand, with both the CDC and
    the FDA mischaracterizing a study done by CDC employees. See e.g. Daren
    Bakst, ``Request for Correction of Information Disseminated to the
    Public that Improperly Attributed a Study to the Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention (CDC)'' to the Food and Drug Administration
    Office of the Ombudsman (May 21, 2015), https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/
    files/pdf/105946/55aFDA.pdf (accessed July 24, 2019).

         Agencies should not be allowed to avoid protections that
                can promote scientific integrity in the rulemaking process
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                by using guidance documents instead of rules.

         Agencies should appropriately qualify any conclusions,
                including where there might be doubts regarding the
                science.

         Agencies should not quash dissenting opinions by agency
                scientists. Advisory committee reports should clearly
                detail where dissenting opinions existed among the members.

         Agencies should examine different assumptions, providing
                clear answers as to why certain choices were made over
                others.

         Agencies should continuously review the studies and models
                used and welcome information that could improve their
                understanding of such studies and models.

         Agencies should not put the interests of agency scientists
                over the interests of serving the public. This simply means
                that the interests of Federal scientists should be part of
                the scientific integrity discussion to the extent that it
                improves the science and the scientific process. This also
                means that legitimate agency concerns such as ensuring that
                any science has been properly peer reviewed does not get
                ignored out of a desire to be too deferential to agency
                scientists.
                                   conclusion
        The importance of scientific integrity should not be
    underestimated. Some of the most important laws impacting the lives of
    Americans are often justified because of the science used by Federal
    agencies, including the Department of the Interior.
        Congress has delegated significant responsibility to agencies
    (often too much). The scope of agency power is concerning, especially
    when this power is too often unchecked. In a republic where those
    making laws are supposed to be accountable to the people, this
    excessive delegation is antithetical to principles of separation of
    powers and representative government.
        One way to help ensure that agencies are not merely doing whatever
    they want is to have processes and protections in place so that when
    the Federal Government is disseminating scientific information or using
    science to make policy decisions, the science is credible and can be
    trusted.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Let me now recognize our final witness, Dr. Maria Caffrey.
    Five minutes are yours. Welcome.

      STATEMENT OF MARIA CAFFREY, Ph.D., FORMER PARTNER, NATIONAL
                     PARK SERVICE, DENVER, COLORADO

        Dr. Caffrey. Good afternoon, Chairman Grijalva and
    distinguished members of the Committee on Natural Resources. I
    sit before you today to talk about one of the most painful
    periods of my entire life in the hope that protections will be
    put in place so that what happened to me will not happen to any
    other scientist ever again.
        I interned for 1 year at the National Park Service around
    2006. I was invited to rejoin the organization in 2012
    following the completion of my PhD to work on climate change
    issues. I recognized the need for a consistent data set
    estimating how sea level rise and storm surge, driven by human-
    caused emissions of greenhouse gases, will affect coastal parks
    over the next century. I wrote a proposal for a multi-year
    project to produce such estimates, and NPS funded it. It was a
    very fulfilling time in my career.
        I handed in the first draft of a scientific report
    describing my results in the summer of 2016. Following a normal
    but rigorous peer review process, the report was finally ready
    for release in early 2017. At this point, however, the head of
    the Climate Change Response Program, also known as CCRP, told
    me to wait since we were transitioning to a new administration
    and awaiting new instructions on messaging. So, I waited and
    waited. Eventually, I was given a release date of May 2017. The
    report was assigned a publication number and I was given proofs
    of the final product. But when May arrived, NPS delayed the
    release again.
        I was at home on maternity leave in early 2018 when I
    received an e-mail from a colleague, warning me that my report
    was being altered without my knowledge. When I followed up, I
    was told they were minor edits that had been requested by the
    Associate Director of the National Park Service.
        However, when I saw the edits, it was very clear that any
    mention of the human causes of climate change had been scrubbed
    from the document. When I raised this with the head of CCRP,
    she attempted to excuse it, arguing that using the more
    technical term ``anthropogenic'' in lieu of ``human-caused''
    would be too confusing for park staff to understand. However,
    when I suggested simply replacing ``anthropogenic'' with
    ``human-caused,'' she rebuffed me and told me to delete any
    mention of the human role in the current climate crisis.
        These references to human-caused climate change in my
    report were integral. The entire premise of the work was
    estimates of sea level rise and storm surge based on four
    different scenarios under different potential levels of future
    human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Failing to mention
    anthropogenic climate change in my report would have eliminated
    crucial context and affected the scientific conclusions of the
    report.
        When I pushed back on attempts to censor my work, multiple
    members of senior NPS staff expressed concern that if I did not
    remove references to human-caused climate change, the CCRP
    program could be closed or re-staffed. These same senior staff
    members threatened not to publish my report, or to publish it
    without my name on it and edit it as they saw fit.
        Eventually, these officials backed down when Freedom of
    Information requests were filed by media outlets. NPS released
    my report with the references to anthropogenic climate change
    included rather than be the focus of bad publicity. I filed a
    scientific integrity complaint, and the Office of the Inspector
    General launched an investigation, but I was told there was no
    violation to my scientific integrity because the report had
    ultimately been published with the terms I fought for in it. No
    harm, no foul.
        Except there was a significant, long-lasting cost to me. My
    funding at CCRP ended, even though I had been successfully
    managing multiple ongoing projects. I moved across the hall to
    the NPS Water Resources Division at a significant pay cut in a
    bid to start anew just so I could continue my work.
        However, when my funding came up for renewal in February
    this year, I was told they also did not have funds to continue
    my work, which conflicted with information I was given by my
    branch chief. At the direct request of my immediate supervisor,
    who said he still needed my help, I even offered to volunteer.
    But I was told that my services were no longer needed. I had
    become an outcast for standing up.
        I wrote my report as I would for any publication. I was
    only concerned with offering the best available science, not
    what the political consequences of my work could be. The
    personal toll of this has been substantial. I had to remove my
    daughter from day care, and I am now faced with the prospect of
    having to split up my family so I can continue my career in
    another state.
        I am doing this because we need more protections for
    Federal scientists. I am certain I am not alone in experiencing
    this violation. Thank you for your time.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Caffrey follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Dr. Maria Caffrey
                            introduction and summary
        My name is Dr. Maria Caffrey. I received my PhD in geography from
    the University of Tennessee, and my recent research has focused on the
    potential impacts in U.S. national parks of sea level change and
    flooding resulting from anthropogenic (i.e. human-caused) climate
    change.
        In 2013, the National Park Service (``NPS'') named me Principal
    Investigator on a project to examine how sea level rise and storm surge
    would impact coastal national parks under a series of different future
    climate change scenarios, with the primary deliverable being a
    published scientific report (``the Report''). The Task Agreement that
    governed my project explicitly stated that my first major objective
    would be to use the various scenarios for anthropogenic emissions of
    greenhouse gases contained in the most current report of the
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (``IPCC'') to develop
    estimates for what amounts of sea level rise and storm surge coastal
    parks would experience under those various scenarios. Since those
    scenarios are based on different assumed levels of future human
    greenhouse gas emissions, my Report was always inherently going to be
    an assessment of how human-caused climate change will affect coastal
    parks that the NPS is charged with preserving.
        For this reason, when I handed in my first draft of the Report in
    August 2016, it referred to the fact that climate change is
    anthropogenic in nature, i.e. caused by human activity. The fact that
    future climate change will be driven by human activity is a fundamental
    premise of the Report's analysis of different emissions scenarios, as
    well as its conclusions about how varying levels of anthropogenic
    greenhouse gases in the future will affect sea level rise in the
    national parks.
        As the time for the Report's publication approached in late 2017
    and early 2018, my supervisors at NPS and other senior staff there
    repeatedly attempted to censor this scientific work by coercing me
    either into accepting the removal of references to anthropogenic or
    human-caused climate change from the Report, or into removing those
    references myself. I disclosed this attempted censorship to the NPS
    Scientific Integrity Officer, to the Department of the Interior's
    Office of Scientific Integrity, the Department of the Interior's
    Inspector General, and to a reporter at NPR's Reveal. As a result of my
    disclosure, my access to NPS funding was gradually cut off until
    ultimately, in March 2019, my last attempt at continued NPS funding
    failed and it became clear that I would no longer have a position at
    NPS. It is as a result of this that on July 22, 2019, I filed a
    whistleblower complaint with the Office of Special Counsel.
                               factual background
        I first worked at NPS in the Geologic Resources Division around
    2006 during the George W. Bush administration. I returned to NPS as a
    partner for the same division in January 2012.
        Climate change is an increasingly urgent issue for park managers as
    rising sea levels threaten to affect or even completely engulf coastal
    parks. Sea level rise and storm surges pose significant risks to
    infrastructure, archeological sites, and various historic structures in
    coastal parks. I became interested in returning to NPS when I
    recognized that NPS was lacking vital coastal climate data necessary
    for it to develop appropriate management plans for future climate
    impacts on coastal parks. I therefore designed a project that would
    generate data relating to future sea level and storm surges for all
    coastal NPS units under a variety of different greenhouse gas (GHG)
    emissions scenarios. To develop this data would help not only the NPS,
    but also the public that uses the national parks, understand how
    climate change could affect parks in the future and how the parks need
    to be protected. I wrote the proposal for funding to pursue this
    project myself. As referenced above, the proposal explicitly involved
    using anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions scenarios contained in the
    most recent IPCC report, which represent potential human fossil fuel
    consumption over the next century. NPS accepted and funded my proposal
    without any changes. In August 2013, Leigh Welling, the then-Director
    of Climate Change Response Program at the NPS, named me Principal
    Investigator on the project, and I began work.
        From January 2, 2012 until February 15, 2019, my salary was paid
    entirely with NPS funds at the direction and with the approval of NPS
    employees.\1\ I had an NPS phone number and an NPS partner email
    address, as well as an NPS partner I.D. In addition, during that entire
    time, the computers, monitors, printers and other equipment I used to
    do my work were issued to me by NPS. From the time that I returned to
    NPS as a partner in January 2012, my office was located in an NPS
    building in Colorado. I was issued NPS business cards, and I appeared
    on behalf of NPS at public events, such as the Denver Museum of Nature
    and Science outreach days. My immediate supervisors on a day-to-day
    basis, as well as those at higher levels who were responsible for
    approving and overseeing my projects and reviewing my performance, were
    all NPS employees. It was one of my NPS supervisors who reviewed and
    approved my vacation requests. All my work was conducted using my NPS
    computer, and the NPS posted all my reports on one of its websites,
    irma.nps.gov.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Note that during certain periods in 2012 and from October 2018
    until February 15, 2019 those funds were paid via a non-profit
    organization called Conservation Legacy. Nonetheless, my salary during
    this time was paid entirely with NPS funds, at the direction and with
    the approval of NPS employees.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One of the primary intended products of my project was a written
    technical report (``Report'') that was intended for an audience with a
    scientific background. This Report would examine how numerous coastal
    parks would be affected by sea level rise under several different
    climate change scenarios. Those scenarios largely depend on levels of
    human-caused greenhouse gas emissions--i.e., anthropogenic climate
    change. The purpose of analyzing these scenarios in the Report was to
    inform the Park Service's planning and adaptation strategies for its
    resources going forward. The intention for me to develop this technical
    scientific Report was memorialized in a Task Agreement signed by both
    NPS and the University of Colorado Boulder in August 2013, which
    contained multiple references to the fact that the Report was intended
    to follow a similar format to the reports of the IPCC, which are highly
    technical documents that convey information using scientific terms.\2\
    The NPS even linked to the IPCC report in its data store.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ When I wrote the proposal, NPS also required that it have a
    public education component. I met that requirement by proposing to
    design three waysides and a public-facing website that would educate
    the public on the challenges of coastal climate change.
        \3\ https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2215238.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As a scientist and the Report's chief author I concluded that
    discussing anthropogenic climate change in the Report was
    scientifically relevant and important for two primary reasons. First,
    based on my PhD training in paleoenvironmental change, the term
    ``anthropogenic climate change'' is a scientific term specifically used
    to indicate future climate change as distinct from any discussions
    about non-human-caused climate change occurring in the past. Indeed,
    ``anthropogenic climate change'' is a standard term used in the IPCC
    reports, which, under the Task Agreement, my Report was specifically
    intended to be modeled after. Eliminating this term from the Report
    would therefore alter its scientific meaning. Second, as already
    described, the Report presents several different climate change
    scenarios and examines the projected impact of sea level rise on
    coastal parks under each of those scenarios. Presenting these scenarios
    without any reference to the fact that which scenario plays out will
    depend on the amount of greenhouse gases humans put into the atmosphere
    in the future would have eliminated crucial context and made the
    scientific conclusions of the Report less clear.
        I researched and drafted the Report myself, although throughout the
    course of my work on the sea level rise project I met periodically with
    communications and science teams comprised of NPS employees who gave me
    input and feedback as my work progressed. The Report ultimately
    projected the effects of sea level rise at 118 coastal national parks
    in three different time frames (2030, 2050, and 2100), and under four
    different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. While the work in the
    Report was my own, I offered both Rebecca Beavers, the Coastal Geology
    and Coastal Adaptation Coordinator for NPS's Climate Change Response
    Program (CCRP), and Cat Hawkins Hoffman, the National Adaptation
    Coordinator the CCRP, co-authorship because they helped secure the
    funding for this project from NPS and because my direct supervisor, Ms.
    Beavers, wanted to achieve more ``ownership'' over the Report by adding
    NPS co-authors. Ms. Beavers also attended all of the science- and
    communication-team meetings that had been held to allow NPS staff to
    have input into the products of the projects carried out under the task
    agreement. Finally, I offered Patrick Gonzalez, NPS's principal climate
    change scientist, co-authorship on the paper because he had offered me
    useful advice as I conducted my research and developed my Report.
        I handed in my first draft of the Report to Ms. Beavers in August
    2016. Over the course of the fall of 2016 and early 2017 the Report
    went through the normal editing and peer review process. As is standard
    practice, the peer review of my Report involved numerous scientists,
    some who were NPS employees and some from outside NPS. Initially, this
    process proceeded without incident. I received input from these
    reviewers, with both Ms. Beavers and Ms. Hoffman providing relatively
    minor input about wording, as was expected in their roles in CCRP.
    During this period, neither Ms. Beavers nor Ms. Hoffman raised any
    concerns about the references in the Report to anthropogenic climate
    change. In April 2017, after the review process was complete and I had
    incorporated the substantive comments and suggested edits I had
    received as appropriate, a ``final'' version of the Report went out for
    copy editing. This version of the Report included references to
    anthropogenic climate change.
        Under normal circumstances, I would have expected the Report to
    have been published in early 2017. When this did not happen, I
    initially assumed any delays were due to new staff still learning the
    ropes after the change in administration.
        Beginning in about May 2017 I began to question the real cause of
    the delay as NPS continued to push back the release of my Report. In
    May or June 2017, Ms. Beavers told me that NPS was delaying the release
    in order to coincide with the release of another report. Then in August
    2017, she told me that it was delayed again because Hurricane Harvey
    had hit and NPS did not wish to release a report focusing on sea level
    rise and storm surge at a time when hurricane activity was so much in
    the news. In September 2017, CCRP's Communications Coordinator, Larry
    Perez, told me that NPS Associate Director Ray Sauvajot had directed
    that the release of my Report be once again delayed. This time I did
    not receive any clear explanation as to the reason for the delay.
    Finally, in November or December 2017, Larry Perez told me that he
    anticipated that the Report would be released in January 2018, with no
    further edits. This was my expectation when I left for maternity leave
    in December 2017.
        Instead, around the time I left on my maternity leave, NPS began
    making explicit attempts to get me to remove references to
    anthropogenic or human-caused climate change from my Report. The most
    concerning of these attempts fell into a few distinct categories.
        First, my NPS supervisors and other senior NPS employees repeatedly
    threatened that if I refused to remove references to anthropogenic
    climate change (or to accept their removal by other NPS employees), NPS
    would not release my Report or would release it without the references
    to anthropogenic climate change and without me listed as an author. For
    example, in December 2017, Ms. Beavers came to my office and pressured
    me to remove references to the human causes of climate change from the
    Report's executive summary by suggesting that if I refused to do so,
    NPS would not release the Report at all. Specifically, during this
    encounter she told me: ``It's better for you to make the changes than
    for this report to not go out at all. How would you feel if the parks
    don't get this? It's more important they get it.'' Ms. Beavers repeated
    this threat in a phone call with all the co-authors sometime in
    February or early March 2018. Another NPS employee who was eventually
    recruited to attempt to mediate the dispute over the Report, Brendan
    Moynahan, also made this same threat in a phone call on April 6, 2018,
    telling me that unless I agreed to whatever changes to the Report he
    deemed appropriate, he would release the Report with the content as he
    decided it should be and would remove my name.
        The seriousness of this threat to my career is difficult to
    overstate. The phrase ``publish or perish'' is a common maxim among
    researchers. I dedicated several years to this research. For those
    years of work to fail to result in any publication, or for NPS to
    publish my research without properly crediting me as an author, would
    have been extremely damaging to my publication record and therefore to
    my ability to advance in my career. It is inconceivable that Ms.
    Beavers and Mr. Moynahan were not aware of the seriousness of the
    threats to my career when they made these statements.
        Second, unable to convince me to remove references to anthropogenic
    climate change myself, NPS employees attempted at various points to
    remove those references from my Report themselves, without my
    authorization. The first time this happened was while I was out on
    maternity leave from December 24, 2017 to March 5, 2018. On February
    27, 2018, I learned that Ms. Hoffman and Ms. Beavers removed all
    references to anthropogenic climate change from the Report--on which,
    again, I was the principal author--without consulting me. Ms. Hoffman
    did the same thing a few months later, after numerous failed attempts
    by her and others to coerce me into altering my Report. On March 27,
    2018, again without my prior knowledge or authorization, she rewrote
    the introduction and conclusion sections of the Report to relegate the
    terms she did not like to a subsection on the second or third page.
        This was beyond anything I had ever experienced before from any of
    my NPS colleagues. It went well past the kind of minor wordsmithing
    that it would have been reasonable for Ms. Hoffman to do and into the
    realm of substantively altering my Report without my approval. This was
    particularly inappropriate and shocking since Ms. Hoffman does not have
    a PhD or any formal training in climate change. It also seemed
    inconsistent with her previous actions, since she had already approved
    the text when we had originally planned to publish the Report in 2017.
    It is my belief that Ms. Hoffman was responding to pressure from the
    Administration to censor discussion of human-caused climate change
    within NPS. She initially tried to excuse the censorship of my work by
    saying that she was simply trying to eliminate the word
    ``anthropogenic'' because it was too confusing a term for park staff to
    understand. However, when I suggested simply replacing
    ``anthropogenic'' with ``human-caused'' she rebuffed me and told me to
    delete any mention of the human role in the current climate crisis. It
    became inescapably clear that what was happening was not a normal
    editorial disagreement about word choice, but rather an attack on the
    scientific integrity of my work for political reasons.
        Finally, Mr. Sauvajot subjected me to verbal and even physical
    intimidation. This took place during an in-person meeting with Mr.
    Sauvajot and several others in Fort Collins, Colorado on March 8, 2018.
    During this meeting, Mr. Sauvajot was extremely aggressive and
    threatening toward me as I attempted to explain why I believed it was
    so important that NPS not remove the references to anthropogenic
    climate change from my scientific Report. He became very agitated as I
    held to my position that it was inappropriate to remove the references
    at issue from the report. He raised his voice to me so much that I
    became alarmed, he turned red, and he smacked a stack of papers on a
    table. This behavior was very intimidating and unnerving to me. Mr.
    Sauvajot said during this meeting that it was now a verbal policy in
    NPS that the term ``anthropogenic climate change'' should not be used
    in scientific reports, that he was simply following orders, and that
    ``this is just the way it is right now.'' He also said that he believed
    that he might be reassigned and replaced with someone who ``would not
    be as nice to me'' as he was if the Report was published with the
    references to anthropogenic climate change in it. Ms. Hoffman followed
    this statement by suggesting that publication of my Report with those
    references could result in the entire Climate Change Response Program
    being terminated. The implication that a scientific report funded by a
    Federal agency for the purpose of informing that agency's stewardship
    of important natural resources should be altered in order to conform to
    the political whims of the current presidential administration is
    deeply concerning.
        Crucially, I was not alone in believing that the references in the
    Report to the anthropogenic or human-caused nature of climate change
    were scientifically relevant and important context for understanding
    the different future emissions scenarios the Report set out. Patrick
    Gonzalez, who was initially a co-author on the Report, shared this
    belief and willingly expressed it throughout this process. Mr. Gonzalez
    argued strenuously that the attempts described above to pressure me
    into removing those references or to remove them without my
    authorization constituted a violation of scientific integrity. Mr.
    Gonzalez eventually removed himself as a co-author on the Report--even
    though the references were ultimately kept in--because he did not wish
    to have his name associated with what he saw as a violation of
    scientific integrity.
                                  disclosures
    Internal Reporting
        As the situation continued to escalate through the spring of 2018,
    my unpaid affiliation with the University of Colorado Boulder resulted
    in me being asked to respond to requests under the Colorado Open
    Records Act (CORA) relating to my work on the Report. At this point I
    became concerned that if the references to anthropogenic climate change
    were removed I could potentially appear to be complicit in an attempt
    to censor the Report and omit important scientific information.
    Therefore, on April 2, 2018, I contacted the University of Colorado
    Boulder's Office of Research Integrity and Compliance and described to
    them what I had been experiencing. Two of their employees--Joe Rosse,
    the Associate Vice Chancellor of Research Integrity and Compliance, and
    Denitta Ward, the Assistant Vice Chancellor--subsequently participated
    in some of the discussions about the Report led by NPS staff, although
    they did not play any substantive role in the decision making around
    what was ultimately an NPS report.
        I also contacted the NPS Scientific Integrity Officer, Sara Newman,
    and on June 1, 2018, I filed a scientific integrity complaint with
    DOI's scientific integrity office in which I described in detail the
    coercion, manipulation and attempted censorship of my scientific
    research in what I continue to believe to be clear violation of the NPS
    and DOI scientific integrity policies. Under established DOI and NPS
    procedures, the subjects of my scientific integrity complaint--
    specifically Ray Sauvajot, Cat Hoffman, Rebecca Beavers, and Brendan
    Moynahan--would have been notified that I had filed the complaint. As a
    result, I believe that the fact of my having filed the complaint likely
    became common knowledge in my branch at NPS.
        Finally, I contacted DOI's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). I
    spoke with Agent William (Bill) Wiser of that office on April 30 about
    the situation surrounding my Report. Based on my conversation with
    Agent Wiser I understood that at this point OIG had already begun an
    investigation into the handling of my Report. I provided Agent Wiser
    with various pertinent documents as well as a copy of my scientific
    integrity complaint once I filed it.
    External Reporting
        I also discussed the events described above with a journalist,
    Elizabeth Shogren of NPR's Reveal, with whom I had worked for an
    unrelated article in 2013, and who contacted me on February 1, 2018 to
    inquire about the status of my Report. She also filed multiple Freedom
    of Information Act and CORA requests for my records. Reveal published
    stories by Ms. Shogren on my situation on April 2, 2018 \4\ and May 18,
    2018.\5\ Reveal also released a podcast episode on this topic on
    January 5, 2019.\6\ Reveal's reporting brought some external attention
    to the situation surrounding my Report; in particular, on April 5,
    2018, five members of the House Committee on Natural Resources sent a
    letter to the Inspector General for the Department of the Interior,
    Mary Kendall, requesting an investigation into whether the scientific
    integrity policy at the National Park Service was being adequately
    enforced, specifically citing Ms. Shogren's article. The next day five
    U.S. Senators did the same thing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.revealnews.org/article/wipeout-human-role-in-
    climate-change-removed-from-science-report/.
        \5\ https://www.revealnews.org/blog/national-parks-report-finally
    released-uncensored/.
        \6\ https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/silencing-science/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I believe that it was only because of Ms. Shogren's reporting and
    the attention it generated that my Report was ultimately published in
    May 2018 with references to anthropogenic climate change included in
    it, and with me appropriately credited as the lead author.
        Unfortunately, despite calls from Congress for a rigorous
    investigation, neither my scientific integrity complaint nor my
    disclosure to the OIG's office were taken seriously. A little over a
    month after I filed my scientific integrity complaint, I received a
    letter from the NPS Scientific Integrity Officer, Sara Newman, closing
    it. The letter stated simply that ``[b]ecause the report was published
    with references to anthropogenic climate change, there was no loss of
    scientific integrity.'' Ms. Newman and her office completely failed to
    address the serious instances of attempted coercion, censorship, and
    manipulation by NPS staff in relation to my Report detailed in my
    complaint. More than that, Ms. Newman told me over the phone on
    December 12, 2018--after her office had already closed my complaint--
    that she was unaware of many important details contained in it,
    particularly those related to the meeting with Mr. Sauvajot in March
    2018 in which he was extremely aggressive and threatening.
        Ms. Newman further told me that, while she knew about the incident
    from phone calls we had before I filed my scientific integrity
    complaint, she had never officially seen or heard my description of
    this incident (which I described in detail in my scientific integrity
    complaint) and she had read only a three-page summary that she had
    received from the OIG. She suggested that what I was describing should
    have been treated quite seriously. Thus, Ms. Newman apparently signed
    off on closing my complaint, which her office was responsible for
    handling, without having actually read it, much less having fully
    investigated it. This is extremely troubling.
        The investigation conducted by the DOI's OIG similarly lacked any
    rigor or seriousness. I had only one brief phone conversation with
    Agent Wiser in which we discussed the substance of my complaint. On
    that phone call, which took place on April 30, 2018, I began to relay
    to Agent Wiser the circumstances of my case and to attempt to explain
    to him why I believed I had been subjected to various forms of
    coercion, intimidation and harassment by NPS personnel in an attempt to
    make me alter the content of my scientific Report. However, I was only
    able to relay a few sentences before Agent Wiser cut me off, telling me
    that he had ``heard enough.'' Agent Wiser never contacted me to request
    any additional information. We exchanged a few more emails, in which he
    repeatedly emailed me a complaint form that did not work and that I
    could not use, but in which he did not seek any additional information.
    In August 2018 the OIG publicly posted a summary of the statement it
    ultimately provided to NPS, which simply said that ``because the report
    was published without edits, we closed our investigation.''
                                  retaliation
        After I made my disclosures, I experienced reprisal from multiple
    NPS supervisors at NPS, ultimately ending in my termination.
        First, as part of the sea level rise project I was initially funded
    by NPS to do, in addition to the Report itself, I was tasked with
    developing an interactive website for nps.gov that would allow users to
    see what the scenarios described in the Report would look like. We
    referred to this website informally as ``the viewer.'' I worked closely
    with others at NPS over the course of approximately 3 years to develop
    the viewer, including writing the proposal for funding to be
    transferred from CCRP to the Denver Service Center that provided the
    web server for the viewer. Prior to the conflict over the inclusion of
    references to anthropogenic climate change in the written Report, Ms.
    Hoffman had repeatedly turned to me for updates on the viewer project.
    For all these reasons, my understanding was that I was the lead on the
    project. However, in spring 2018, Doug Wilder, a GIS (Geographic
    Information Systems) Lead at NPS who was co-authoring the viewer with
    me, told me that he had been prohibited by his supervisor from sharing
    drafts of the project with me directly. Ms. Beavers essentially took
    control of the project, despite the fact that she had not attended any
    of the meetings on the project or contributed to it substantively. I
    was cut off from working on the project on which I had been the lead
    and eventually told that my input was no longer needed.
        Much more crucially, my funding from NPS--and consequently my
    position there--has been eliminated, despite the fact that my most
    recent immediate supervisors have been very pleased with my work,
    sought to keep my position intact, and asked me to keep doing work for
    them even after my funding was eliminated because my work was essential
    to the projects I was on.
        The funding for the sea level rise project itself ended in October
    2017. Under normal circumstances, Ms. Hoffman, as the head of the
    Climate Change Response Program under whose auspices I conducted the
    sea level rise research, would have allocated more funding for me. In
    the past I had requested, and received, extensions of the funding for
    the sea level rise viewer. The original Task Agreement authorizing and
    funding my project was modified repeatedly over several years to
    provide additional funding when the original term of the agreement ran
    out without any difficulty.
        I had every reason to expect this to continue. For one thing, there
    was still work to do on the sea level rise viewer, another important
    part of the overall sea level rise project. The viewer project included
    a separate report that was to be released through the NPS's Data
    Series, a series of non-scholarly reports intended to allow for the
    timely release of data sets and summaries.\7\ I had been successfully
    leading this Data Series project, but Ms. Beavers removed me from it
    and took it over. To this day Mr. Wilder, the GIS expert I worked on
    the viewer with, still periodically contacts me for assistance with the
    viewer because he needs my technical expertise to finish the edits on
    the project. In addition, I still had several outstanding requests for
    information and assistance from coastal parks. While this was not
    strictly part of my sea level rise project, it was something that I did
    in the regular course of my duties as a sea level rise expert for the
    NPS.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.nps.gov/im/reports-nrds.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Nonetheless, and despite the obvious continued demand for my work
    and input, my funding dried up following my dispute with NPS over my
    scholarly Report that was the primary product of the sea level rise
    project. Instead, NPS pushed me onto a series of low-paying projects
    that were inappropriate for a scientist of my experience and did not
    make use of my sea level expertise. First, Ms. Beavers suggested I
    apply for a short-term project with a colleague in the Biological
    Resources Division that would pay me approximately $5,000 for 3 months
    work on a project assessing the impact of climate change on turtle
    ecology. I accepted this project only because it would allow me to stay
    on at NPS for the time being, and it would pay me until I left for
    maternity leave.
        I hoped that by the time I returned, the Report would be published
    and the situation would have blown over. As I have already described in
    detail, this was not to be. Ms. Hoffman told me that she could not
    provide me with any more funding from the Climate Change Response
    Program, and indeed I was essentially cut off from communication from
    that entire division. The only way I could stay at NPS at that point
    was to accept an internship position in another division at NPS, the
    Water Resources Division (WRD). I was able to secure a very limited
    amount of funding--approximately $25,000--from WRD. Under this new
    arrangement, I began work on projects related to wetlands mitigation
    banking, something which, like turtle ecology, was well outside my main
    area of scientific expertise. Taking this position also required me to
    accept an intern title that was not appropriate for a PhD scientist of
    my experience. Indeed the intern program I was receiving funds through
    was specifically intended for scientists ages 18-35, younger than I was
    at the time when NPS entered me into it. Finally, I had to accept a
    significant reduction in my annual salary, from approximately $70,000
    to approximately $25,000. I was being retaliated against for speaking
    up.
        Nonetheless, I was able to work successfully with my new colleagues
    and supervisors in WRD, and my efforts were essential to the
    advancement of the wetland mitigation banking project I led. In
    addition, I began working on a new grant proposal for $130,000 for work
    on a project that would create a database of degraded wetlands within
    park lands that could be used as part of a wetland mitigation strategy.
        The $25,000 stipend in WRD ran out on February 15, 2019. Alan
    Ellsworth, Chief of WRD's Aquatic Systems Branch, very much wished to
    retain me and went to great lengths to find a way to continue that
    funding. Moreover, it was common knowledge within the division that
    there is a significant amount of unused funding--I was told by a
    colleague, as of mid-February 2019, this was approximately $300,000.
    This is such a well-known, recurring issue that employees often refer
    to the need to spend unused funds at the end of each fiscal year (in
    order to avoid losing them) on things like extra iPads and computer
    monitors as ``Christmas.''
        Nonetheless, the Chief of WRD, Forrest ``Ed'' Harvey, not only
    refused to sign off on the purchase order requested by my immediate
    supervisors that would have allowed them to retain me, he refused to
    provide any explanation as to why he would not provide the requested
    funding or even to acknowledge my supervisor's inquiries about it.
    Although Mr. Harvey was not directly involved in my work on the sea
    level rise project, he would have been in frequent communication with
    those who were, particularly Mr. Sauvajot and Ms. Hoffman. Given that,
    as well as the fact that news of the controversy around my Report was
    widely known among my NPS colleagues, it is a virtual certainty that
    Mr. Harvey was well aware of what happened and had received the message
    that I was no longer welcome at NPS.
        Mr. Harvey also prevented me from pursuing the new $130,000 grant
    proposal I had developed and both my direct supervisor, Kevin Noon, and
    the Aquatic Systems Branch Manager, Alan Ellsworth had approved. In
    order to have a chance to have that proposal accepted, it would have
    had to be submitted to DOI for review no later than March 3, 2019.
    Before that could happen, however, Mr. Harvey himself would have had to
    review it and approve me sending it to DOI for consideration. He
    refused to do so, thus effectively preventing me from pursuing funding
    and terminating my position at NPS. It was therefore on March 3, when
    the deadline for DOI review passed, that I officially knew I would be
    unable to obtain any more funding to maintain my position at NPS.
    Again, Mr. Harvey refused to even acknowledge my repeated inquiries
    about the status of my proposal, much less provide any substantive
    explanation as to why he would not allow it to go forward. This all
    happened despite my having obtained good performance reviews.
        Further evidence that the lack of interest by NPS management in
    retaining me was unrelated to budgetary constraints may be found in the
    fact that my immediate supervisor at WRD, Kevin Noon, a wetlands
    scientist, told me that he could not continue the wetlands mitigation
    banking project I had been working on without me and sought to keep me
    on as a volunteer after my position ended because he needed my
    services. At Mr. Noon's request, I submitted a volunteer application he
    provided to me since I wished to help him out. Although it is common
    practice for NPS employees to arrange volunteers, and under normal
    circumstances I would have expected this request to be approved without
    issue, Ed Harvey apparently denied this request--I was told that there
    would be no need for my pro bono services without any further
    explanation, despite the fact that Mr. Noon had made it explicitly
    clear that he did indeed need my services in particular to finish the
    wetlands mitigation banking project.
                                   conclusion
        It is abundantly clear that the management at NPS gradually cut off
    my access to funding and eventually terminated me--not because my
    supervisors were unhappy with the quality of my work, did not wish to
    work with me, or did not have a need for my work, and likewise not
    because funding was an issue (my services were mysteriously not needed
    even when I was willing to offer them for free in the face of an
    explicit need for them)--but rather as retribution for my having made
    disclosures about the attempted censoring of references to
    anthropogenic climate change in my Report on sea level rise.
        Losing my position at NPS has been extremely difficult for me, both
    financially and emotionally. I have struggled to find other employment,
    despite months of considerable effort on my part to do so. I have only
    last week begun work in the first temporary position I have been able
    to obtain since I left NPS. I even had to contend with a challenge to
    my right to receive unemployment benefits. Although the challenge was
    withdrawn once I obtained counsel, this only added to the stress and
    difficulty of my situation. I have even had to begin considering
    whether to move my baby daughter away from her father so that I can go
    someplace where I can find permanent employment. I hope that this
    Committee will treat this situation with the seriousness it deserves
    and find a way to remedy it.

                                     ______

        Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Maria Caffrey, Former
                         Partner, National Park Service
                      Questions Submitted by Rep. Grijalva
        Question 1. You stated that your role at NPS was a Partner, not a
    contractor. Could you provide additional information about what that
    means?

        Answer. Yes, I was a National Parks Service (NPS) Partner and not a
    contractor. The distinction is important because, unlike a contractor,
    I functioned the same as a full-time NPS employee. I worked exclusively
    and full-time for the NPS, in an office in an NPS building surrounded
    by NPS employees. All of my supervisors were NPS employees. I
    participated in departmental meetings and decisions just as all the
    other NPS employees I worked with did. All of my work was performed in
    my NPS office using computers, phones and other equipment provided by
    NPS. NPS also provided me with an NPS Partner email address--which,
    importantly, is not provided to contractors--as well as with NPS
    business cards. As part of my job duties I occasionally represented NPS
    at public events. Although my funding did need to be renewed
    periodically, that renewal happened routinely throughout my tenure at
    NPS. Additionally, and very crucially, both I and my supervisors and
    co-workers at NPS had every reasonable expectation that it would
    continue to happen indefinitely into the future. Indeed, at the time of
    my termination, I was managing multiple on-going projects for which my
    supervisors and colleagues were counting on my continued participation,
    and which have been difficult or impossible to continue without my
    input.
        This is all quite different from the role of contractors, who
    generally do not function as full-time NPS employees, are not
    indefinitely provided offices in NPS buildings and fully equipped by
    NPS, do not participate in internal NPS departmental meetings,
    deliberations and decisions, do not represent NPS at public facing
    events, and are funded for discrete projects with no expectation of
    indefinite funding.
        I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my comments on this subject
    during the hearing, where I did not have the opportunity to give a
    nuanced response. As should be clear from my comments above, I worked
    full-time at NPS and effectively functioned as a salaried employee.

        Question 2. Can you provide more information about the scientific
    integrity complaint you filed and your experience with the complaint
    process?

        Answer. I filed a scientific integrity complaint on June 1, 2018.
    Both the Department of Interior (DOI) and NPS have Scientific Integrity
    Policies in place, and both of them prohibit DOI and NPS employees from
    engaging in censorship or coercive manipulation. My scientific
    integrity complaint focused on all the instances in which various NPS
    employees had repeatedly attempted to censor my work because it
    discussed human-caused climate change, and in which those same
    employees had repeatedly used harassing tactics to attempt to coerce
    and manipulate me into accepting the censorship or into censoring my
    work myself.
        As is the required procedure, I filed the complaint with the
    Department of Interior's Scientific Integrity Office. From there, it
    was directed to the Scientific Integrity Officer for the NPS, Sara
    Newman. Unfortunately, Ms. Newman and her office never appeared to take
    my complaint seriously. A little more than a month after I filed, I
    received a letter from Ms. Newman stating that she was closing my case
    because my report was ultimately published with the references to
    anthropogenic climate change included. Subsequent conversations with
    Ms. Newman, together with agency counsel, further elucidated that her
    office had reached this outcome by adopting an extremely literal and
    overly narrow interpretation of the Scientific Integrity Policy,
    concluding that because the work product had not ultimately been
    affected, the attempted censorship and the intimidation and coercion
    tactics I had been subjected to could not constitute a loss of
    scientific integrity and were of no concern to them. This seems
    extremely far from the spirit, if not indeed the explicit written
    intent, of the relevant policies.
        It is worth noting that DOI's Office of the Inspector General had
    also become aware of my situation, and I did communicate with them
    about it. The involvement of both the OIG and the NPS Office of
    Scientific Integrity became very muddled, however; there seemed to be
    considerable confusion as to which office should defer to the other,
    and ultimately it seemed that neither investigative body felt empowered
    to do anything about my situation. I was particularly frustrated when,
    several months after the SIO had summarily dismissed my complaint, Ms.
    Newman told me in a phone call that she had only ever read a 3-page
    summary of my (much more detailed) scientific integrity complaint that
    she received from the OIG, and she confessed being unaware of many
    important details of what I had reported. Most distressingly, she said
    she had not read my description in my Scientific Integrity Complaint of
    a meeting in March 2018 with an Associate Director of the NPS, Ray
    Sauvajot, in which Mr. Sauvajot had been extremely aggressive and
    threatening toward me in attempting to convince me to accept the
    deletions of the phrase ``anthropogenic climate change'' from the
    report. Ms. Newman suggested in this after-the-fact conversation that
    such an incident should have been treated quite seriously. Thus, from
    what I could discern, neither she nor anyone else in her office ever
    read my full complaint before dismissing it.

        Question 3. You stated that the sea level rise report was not
    released as originally written. Can you provide additional information
    about this?

        Answer. This is correct. While it is true that my report was
    released with the references to anthropogenic climate change restored,
    there was an important change from the original finished report: on the
    original report, Dr. Patrick Gonzalez (National Park Service Principal
    Climate Change Scientist) was listed as a co-author. On April 18, 2018,
    Dr. Gonzalez removed his name as a co-author of the sea level rise
    report to protest the violations of scientific integrity by the
    National Park Service. During the hearing, I inadvertently misstated
    his reason for removing his name. It was not out of fear for his work,
    it was to protest the National Park Service violations.

        Question 4. You mentioned other violations of scientific integrity
    at NPS. Can you provide additional information about any of those other
    incidents?

        Answer. Dr. Gonzalez, mentioned above, also faced attempts by NPS
    to get him to remove mentions of anthropogenic climate change from an
    unrelated manuscript he submitted to a scientific journal. Dr. Gonzalez
    was successful in protesting this violation of scientific integrity,
    and did not change a word; the scientific journal published his article
    intact. I am sure that Dr. Gonzalez and I are not the only scientists
    at NPS who have experienced this violation.

        Question 5. In May, this Committee held a hearing to examine the
    President's budget at the Department of the Interior, at which
    Secretary Bernhardt testified. During the hearing, Secretary Bernhardt
    said he's ``not losing any sleep over climate change.''

        5a. Your report examined the impacts of sea level rise and storm
    surges on National Parks. Given the findings of your report, do you
    believe Secretary Bernhardt understands and appreciates the severity of
    the impacts of climate change on public lands managed by the Department
    of the Interior?

        Answer. No, I do not believe he does. As the introduction to my
    report explains, global sea level rise and the impact of storm surge
    caused by stronger and more frequent storms, both driven by
    anthropogenic climate change, will have significant negative effects on
    coastal parks in the future. Not only are these parks important from an
    environmental perspective--many of them are important habitats for
    nesting shorebirds or sea turtles, for example--they are also important
    from an archeological and cultural perspective, housing historical
    forts, lighthouses and other structures, as well as attendant
    artifacts. They further provide important places for public recreation
    and enjoyment.
        DOI, and under it the NPS, are charged with maintaining and
    preserving these lands for the benefit of the public and for future
    generations. While my report is just one contribution to the scientific
    literature on climate change among many, my research unequivocally
    concluded that climate change poses a substantial threat to coastal
    parks in the future, and that our choices about fossil fuel emissions
    will affect what level of threat these parks face.

        5b. How do you think his statement impacts the employees of the
    Climate Change Research Program within which you worked?

        Answer. I think statements such as the one mentioned above have
    absolutely affected the employees of the CCRP. Even if there has not
    been any explicit directive not to work on climate change, this
    statement and others like it have unequivocally created an environment
    in which well-meaning agency employees are afraid that if they do
    research around climate change, write grant proposals for work relating
    to climate change, or even mention climate change in their work they
    may be punished--they may be reassigned, even relocated far from their
    homes and their families; their programs may be defunded or eliminated.
    This fear absolutely affected the people I worked with in CCRP, some of
    whom explicitly referenced such concerns in their attempts to get me to
    self-censor and remove references to climate change from my scientific
    report.

                        Questions Submitted by Rep. Cox
        Question 1. Why is it important for us to have accurate science
    about the effects of climate change on our national parks?

        Answer. If we do not have accurate science on how climate change
    will affect our national parks, then we cannot even hope to take
    appropriate steps to do what we can to protect the parks, as well as
    the monuments and artifacts they contain, from the effects of climate
    change.

        Question 2. Why is it important for us to recognize the human
    impact on climate change when we talk about our national parks?

        Answer. One reason it is important to recognize the human impact on
    climate change when we talk about our national parks is that means that
    our choices will impact how much and in what ways climate change
    actually affects national parks in the future. The mission of NPS is to
    protect and preserve the parks for future generations, and it is not
    possible to do that without acknowledging that human greenhouse gas
    emissions levels will dictate what conditions park managers need to
    anticipate.
        In addition, national parks educate visitors about relevant
    environmental issues affecting the parks. Climate change is having and
    will have huge impacts on parks, and it is impossible to meaningfully
    educate park-goers about how climate change is affecting or will affect
    what they see around them without acknowledging that it is driven by
    human activity.

        Question 3. In other words, why did you fight so hard to keep that
    piece in your report? What could Interior have done in your situation
    to better foster a culture of scientific integrity?

        Answer. I fought so hard to keep the references to anthropogenic
    climate change in my report for all the reasons described above. But,
    even more importantly, it was crucial that those references be included
    in my report because they were scientifically relevant. They were
    relevant for understanding the data sets and assumptions underlying my
    work. In addition, ``anthropogenic climate change'' is a scientific
    term of art, meant to distinguish the kind of future climate change I
    was working on from non-human-caused climate change in the geologic
    past. Thus, I was not engaged in a policy battle but was rather
    fighting for the scientific integrity and accuracy of my work.
                      Question Submitted by Rep. Horsford
        Question 1. I have witnessed a concerning trend showing disregard
    for transparency and an unwillingness to facilitate communication
    between lawmakers and experts within the BLM, and other agencies in the
    DOI. On several occasions, after reaching out to local BLM officials to
    speak with experts on the ground, who have hands on experience related
    to Nevada, my staff has been redirected to DOI congressional liaisons
    in DC, who then stonewall my office from connecting with officials who
    can help us develop the most informed policy.

        1a. Dr. Caffrey, in your experience is this standard or advisable
    practice within the National Park Service?

        Answer. Open, frequent and consistent communication between
    scientists working at Federal agencies and lawmakers is essential for
    the development of evidence-based policy. This is why many of the
    scientific agencies have included provisions in their Scientific
    Integrity Policies acknowledging that the free flow of scientific
    information is an essential component of scientific integrity, and at
    least some explicitly mention the importance of open communication of
    scientific information to Congress.
        I do not believe that preventing scientific experts at agencies
    from communicating with Members of Congress who are seeking information
    in order to inform policy making is an advisable practice. On the
    contrary, I believe this undermines the scientists' work, impedes the
    agencies in carrying out their missions, and leads to bad policy
    making.

        1b. What role should Federal agencies and their experts play in
    informing Federal lawmakers?

        Answer. I can think of almost no circumstance in which Federal
    lawmakers should not at least be informed of the best possible science
    when making any decision in which it is implicated. Thus the scientific
    agencies (and the scientists who work there) should regularly and
    freely communicate with Federal lawmakers in order to ensure that
    lawmakers act with the best possible information at hand.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you very much. And I thank all of you
    for your testimony.
        We will now request Members for questions. Under Committee
    Rule 3(d), each Member will be recognized for 5 minutes. Let me
    begin by recognizing Mr. Lowenthal for any questions that you
    might have, sir.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all
    the members of the panel for this very informative panel today.
        I want to start off by--I really have two major questions.
    My first one is: in August 2017, the Interior Department
    canceled a half-completed study examining the potential health
    risks of surface mining activity. In September 2018, the
    Department of Agriculture canceled a 2-year study regarding the
    potential environmental effects of copper nickel mining in
    Minnesota Superior National Forest, which we know includes the
    Boundary Waters, too. So, they canceled that study.
        These are only two examples of previously approved studies
    which would have given the agencies and the public a clearer
    idea of the environmental and health impacts of certain
    extractive activities at a local site. My question is to Dr.
    Caffrey and Dr. Rosenberg and Mr. Clement, each of you or any
    of you.
        Can you please tell me, how important are studies like
    this? How much do agencies use them to inform them? Are they
    used by Congress? Others? Here were two what I considered major
    studies, just canceled halfway through. What is going to be the
    impact of this? Dr. Rosenberg?
        Dr. Rosenberg. Thank you for the question. I appreciate the
    question, Congressman. As a former agency official, I can tell
    you that studies like this are extremely important because they
    provide information from high-level scientists, in many cases
    highly trained scientists, that the agency cannot just develop
    internally.
        In one of the cases that you mentioned, on mountaintop
    removal surface mining, that study was actually requested by
    states in the Appalachian region. And it was a study being done
    by the National Academy of Sciences, which is really the
    premier scientific institution in the country.
        I have worked with the Academy for many years. I have never
    heard of a study being canceled in midstream, no pun intended,
    and particularly one that was specifically requested to help
    inform states about a public health issue like this.
        There was a second study canceled by the Department of the
    Interior that was underway at the National Academy on safety of
    offshore drilling rigs. That was also canceled in midstream
    because they said they didn't need the information. And
    frankly, the idea that the information is not needed is
    shocking to me.
        Of course, the best information is needed on critical
    issues like drinking water, safety of wells, and mining
    activities. And that should inform agency decision making. It
    does in no way dictate policy. It provides the basis for making
    good policy in the future.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Mr. Clement, do you have anything to add? Do
    you think these are important, to have this data?
        Mr. Clement. I do think it is important. Dr. Rosenberg
    covered most of the key points on those issues. I will say,
    though, that these are not just important because they can
    underpin a lot of decision making, but because people depend on
    this information being out there.
        The people of these Appalachian states requested this study
    because they were concerned. They are concerned about their
    health. The offshore oil workers have run into some noticeable
    and prominent safety issues out there, so there is a need for
    that.
        So, it is not just that they are important for policy
    making, but they are important for people and the health and
    safety of Americans.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. Dr. Caffrey, I am going to ask
    you another question because I think we have adequately heard,
    I think, what is the view of the panel.
        Along the same line, Dr. Caffrey, the Trump administration
    has opened and sought to dramatically alter several President
    Obama-era plans very shortly after they were enacted. For
    example, last year President Trump's Interior Department
    proposed a new 5-year offshore oil plan, opening as much as 90
    percent of the Nation's offshore regions to drilling. This is
    only 2 years after President Obama's plan, also a 5-year plan--
    so they scrapped it, the President's plan.
        Another example is, late last year, the Trump
    administration announced that it is going to rewrite the 2012
    Obama Integrated Activity Plan for the National Petroleum
    Reserve Alaska, seeking to open up more of the areas to oil and
    gas.
        So, the President's administration is reversing well-
    intentioned, well-studied, thought-out policy, not trying to
    improve them, with the final goal of advancing commercial
    interests, it seems like, rather than collecting data or basing
    it on data.
        I was hoping that you could speak to the importance of data
    collection also. Why is it so important to do so before
    reaching a conclusion?
        Dr. Caffrey. I think it is really important that we have
    this data feeding into our policy decisions. But it is also
    very important that we keep the politics out of our data. I am
    in pursuit of facts that should not be influenced in any way
    according to what the administration is at that time. When I
    worked at the National Park Service----
        The Chairman. Thank you. Time is up.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Who have I got? Mr. Hice.
        Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And with the Ranking
    Member's permission, I would like to request that the chart
    that he showed be added to the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.

        [The information follows:]
    Submission for the Record by Rep. Bishop

                                    SLIDE 1
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7241.001

                                   .eps*****

                                    SLIDE 2
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7241.002

                                     .eps__

        Dr. Hice. Thank you.
        Mr. Bakst, lately we have heard a lot of blaming, if you
    will, global warming on a host of events happening around our
    world from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
    everything from violent events like the formation of ISIS, to
    the Syrian Civil War, to Brexit, to the crisis at our border.
        In your testimony, you talked about the importance of
    public trust in science. I could not agree with you more on
    that. But in your opinion, is there any science that would
    suggest that global warming is the cause of these events?
        Mr. Bakst. I don't want to suggest that I am a climate
    change expert, so I don't want to get into the science. But I
    will say that some of the references you made highlight a point
    that I like to make, which is that there is a big difference
    between science and policy.
        In some of these examples, I would say sometimes people of
    science will conflate the two issues. And instead of actually
    analyzing a scientific issue, they are allowing their own
    biases to get into their science. Also, instead of actually
    answering scientific questions, what they are doing is they are
    actually answering policy questions disguised as science.
        So, a lot of those opinions are very subjective and are
    getting into the policy realm. And that becomes harmful because
    the public sees that as a scientific answer when in fact it is
    really just a suggestive policy.
        Dr. Hice. I think all of us here are interested in the
    truth of science. And I think it is really dangerous when we
    start attaching things to science that there is no--at least I
    am not aware of--evidence supporting that.
        In your testimony, you also said that Congress has
    delegated significant responsibility to agencies, and the scope
    of those agencies concern you, as they do me. Do you think that
    Congress has an obligation to limit agency scope?
        Mr. Bakst. Oh, absolutely. I mean, Congress has law-making
    power under the Constitution. I think Congress delegates far
    too much power to Federal agencies, and I think there are
    questions of whether or not too much power is delegated to
    those agencies.
        Dr. Hice. So, along those lines, would you believe that
    independent studies should be looked at as well as just what
    comes from agencies?
        Mr. Bakst. Well, what I would argue in terms of the science
    context for studies, I think what is critical is when you
    establish some processes in promoting scientific integrity,
    what you are doing is you are ensuring that the agencies are
    simply not doing whatever they want to do.
        But you are creating processes, and Congress is creating
    protections and processes in place so that the public can have
    confidence in what the science is, and that the public needs to
    be able to participate in that process. And once that happens,
    then at least more faith can be placed in the science that is
    being disseminated by the agencies.
        Dr. Hice. In listening to some of our panelists today, you
    would think that the Trump administration is the only one where
    there have been issues regarding scientific integrity. That
    certainly is not the case. You referenced, I believe, the
    Carter administration as well as the Obama administration. So,
    would you agree with this as something that occurs frequently?
        Mr. Bakst. Absolutely. And in my testimony, I was just
    listing some examples. I mean, we could probably come up with
    just constant lists of examples.
        But I think that one point that I----
        Dr. Hice. Well, I think of Dr. Houser. I believe you
    referenced him.
        Mr. Bakst. Right. Dr. Houser. And it is ironic. Dr. Houser
    was actually working on Interior's Scientific Integrity team,
    and then wound up being retaliated against and getting fired--
    --
        Dr. Hice. For raising the flag of falsified information.
        Mr. Bakst. Right. Exactly. So, it is ironic. And that was
    the Obama administration. But I think it is important to note
    that it is not simply political appointees or political folks
    interfering or stifling science. It is also the processes that
    exist within the Government where I highlighted an example at
    the EPA when they were developing their WOTUS rule, they were
    supposed to have a final scientific report to inform the
    proposed WOTUS rule. The problem was that the proposed rule was
    published before the final scientific report was ever
    published. So, the public is actually commenting on a proposed
    rule that is not even informed by the science. That undermines
    scientific integrity. So, there are many different ways that
    scientific integrity is impacted beyond simply some political
    appointee hurting the science.
        Dr. Hice. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Ms. Haaland, the time is yours.
        Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman.
        Let's see. Mr. Clement, I would like to know a little more
    about the work you were doing for the people in Alaska and what
    the importance of that work was. If you could explain that.
        Mr. Clement. Thanks for the question. It has become very
    clear that with the loss of the sea ice in the Arctic, what
    they call the ice fence, and the melting of the permafrost, the
    coastal villages in Alaska are melting away and right now are
    vulnerable. They are probably one big storm away from being
    wiped right off the map. And these were villages that were
    located on frozen ground protected by sea ice much of the fall
    and winter. When the big storms come in in the fall now, they
    are completely exposed.
        So, we have, the GAO has estimated, over 30 villages that
    are imminently threatened and need to be relocated. There is no
    getting around the fact that the Interior Department needs to
    address that as the Federal trustee for American Indians and
    Alaska Natives.
        I was playing the role of coordinator here in Washington,
    DC, working with an interagency group. We finally got all 20-
    some-odd agencies that are engaged in the Arctic to work
    together and to meet monthly and start coming up with a list of
    grant opportunities and the ways that we might be able to get
    people out of harm's way, what you can do in the executive
    branch to address immediate issues of concern and build
    momentum. We identified the Federal agency in Alaska that would
    be the point for that, which is the Denali Commission, and had
    work underway at that time.
        Ms. Haaland. Thank you. I met a woman one time who said her
    village was going to be underwater in 10 years, so doing
    everything she could.
        Also, I read an interesting article once about the fact
    that Alaska Natives didn't have a word for the actual ocean
    because it had always been frozen. That is all they ever knew
    until it started melting and they actually had to find a new
    word in their language, which I thought was interesting. But
    for me, it seems like a terrible and just tragic loss of
    culture from those communities there.
        As you mentioned in your testimony, you were reassigned
    soon after this administration came in. Who took over the work
    that you were doing for those Alaska Native communities, that
    incredibly important work? Who took that over after you were
    gone?
        Mr. Clement. They never replaced me, and that work ceased.
        Ms. Haaland. They have never replaced you?
        Mr. Clement. No. Several months later they found a
    political appointee to sit in the office, but he has since
    moved on upstairs.
        Ms. Haaland. So, somebody that doesn't realize how much in
    jeopardy these communities are from the melting ice and the sea
    wall----
        Mr. Clement. Correct.
        Ms. Haaland. Wow. Or the sea ice. Is there someone leading
    that office now? And you say no?
        Mr. Clement. That is still vacant.
        Ms. Haaland. OK. And do you believe policy decisions for
    that work could still be made with the same level of scientific
    expertise with no one there?
        Mr. Clement. There is no one there to provide that, yes.
        Ms. Haaland. OK. So, in your opinion, what will be the
    impact of that office no longer having anyone there, much less
    any scientific leadership that sounds badly needed for those
    people, those Americans living in Alaska? Is there work that
    was underway that is no longer being continued much, I guess,
    the same way we were just talking about research that stops in
    the middle of it?
        Mr. Clement. That is right, yes. The organizing that was
    taking place has ceased now. There is work happening in the
    state, but they are getting no traction or budgetary support
    from Washington, DC, which, as a lot of bureaucrats know, is
    the kiss of death for the work that you are doing.
        But, of course, agency staff in the state of Alaska are
    still trying to do everything they can, in some cases
    volunteering to step up to try to help these folks. But they
    are getting no support from Washington.
        Ms. Haaland. When you were reassigned, you were transferred
    to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, which is something
    that is not your wheelhouse at all.
        Why do you believe this reassignment was done? Out of
    retaliation? And was it simply a policy decision by leadership?
        Mr. Clement. I don't see any chance that that was a policy
    decision. I think it was purely punitive and retaliatory, for
    two reasons. One, of course, to take the climate advisor and
    put him in the office that collects royalty checks is clearly
    an indication they wanted me to quit.
        But also, the very next week, Secretary Zinke came to the
    Hill and testified during a budget hearing that indeed he did
    want to use reassignments to trim the work force at DOI by
    4,000 people. I don't think he realized that reassignments do
    not trim the work force unless you are getting people to quit,
    and that is unlawful.
        Ms. Haaland. So, I just have a few seconds. Why do you
    believe your reassignment was a violation of scientific
    integrity?
        Mr. Clement. To purge the language of climate change from
    the agency entirely is a direct assault on the science that we
    all know is very prominent and very clear on the risks to the
    mission of the agency that we need to act now, and to get
    people out of harm's way, in this case.
        Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. McClintock, the time is yours.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we can at
    least all agree that science requires extensive and
    unadulterated data, detailed analysis, respectful debate, and
    also successful replication. It is often contentious, but it
    requires full freedom of discussion, full transparency, to
    arrive at the truth.
        So, we should take seriously any constraints on scientific
    research and analysis. But as Mr. Bakst, I think, very, very
    well points out, we should not confuse science with policy. Mr.
    Clement, frankly, you seem to be somebody who has totally
    blurred the two.
        Science is fact. Policy is opinion. When we mix the two, we
    run the risk of politicizing and degrading the science that
    ought to provide the factual foundations that assures good
    policy making. I think the global warming debate is Exhibit A.
        That is certainly what we saw in the last administration,
    where scientific data was withheld and policy was
    misrepresented as science. And, frankly, I am very proud that
    the scientific integrity complaints have nose dived under this
    administration. Nevertheless, we should be on guard if the same
    objections are raised in this, or for that matter any,
    administration.
        Mr. Bakst, scientists can often disagree, and it seems to
    me the best remedy to that disagreement is to put all the data
    out there. Put it side by side so that it can be discussed,
    challenged, criticized, confirmed, rejected, or reconciled.
        How do we assure that all conflicting views can be
    presented together so that they can be resolved through
    analysis?
        Mr. Bakst. Well, that is why transparency is so important.
    It is not simply policy makers and others criticizing the
    Federal science out there. Science overall is having an issue
    regarding replicating other studies. It is actually one of the
    biggest problems, is that studies are done and then you cannot
    replicate it so you don't have any faith in what the underlying
    study was. This is a big problem in many different fields, such
    as in psychology.
        Mr. McClintock. And replication is an essential part of
    scientific inquiry, is it not? Until you can successfully
    replicate a theory, it is only a theory.
        Mr. Bakst. It is. And when we are dealing with information
    that is disseminated by the Federal Government, let me tell
    you, it is a lot more--is thought more important and has much
    greater weight.
        Mr. McClintock. So, transparency, sunlight, the ability of
    the data to be seen by all and analyzed by all. We actually
    passed a number of bills to do that in past Congresses. They
    didn't make it into law, unfortunately. But maybe that is one
    thing that we can now all agree on, is transparency is
    absolutely essential to the process.
        And, again, in the distinction you make between science and
    policy, is there any way to untangle them? For example, we
    heard one Member doesn't like mining, so he doesn't like the
    data that would tend to support it. Well, that is natural. We
    all have biases. Scientists have biases, too.
        It seems to me the only way is to keep a firewall. And
    since we all have these biases, maybe we need to develop a
    protocol where conflicting data can be posted side by side.
    That touches on your transparency, but I think we need to go
    further than that.
        Mr. Bakst. Right. I think one of the beauties--like the
    Information Quality Act and some of the efforts that are out
    there, like with the EPA and the secret science, is trying to
    make sure that you simply--it is not just simply having access
    to the science. You need to know what the underlying
    assumptions were.
        Mr. McClintock. Yes.
        Mr. Bakst. You need to have the codes, if they are
    available, the data.
        Mr. McClintock. Well, that has been our frustration with a
    lot of the rulemaking by the bureaucracies, is we get the rule
    and they will not give us the supporting data to justify the
    rule. And it mixes fact with opinion, science with policy.
        Mr. Bakst. And plus once, if certain conclusions are made
    by an agency, they should clarify, first of all, what the
    certainties that exist are. And they should also explain why
    they didn't make other assumptions. Why did they reject other
    assumptions?
        By having the public involved in this process, and other
    scientists, for that matter, this can help to challenge a lot
    of the underlying science and point out the fact that maybe
    some of the science is in fact policy.
        Mr. McClintock. I would just add--that is absolutely
    essential to us as policy makers because we have to have a
    solid foundation in order to make proper decisions. My mentor
    was a fellow named Ed Davis, who was the chief of the LAPD back
    in its golden age. And he had a maxim. He said, ``Decision
    making is easy. Fact gathering is hard.''
        If you are having trouble making a decision, it is because
    you don't have enough facts or enough analysis of those facts.
    And I have found that to be true. So, I think the points you
    raise are absolutely central to our responsibility in the
    legislative branch.
        The Chairman. Ms. DeGette, the time is yours.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I find this conversation extremely interesting. And I want
    to ask you about it, Dr. Caffrey. When you were developing your
    report, were you developing a political report?
        Dr. Caffrey. Absolutely not. That never entered my mind at
    all.
        Ms. DeGette. What were you doing exactly?
        Dr. Caffrey. I was putting together sea level and storm
    surge estimates so that we could protect our natural resources
    and our cultural resources in the best way that we could.
        Ms. DeGette. So, it was a scientific study. Is that right?
        Dr. Caffrey. That is correct.
        Ms. DeGette. When you do a scientific study--because you
    are a scientist--do you go into that with a preconceived idea?
    For example, when you are looking at the storm surges, do you
    go into that with a preconceived idea of how that is being
    caused?
        Dr. Caffrey. I mean, I have my science training that tells
    me the mechanisms that cause a storm surge, or a sea level
    rise. But no preconceived ideas beyond that.
        Ms. DeGette. Did anybody tell you to do a scientific study
    that said that these surges were caused by human activity?
        Dr. Caffrey. No.
        Ms. DeGette. That was the scientific result?
        Dr. Caffrey. That was the science. That is fact.
        Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, just describe for me very briefly how
    you came to the determination that human activity played a part
    in this.
        Dr. Caffrey. Yes. I used data from the Intergovernmental
    Panel on Climate Change that I used to form my sea level rise
    estimates. And then we down-scaled those data from 2100 and
    2050 to estimates for 2030 as well.
        Ms. DeGette. As I heard you in your opening statement, you
    said that you were told to remove--I forget the word, but----
        Dr. Caffrey. Anthropogenic.
        Ms. DeGette. Anthropogenic. You were told to remove that
    word not because it was an inaccurate scientific term but
    because I think you said it would confuse the people at the
    Park Service. Is that correct?
        Dr. Caffrey. That is correct. This was a report that was
    written for scientists at the Park Service, though, who should
    have training to----
        Ms. DeGette. OK. But irrespective of that, they didn't say
    that the cause, the anthropogenic cause, was incorrect. They
    said they wanted you to take it out because it would confuse
    people.
        Dr. Caffrey. Yes. Remove it completely.
        Ms. DeGette. Now, if you had removed that term, or the more
    commonly known ``human-caused,'' would that have impacted the
    scientific results of your study? And if so, why?
        Dr. Caffrey. Completely. It removes the meaning from my
    study. I prepared four different climate scenarios for those
    three different time periods. So, those scenarios hang on how
    much greenhouse gases we produce in the future. If I am not
    allowed to talk about greenhouse gas in the future, then I
    cannot put any of these estimates together.
        Ms. DeGette. So, as a policy maker--you were not developing
    a policy about what should be done, you were just saying what
    the science is. Would that be accurate?
        Dr. Caffrey. Correct. I was using the standard scenarios.
        Ms. DeGette. So, as a policy maker, when I am trying to
    develop policy around climate science and what I should do, I
    have to rely on your studies being scientifically accurate. Is
    that right, from your understanding of what I do?
        Dr. Caffrey. Correct.
        Ms. DeGette. So, you were not trying to do a policy. You
    were trying to do a scientific study.
        Dr. Caffrey. Correct.
        Ms. DeGette. Dr. Rosenberg, would you agree with sort of
    the paradigm I am setting? It is not like scientists are
    preparing policy documents. They are trying to use science.
        Dr. Rosenberg. Yes. I think that is exactly right. I think
    that there has been a confusion in some of the discussion of
    saying scientists are straying into policy when they are
    producing results that are policy-relevant. But they are not
    setting policy.
        Ms. DeGette. Yes. And it is not like somebody is telling a
    scientist to do their study a certain way to get a policy
    result.
        Dr. Rosenberg. Yes.
        Ms. DeGette. If they are, that would not be sound science.
    Right?
        Dr. Rosenberg. Correct. If that was happening, that is a
    violation of--I would view that as censoring or manipulating
    the scientific evidence and violation of scientific integrity.
        Ms. DeGette. OK.
        Dr. Rosenberg. That is not what we are talking about in
    general.
        Ms. DeGette. Right. Mr. Clement, nobody told you that the
    research you were doing was not scientifically sound, did they?
        Mr. Clement. No. That is right. In fact, I was just looking
    at the conditions and hearing from the villages what was
    happening to them.
        Ms. DeGette. OK. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Gosar, the floor is yours. Mr. Gosar? Are you yielding?
        Dr. Gosar. She is next.
        The Chairman. Oh, I am just going by the people that are
    sitting----
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva.
        The Chairman. Mr. Gosar, he is the one who recognized you.
    No. I am just kidding.
        [Laughter.]
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Anyway, we have many things in Puerto
    Rico, so I will yield to my friend, Mr. Gosar.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico.
    Fabulous.
        Mr. Chairman, this hearing is yet another example of
    Democrats on this Committee wasting time on political theater.
    Unlike the Obama administration that manipulated models and
    skewed science to justify their means, the Department of the
    Interior under the Trump administration, highlighted by
    Secretary Bernhardt's decision to assign a career scientist to
    his staff as a dedicated science advisor, and the Department
    Secretarial Order No. 3369, which makes clear agency decisions
    that are based on best available sciences.
        If we want to scrutinize science manipulation, then we
    should point the finger where it belongs. And that is at the
    Obama administration, who time and time again utilized bad
    science to rationalize their environmental attacks on jobs and
    private property rights.
        Let's not forget Dr. Houser, the Reclamation Science
    Integrity Officer, who was shoved out the door when he started
    reporting fraudulent science being used to justify pursuits by
    environmental groups that want to tear down dams.
        Mr. Bakst, is the idea of policy differences and priorities
    among various administrations incompatible with the idea of
    science integrity?
        Mr. Bakst. Absolutely, it is not. Every administration is
    going to have certain priorities. They are going to place
    priority over some research over others. This is the reality.
    It is not a criticism of any party. It is just what is going to
    happen.
        The fact that one administration is not focusing research
    on one area versus another is not a scientific integrity
    problem. The problem only comes in when the Government actually
    is asking people to look into the science, and then meddles in
    the science, and does not allow the scientists to do their
    jobs.
        But establishing different priorities and deciding to
    relocate offices or defund certain areas is not necessarily by
    itself indication of scientific integrity. We would expect and
    hope that different administrations have different policy
    priorities.
        Dr. Gosar. So, I mean, we just heard from Mr. Clement that
    to reassign somebody to get them to quit rather than to be
    fired, which is illegal, how did that work for Mr. Houser? How
    did that work for him? Was he fired?
        Mr. Bakst. Mr. Houser was fired.
        Dr. Gosar. And what was his position?
        Mr. Bakst. Well, he was working on scientific integrity for
    Interior. He criticized science.
        Dr. Gosar. Yes. So, I would like to submit for the record
    the critique of the DOI scientific integrity by Dr. Houser.
        The Chairman. Without objection.

        [The information follows:]

    Submission for the Record by Rep. Gosar

                Critique of the DOI Scientific Integrity Policy

                              (305 DM 3, 1/28/11)
                                 August 8, 2012
                     Dr. Paul R. Houser, Hydrometeorologist

    Introduction: I served as a member of the Department of Interior (DOI)
    and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Scientific Integrity Policy writing
    team which assembled this policy. After this Policy was adopted I
    served as the BOR Scientific Integrity Officer (BSIO). In that
    capacity, I was the official who processed a significant scientific
    integrity allegation (Judge Wanger's September 2011 allegations on
    Delta-Smelt issues).

    At the same time, I have personally experienced that Policy from
    another perspective. I was the subject of whistleblower retaliation
    related to scientific integrity. In this connection, I authored and
    filed a scientific integrity allegation under this Policy concerning
    Klamath Dam removal.

    From these experiences on both sides of the divide, I am in a unique
    position to offer a critique of the DOI's Scientific Integrity Policy.
    I. Lack of Independence and Consistency in Allegation Inquiry Process

    Section 3.8 crudely outlines the process for inquiries into allegations
    of scientific and scholarly misconduct and contains a number of flaws
    related to the formality of the inquiry process, due process,
    independence, and accountability that allows the Department to make up
    the procedures as it likes.

            A. Too Much Discretion. The inquiry process called for in the
            Policy is largely controlled by the DSIO and the Bureau
            Scientific Integrity Officer (BSIO) who have the authority to
            summarily dismiss the allegation after reviewing the submitted
            information. If they determine that an investigation is
            warranted, then they can perform fact finding, and convene a
            panel of experts to advise them on the merits of the
            investigation. As written, these procedures give too much
            discretion to the DSIO and the BSIO to decide the fate of the
            allegation and the procedures by which it should be
            investigated. These procedures should be significantly improved
            with appropriate oversight, checks and balances.

            B. Lack of Independence. The oversight independence of the DSIO
            and the BSIO's are dubious since they report to the regular
            chain-of-command. Additionally, the inquiry process calls for
            involving the subject's manager and Departmental leadership in
            the process with little regard for conflicts of interest. The
            policy needs to establish a separate oversight function that
            does not report to political appointees or is itself subject to
            Departmental politics.

             The DSIO, BSIO's and the Department leadership are naturally
            biased in favor of the Department, and against the allegation:
            they naturally want the Department to be found to uphold
            scientific integrity. However, this bias can also purturb the
            inquiry process. One example: pre-written questions asked of
            expert panels can naturally lead the panel to a pre-determined
            conclusion.

             DOI often convenes these panels via sole-source contracts to
            companies (e.g. ATKINS) that want repeat business; if the panel
            hired by the company does not find in favor of the Department,
            it may risk future business. Therefore, it is imperative that
            the Policy directly address these biases and conflicts of
            interest, and establish the DSIO and BSIO's with truly
            independent oversight.

            C. Preeminence of Departmental Mission. The scientific
            integrity policy creates conflicts when science results do not
            support the mission or agenda of the Department. In these
            situations, scientific integrity should not be overridden or
            bypassed.

             A special provision for political appointees should be
            included in the Policy that prevents them from managing or
            influencing the scientific integrity policy or process. The
            Policy should explicitly state that political agendas and
            initiatives must be guided by scientific integrity, and that
            scientific integrity trumps Departmental policies or political
            agendas.

             Section 3.7A states:

                 ``I will act in the interest of the advancement of science
            and scholarship for sound decision making, by using the most
            appropriate, best available, high quality scientific and
            scholarly data and information to support the mission of the
            Department.'' (Emphasis added)

             By including ``. . . to support the mission of the
            department'' in this statement, the Policy explicitly places
            Departmental initiatives and political agendas above scientific
            integrity. This statement must be dropped.

            D. Lack of Due Process. The Policy's inquiry process does not
            establish an explicit due process. Even standard scientific
            peer-review procedures allow for a dialogue to develop better
            information and resolve issues. The Policy's fact finding and
            expert panel process should explicitly involve the accuser and
            the accused in due process proceedings.

            E. No Penalties. The policy does not establish penalties for
            scientific misconduct, but rather leaves them up to the
            manager. A formal establishment of penalties and accountability
            of anyone found guilty of scientific misconduct or retaliation/
            suppression of scientific freedom should be explicitly included
            in the Policy.

            F. Policy Inconsistencies. The Policy offers a broad code of
            scientific and scholarly conduct (Section 3.7), and separately
            offers definitions of scientific and scholarly integrity
            (Section 3.5L), scientific and scholarly misconduct (Section
            3.5M), and procedures for reporting and resolving allegations
            regarding a loss of scientific and scholarly integrity (Section
            3.8). While there are some ties between these policy statements
            (for example Section 3.7A(6) and Section 3.7B(2)), there are
            many guidelines offered in the code of conduct, that when
            violated are not traceable to the procedures for resolving and
            reporting a loss of scientific and scholarly integrity (Section
            3.8).

             Further, the responsibilities sections (Section 3.6G-I) offers
            different guidance for the same groups of people that the code
            of conduct addresses (Section 3.7). These definition and Policy
            inconsistencies make the Policy confusing and less enforceable.
            These conflicts need to be resolved, with explicit procedures
            for reporting and resolving any intentional breach of the code
            of conduct and/or scientific and scholarly integrity (not just
            plagiarism, falsification and fabrication).

    II. Debilitating Lack of Transparency

    The Policy would greatly benefit from strong and explicit guarantees of
    transparency. This disturbing lack of openness can be found through the
    DOI scientific process encompassed by the Policy;

            A. Misconduct Inquiries. The Policy's inquiry process has no
            requirements for public transparency or reporting. To gain the
            public trust, the Policy should have explicit requirements for
            transparency and reporting about the way that the Policy is
            being implemented, the reason decisions were made, and
            scientific misconduct correction actions.

             The Policy should commit to publicly reporting alleged and
            confirmed lapses in scientific integrity, and develop and
            incorporate additional mechanisms to enhance transparency in
            DOI's adherence to its Scientific Integrity Policy.

            B. Open Science. The Policy should explicitly grant all
            government scientists the right to freely communicate with the
            press and the public, without fear of retribution, censorship
            or consequence. Section 3.4E directs the Department to develop
            a communications policy along these lines, which was finally
            issued in March 2012.

             The Policy should ensure that Federal science and decision
            making is communicated freely and transparently for public
            scrutiny; this is an important way to reveal and end political
            interference in science. Federal scientists should be
            performing and reporting on science that is in the public
            interest, and the American public (who pay for this science)
            should be able to trust that its science is not being performed
            in support of a political agenda.

             Section 3.7A(2) states:

                 ``I will communicate the results of scientific and
            scholarly activities clearly, honestly, objectively,
            thoroughly, accurately, and in a timely manner.'' This
            statement should be modified to explicitly include public
            communication.

            C. Remove FOIA Gag. Civil servants and especially political
            appointees should be explicitly barred from practices that
            intentionally avoid creating publically discoverable
            information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). For
            example, it is common practice for government managers to
            instruct their employees to not send Email or create documents
            pertaining to politically sensitive science issues. The Policy
            should explicitly prohibit these practices, and categorize them
            as scientific misconduct.

             Further, the March 2012 DOI Communications Policy forbids
            employees from disclosing anything covered by a FOIA exemption,
            such as ``pre-decisional'' information, and discourage
            specialists from revealing any information not previously
            published or otherwise publicly released by the Department.
            These rules effectively restrict scientists from saying
            anything new, and significantly impede the development of a
            culture of openness and transparency with the public.

            D. Creating a Clear Scientific Record. Section 3.7A9(10)
            states: ``I will be diligent in creating, using, preserving,
            documenting, and maintaining scientific and scholarly
            collections, records, methodologies, information, and data in
            accordance with federal and Departmental policy and
            procedures.'' This should include providing easy public access
            to this information. Similar modifications are needed for
            Section 3.7B(3-4).

             The policy should mandate the communication of scientific and
            technological findings by including a clear explication of
            underlying assumptions; accurate contextualization of
            uncertainties; and a description of the probabilities
            associated with both optimistic and pessimistic projections,
            including best-case and worst-case scenarios. This information,
            even if presented in very simple summaries, is critical to
            support good decision making.

    III. No Whistleblower Protection

    The DOI policy only provides a cursory mention of whistleblower
    protections, in directing the Department to provide its employees
    information (3.4F).

    Current whistleblower laws are complex, are stacked in the governments
    favor, and generally do not protect employees who raise concerns about
    subjects that are part of their jobs. Until these policies are
    improved, DOI should develop and incorporate additional whistleblower
    protections into the Scientific Integrity Policy and provide a more
    detailed explanation of procedural safeguards to be instituted, in
    order to adequately protect agency scientists and employees who report
    scientific misconduct or political interference with their research.

    The policy should explicitly grant scientists who report political
    interference in their work protection from retaliation. Explicit
    whistleblower protections must be included in the Policy to ensure not
    only government accountability, but also protection for agency
    employees who exercise their free speech rights and who facilitate the
    free flow of scientific and technological information to challenge
    institutional illegality, abuse of power, or other betrayals of the
    public trust. Government scientists must have the assurance that their
    primary duty is to the American people, and that they have an
    obligation and full protection to uphold the public trust.

    Finally, the policy should explicitly protect the accused against
    retaliation or censorship of all parties throughout the allegation and
    inquiry process.

    IV. Public and Peer Review

    The Policy refers to reviews in several sections, but never explicitly
    defines the review guidelines. The Policy should include explicit
    public- and peer-review definitions and set guidelines for review
    procedures. These guidelines should establish the kinds of work that
    require review, the processes to ensure independent and conflict-free
    reviews and procedures to include due process (reviewer-reviewee
    iterations) and public transparency in the review processes.

    There also needs to be an explicit response to review comments, as many
    programs profess that their programs or science are peer-reviewed as a
    justification for their validity, without ever taking action or even
    responding to review findings or suggestions. Finally, the Policy
    should establish procedures for appropriately handling differing
    scientific opinions and ensuring that these opinions are included in
    the final versions of scientific documents.

    V. Conflict of Interest

    Section 3.5A offers a broad definition of conflict of interest, which
    gives great leeway in subjective interpretation, and does little to
    give practical examples or to enforce conflict of interest rules.

    The Policy needs to explicitly define conflict of interest, and give
    practical guidelines and rules. The conflict of interest policy also
    needs to have time guidelines, because conflicts of interest do not
    necessarily disappear once a financial or professional relationship is
    concluded. For example, an individual should be barred from handling of
    scientific decision making (peer-reviews, panels, funding, policy,
    etc.) if they are conflicted in among the following ways:

         Lifetime for academic advisee/advisor relationship.

         5-Years for scientific collaboration on a project, report,
                or paper.

         5-Years for having worked at the same institution.

         5-Years for having had any financial or political
                interests, or potential to gain or lose.

         Any of the above concerning family members.

    Moreover, intentional violations of conflict of interest rules should
    be considered scientific misconduct.

    The Policy should go beyond a simple definition of conflict of interest
    by strengthening the disclosure of and reducing conflict of interest
    among employees and reviewers.

    Section 3.7B(1) states:

                 ``I will place quality and objectivity of scientific and
            scholarly activities and reporting of results ahead of personal
            gain or allegiance to individuals or organizations.''

    This statement implies a subjective and personal managing of conflicts
    of interest that could be dangerous. This statement needs significant
    revision to report on and remove employees from real and perceived
    conflicts of interest situations.

    Section 3.7B(6) states:

                 ``I will provide constructive, objective, and
            professionally valid peer review of the work of others, free of
            any personal or professional jealousy, competition, non-
            scientific disagreement, or conflict of interest.''

    This statement also encourages a scientist to internally manage their
    own conflicts of interest. This statement needs to be modified to
    direct the scientist to voluntarily declare any conflicts of interest
    and excuse themselves from the peer review.

                                     ______

        Dr. Gosar. So, if I heard it right, Mr. Bakst, that would
    be an illegal activity. I just heard it from Mr. Clement.
        Mr. Bakst. Well, assuming that is true, then yes, that
    would be illegal. That is----
        Dr. Gosar. Now, reassignment, to be honest with you, I am
    one of those people that demanded somebody be reassigned. And
    that was a gentleman out of the Southwest Fish and Wildlife
    Service that actually violated the law in the Lake Havasu
    issue. So, reassignment was critical to keeping task and
    science at hand.
        Now, I want to get back to the Obama administration. My
    good friend from California made the comment about the
    Minnesota withdrawal. Let's talk about that. This is a bogus
    probe by the Democrats on this Committee that involved a
    potential twin metals mine in Minnesota. Democrats have FOIA'd
    DOI, sent a bunch of letters, and made a bunch of false claims,
    only to be proven wrong by one of their own.
        In an e-mail sent by Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar,
    Klobuchar's e-mails prove that what the Obama administration
    did with this 425,000 acre land grant in northern Minnesota,
    the day before President Trump was sworn in, was not based on
    science or process, and was purely a political decision.
        And my comrade from the other side from California got it
    wrong. This had nothing to do with the Boundary Waters. We had
    this discussion over and over again. We want to make sure the
    people have all the facts in that regard. Can you add anything
    to that, Mr. Bakst?
        Mr. Bakst. I mean, my response would be that there can be
    disagreement among scientists. Just because a project doesn't
    move forward that was in a previous administration, there might
    be many reasons why that didn't happen. It might be because the
    current administration, the scientists that they are working
    with don't think that it should move forward. Not everything is
    necessarily an assault on science.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Cartwright.
        Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    all our witnesses who came today.
        I want to talk about Federal employees or Federal
    contractors engaged in scientific research analyzing the
    results of scientific research, communicating the results of
    scientific research, or making policy decisions based on the
    results of scientific research. And this is one of these
    ``raise your hand'' questions. I think we may have unanimity on
    this.
        How many of you would agree that these people that I just
    described, listed, should be prohibited from engaging in
    dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, coercive
    manipulation, or other scientific or research misconduct? Go
    ahead and raise your hands.
        [Show of hands.]
        Mr. Cartwright. And I am gratified to see that all four of
    you did.
        How many people think that these people should be
    prohibited from suppressing, altering, interfering with, or
    otherwise impeding the timely release and communication of
    scientific or technical findings? Go ahead and raise your hand.
        [Show of hands.]
        Mr. Cartwright. OK. Mr. Bakst, you are not raising your
    hand.
        Mr. Bakst. I don't have the context in that last example.
    There might be a reason why the timely release may not make
    sense.
        Mr. Cartwright. OK. And how many of you would agree that
    these people should be prohibited from intimidating or coercing
    an individual to alter or censor, or retaliating against an
    individual for failing to alter or censor, scientific or
    technical findings? Raise your hands.
        [Show of hands.]
        Mr. Cartwright. OK. And how many of you would agree that
    these people should be prohibited from implementing
    institutional barriers to cooperation and the timely
    communication of scientific or technical findings? Go ahead and
    raise your hands.
        [Show of hands.]
        Mr. Cartwright. Again you are hesitating, Mr. Bakst.
        Mr. Bakst. I was just thinking about what you are referring
    to.
        Mr. Cartwright. And how many of you are scientists, please?
    Raise your hands.
        [Show of hands.]
        Mr. Cartwright. And Mr. Bakst, you are a lawyer. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Bakst. I am.
        Mr. Cartwright. And you are employed by The Heritage
    Foundation?
        Mr. Bakst. I am.
        Mr. Cartwright. My understanding is that you are employed
    by The Heritage Foundation primarily in the agricultural area.
    You write articles about agricultural policy for The Heritage
    Foundation. Right?
        Mr. Bakst. Environmental policy and regulatory process.
        Mr. Cartwright. Are you the Mr. Bakst that wrote, ``Three
    Reasons Why USDA Should Not Give Special Aid to Farmers Hit by
    Tariffs,'' on May 20, 2019?
        Mr. Bakst. I am.
        Mr. Cartwright. You are that guy. OK. What I was just
    reading to you from was my colleague Mr. Tonko's bill, the
    Scientific Integrity Act. And it prohibits all of those things
    that I mentioned. And that is why I am a proud co-sponsor,
    along with 203 other Members of the Congress.
        Given, really, the bipartisan nature of support for this, I
    urge my Republican colleagues to jump on board, particularly
    those who are engaging in the ``whataboutism'' that we have
    heard today. Well, it is OK because the prior administrations
    under Democratic control did it.
        If you believe in scientific integrity, you should be a co-
    sponsor of the Scientific Integrity Act sponsored by Mr. Tonko
    for these reasons and the other ones expressed today.
        I want to thank all of you for appearing today and shedding
    light on this important topic. Thanks so much, and I yield
    back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. All right. Mr. Curtis, the time is yours.
        Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member.
    I am pleased to be here today. I want to try to express some
    thoughts that I have had about this that may run a little
    counter to what you otherwise hear.
        I deeply regret that, when it comes to the environment, we
    make this such a partisan issue. And I think if we are going to
    make progress, we need to figure out how to not make it a
    partisan issue. There are three areas where I feel like we are
    missing the mark in making progress, and I would like to
    briefly explain those, and then, to the extent time allows,
    have you comment on these three areas.
        One of them is a word that I hear bantered around a lot
    that just adds to the divisiveness, which is a climate denier.
    And I think it is, to be frank, frequently Republicans are
    accused of being climate deniers. And I have thought a lot
    about this.
        I don't know anybody personally, and I come from the state
    of Utah--who I claim are the best environmentalists in the
    world, we just talk about it in a different vocabulary--that
    doesn't want to leave the environment better than we found it.
        And I have thought about this term climate denier, and I
    want to give it a new definition. And maybe even in doing so I
    am going to make it more divisive than it already is. But it
    seems to me that in this discussion, there is so much emphasis
    on the United States reducing carbon emissions. And if I
    understand the science, we are about 15 percent currently of
    the carbon that is admitted into the atmosphere.
        And, therefore, if we are not willing to talk about the
    other 85 percent, it seems to me that the real climate deniers
    are the ones who are trying to put 100 percent of this burden
    on the United States and leaving out the rest of the world in
    this conversation, and trying to feel like we can solve this by
    ourselves. So, that is the first area that I am curious to get
    your thoughts on.
        The second is what I see, and I call the shaming, which is
    that we are trying to motivate people to be better
    environmental stewards by shaming. And, too frequently, I see
    us doing that, and my experience is that turns people off on
    this discussion instead of engaging them, and that we need to
    figure out a way to reward and incentivize good behavior
    instead of shaming the behavior that we don't like.
        And the third area that I would bring up for your thoughts
    and consideration is this concept that I call ``moving the
    bar,'' and that is this idea that as soon as somebody reaches a
    level of environmental stewardship that is better than where
    they have been, we are very quick to say, ``I am sorry, that is
    not enough. You need to do more.'' And we move that bar. Let me
    give you a really good example.
        I was the mayor of my city. At the time, we were heavily
    dependent--it was municipal power city. We were burning almost
    exclusively coal. And I was told by many people, ``Wow, if you
    could just move to natural gas, you would do wonders.'' Well,
    the moment we moved our city heavily to natural gas, I was
    told, ``Now natural gas is bad,'' and got the shaming effect,
    if that makes sense. At least, this is connected.
        So, I am curious to know your thoughts on, really moving
    forward, making this an issue that is not partisan on these
    three issues which I think are dividing us pretty
    substantially. And I don't know where to start, but if any of
    you want to jump in. And we have just a minute and 18 seconds,
    so if you could be brief and give me your thoughts, that would
    be helpful.
        Dr. Rosenberg. Thank you for that, Congressman. I think
    these are important points.
        First of all, I don't know anyone, certainly anyone in the
    science community, that thinks that the United States should
    solve this climate problem--100 percent of the burden should be
    on the United States. I don't hear that from any scientists.
        Mr. Curtis. Let me clarify, I don't think it is the
    scientists. I think it is the politicians that I hear that
    from.
        Dr. Rosenberg. Well, I think that may be true. And I will
    leave that, thank you. But that is not at all what the
    scientists say. But many people in this discussion believe the
    United States should be a real leader, and I think we probably
    can agree on that.
        On the shaming issue, I think that I entirely agree with
    you. I think that shaming doesn't help in a discussion to find
    solutions. And the point is not shaming unless there is real
    malfeasance involved. Unfortunately, sometimes there is. And I
    think that there are intentional efforts to misinform,
    intentional efforts to misdirect, and I think that in those
    cases they should be called out.
        Moving the bar, I think, is a really important and
    interesting issue. And I would say the problem is that a
    scientist, looking at the natural world, when you ask, ``Well,
    we got rid of coal. Is natural gas not enough?'' I look at the
    natural world and say, ``Well, is that enough?'' And,
    unfortunately, the answer is no. I am not doing this to punish.
    I am simply trying to respond as a scientist to the
    information.
        Mr. Curtis. I am afraid I am out of time. I would love to
    hear from all of you.
        And Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me to just say, in
    conclusion, when I speak of shaming, I am talking about my
    constituents, not people who would be on your radar, if that
    makes sense. Unfortunately, I have yielded my time. I wish we
    had a chance for you all to respond.
        The Chairman. Thank you. The basis of the discussion on
    this hearing is the piece of legislation that the next
    gentleman who is going to ask questions of the witnesses has
    introduced and spearheaded. Mr. Tonko, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
    holding today's hearing on scientific integrity. I thank
    Chairman Grijalva, and I do thank each and every witness that
    has appeared here today to shed light on this topic.
        There is no question that this issue presents a new urgency
    in our current administration. But I think we can all agree
    that scientific integrity is an issue that demands proper
    oversight regardless of which party is in the Speaker's chair
    or the Oval Office.
        Scientific integrity is not partisan. Good policy and
    decision making have always and will always rely on a
    discussion of facts informed by a scientific process that is
    protected from both political and financial distortion. This is
    especially true at Federal agencies, including the Department
    of the Interior, responsible for administering scientifically
    grounded protections such as the Endangered Species Act.
        One way we can ensure our Federal agencies are conducting
    science of the highest caliber that upholds the public good is
    by building a professional culture where the best and brightest
    scientific minds can thrive without fear of suppression,
    distortion, or retaliation.
        America's scientists should feel supported in their
    advancement as researchers and know that they are able to
    conduct their research without being mistreated or unduly
    pressured by political or special interests. Unfortunately, as
    we have heard, that is not the case today at the Department of
    the Interior.
        Dr. Caffrey and Mr. Clement, this question is for each of
    you. Based on your own experiences and those of your
    colleagues, do you believe scientists at Interior feel like
    sound, objective science is a priority for this administration?
        Dr. Caffrey. Based on my experience, I think my colleagues
    don't think that that is a priority, that this administration
    is not supporting them in their science. And I know of other
    colleagues that cannot talk publicly right now because they are
    in fear of losing their positions. They have experienced
    exactly the same pressure to remove words as I have.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Mr. Clement?
        Mr. Clement. I will just add that I think that scientists
    and career staff at Interior think that objective science is
    seen as a threat to the political appointees at Interior.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And what message are we sending when
    young scientists considering public service see these efforts
    to distort, suppress, or retaliate against scientists for their
    work?
        Mr. Clement. It is so hard to attract good talent at
    Federal agencies when it is publicized that these, for example,
    scientists are being attacked in this way. You don't
    necessarily need to influence policy. Not everyone thinks they
    are going to do that.
        But they do expect to be able to publish, go to
    conferences, further their career as scientists. And when even
    that is not allowed and you have this culture of suppression
    and censorship, it really turns off any potential talent you
    could attract.
        Dr. Caffrey. And I will add to that that they are also
    losing a lot of talent right now. Even if someone is not
    speaking out in such a public fashion like we are, there are
    people that are just moving on to other positions because of
    the pressures being put on them.
        Mr. Tonko. And how could this affect the everyday lives of
    the American people?
        Mr. Clement. I worry about this a lot, partly because of
    the impacts of climate change because that is such a hushed
    issue at Interior. Lives are put at stake, health is put at
    stake, when you don't publish those reports about the toxicity
    about certain chemicals, if you are leaving your offshore oil
    rig workers exposed to certain safety threats because you
    canceled a National Academy study into that very issue halfway
    through. You are putting Americans at risk, and of course
    public lands as well in the case of Interior.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. This is an oversight hearing, and
    oversight teaches us important lessons for how we can and
    should do better going forward. I am proud to have introduced
    H.R. 1709, the Scientific Integrity Act, which would protect
    public scientific research and reports from the influence of
    political and special interests with robust scientific
    integrity standards at America's science agencies.
        Dr. Rosenberg, today we have heard about numerous breaches
    of scientific integrity at Interior that have exposed the
    American people to danger, whether by undermining public health
    and the environment or furthering the climate crisis.
        How would stronger scientific integrity standards help
    prevent or address some of those issues we have discussed here
    today?
        Dr. Rosenberg. I think the fundamental thing that the
    Scientific Integrity Act would help do is get the information
    out in the public sphere. It no longer could be hidden.
    Scientists could speak out, and political manipulation of that
    information would be revealed. In other words, people would
    have to justify their decisions on their merits, not by
    constructing a false scientific argument for why it should be
    done.
        Mr. Tonko. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions that I
    wanted to ask. I see my time is up. But I just want to make
    this observation.
        Both sides have cited failure or have condemned actions of
    political parties in the past. If you believe in science and
    scientific integrity, we should have learned from that past and
    look for a reason not to do this, but to be compelled by having
    integrity be the guiding tool, the guiding force and move
    forward and provide for a process that will guarantee that.
        With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Mr. Gosar.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the Chairman.
        My colleague from New York says it very, very well, and it
    is no different than policy. When you have good process, you
    build good policy, it builds good politics, plain and simple.
    And when my friend from Utah was talking about the climate
    accord, once again this is highlighted by that problem.
        What the whole deal with the Paris Climate Accord was that
    the United States was going to pay for it. That is the key
    here. And once again, it defied this principle. So, good
    process, good policy, good politics would have been to bring it
    back as a treaty where it could have been discussed properly.
    That would have built a good policy to engage, and it would
    have been good politics all the way around.
        But the previous administration chose not to do it that
    way. They engaged in that aspect.
        Mr. Clement, real quickly, I just want to have a question
    anthropologically. How did the Native Americans get to North
    America?
        Mr. Clement. Well, this is getting off the topic of
    scientific integrity. They traveled across the Bering Land
    Bridge to get to North America.
        Dr. Gosar. And how was that possible?
        Mr. Clement. It was possible because there was a time
    during an ice age when the sea level was lower than it is now.
        Dr. Gosar. Interesting. And also probably some plate
    tectonic movements. Would you not agree?
        Mr. Clement. I am not aware of that, sir.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, you are familiar with plate tectonics, are
    you not?
        Mr. Clement. I am certainly aware of that. And I am also
    aware of the multiple lines of scientific evidence that make it
    very clear that climate change is real, it is dangerous, and it
    is human-caused.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, let me ask you a question. Is there ever
    one year the same as another?
        Dr. Rosenberg. No. I think you are talking about weather.
        Dr. Gosar. No, no. But that is what you are doing because
    weather is one year after another, but an accumulation over a
    long period of time. So, my question is: If climate change is
    what you are talking about, how do we find fossilized fish in
    southwestern Wyoming?
        Dr. Rosenberg. I think taking this back to scientific
    integrity, the topic of the hearing, I think it is important to
    acknowledge that the Earth's climate has certainly changed over
    a long period of time. But the issue at play right now is about
    scientific integrity in the agencies, and I think it is very
    important that we consider the multiple lines of looking at it.
        Dr. Gosar. My understanding, reclaiming my time, is that
    you have to have accumulation over time. We occupy such a small
    part of history of the Earth that it is very hard sometimes to
    extrapolate that. So, the comments that I was coming back to,
    my gentle friend from Utah, was exactly that. I don't think
    anybody denies that climate is always changing. I think there
    is nobody that will say that.
        But I think the priorities are what can man do, and what
    cannot man do, like i.e. the sun? Would you agree with me that
    the sun has more implications on our weather and climate than
    does man?
        Dr. Rosenberg. The climate has certainly always changed.
    There is no question about that. The climate has not changed at
    this pace and to this extent during the course of human
    civilization.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, has the Earth changed dramatically before
    man, at a more rapid scale?
        Dr. Rosenberg. It certainly has. During the time of the
    dinosaurs, of course, they were wiped out by a very dramatic
    change.
        Dr. Gosar. Yes. It did.
        Dr. Rosenberg. Sixty-five million years.
        Dr. Gosar. With my remaining time, I want to go to you, Mr.
    Bakst. In your testimony, you describe how species were
    commonly listed under the Obama administration based on
    settlements that occurred behind closed doors with advocacy
    groups. Clearly, these listings were not based on science, and
    ``sue and settle'' was abused by the previous administration
    like never before.
        Can you elaborate how science was not utilized in these
    decisions?
        Mr. Bakst. Well, one of the problems with ``sue and
    settle'' is we don't know what has happened behind the closed
    doors. The public doesn't have a voice, other parties besides
    the government agencies and the environmental groups. Suing the
    agency, only they know what is actually going on. It is hard to
    challenge it.
        So, whether or not there is science actually involved, who
    knows? We don't know. So, with the Hine's emerald dragonfly,
    for example, the example that I used in my testimony, the
    previous administration basically did not think it should be
    listed. Then the Obama administration said it should be.
        Critical habitat acreage went from 13,000 to 26,000 acres.
    We have no idea why. I mean, this is a process question. And
    one of the things that President Obama said in his memorandum
    was that the public needs to have trust in the scientific
    process, not just the science.
        Well, you cannot have trust in a scientific process when
    you are not even a part of the process and you don't even know
    whether or not science is even involved in the process. And
    that is what ``sue and settle'' does. We need to address that,
    definitely.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank you, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Neguse, the time is yours.
        Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity. Thank you for holding this hearing.
        I first just want to say I am a new lawmaker, a freshman
    lawmaker like some of my colleagues, and I have participated in
    many hearings this year. And there is a term that I have heard
    quite often, ``political theater.''
        I heard it at a Committee hearing that we held this morning
    in the Judiciary Committee on the Administration's disastrous
    child-family separation policy, and heard it earlier today. And
    with all the respect in the world for my colleague, I would
    just say that these topics merit consideration and attention by
    the committees of jurisdiction.
        And in this case, I am thankful that the Chairman has
    empaneled this hearing on scientific integrity, and with
    respect to Representative Tonko's bill, the opportunity for us
    to delve deeper on that front. And I find it a bit odd, or
    perhaps absurd, for individuals to describe these hearings as
    political theater when apparently they are participating in the
    hearings. But I digress.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I have the honor of
    representing Colorado's 2nd District, which includes the
    University of Colorado Boulder and Colorado State University.
    And my district is about 50 percent public lands. So, it would
    come as no surprise to many that today's topic is of critical
    importance to myself and my constituents.
        The work of scientists in my district relies on the freedom
    to share scientific research in its entirety without political
    interference, intimidation, or the removal of important facts.
    This issue goes far beyond one paper being censored or one
    scientist being told not to use the term climate change. It is
    a threat to the future of our scientific work force. It
    undermines the gold standard, the peer review process that
    research undergoes in this country, and ultimately lead to poor
    policy making.
        So, with that in mind, I would like to welcome Dr. Caffrey,
    and I apologize I was not here to welcome you earlier as a
    constituent. We are honored to have you here before our
    Committee. I want to thank you for having the courage to share
    your story, not just today with all of us but previously.
        I have been following your story closely, as you may know,
    not just because it is such a blatant violation of the
    scientific principles we should all believe in, but also
    because you conducted your research at the University of
    Colorado Boulder, which happens to be both in my district and
    is my alma mater. So, your story certainly hits home for me.
        In fact, I specifically brought up your experience of
    climate censorship to Secretary Bernhardt when he testified
    where you are sitting, in front of the Committee, just a few
    months ago, in May. Following that hearing, I sent a letter to
    the Department of the Interior Office of the Inspector General,
    requesting that the investigation into your case be reopened
    and completed. I would like to ask unanimous consent for that
    letter and the OIG's response to be submitted for the record. I
    will do so at the conclusion of my remarks.
        Unfortunately, DOI OIG responded less than 2 weeks later,
    stating, ``The OIG will not reopen the matter because the
    report was issued as written. There is no apparent evidence of
    scientific misconduct, and our OIG resources were needed on
    higher priority matters.''
        Dr. Caffrey, do you agree that the report was published as
    originally authored?
        Dr. Caffrey. I completely disagree. I had one of my co-
    authors, Dr. Patrick Gonzales, he removed his name, in part
    because he was dealing with his own scientific integrity
    violations. He had a scientific article at the same time that
    he was attempting to release that was having those exact same
    words removed from it.
        Mr. Neguse. Do you agree, Dr. Caffrey, that instances of
    climate censorship as you experienced it and your colleague's,
    should be high on OIG's list of priority matters?
        Dr. Caffrey. Absolutely.
        Mr. Neguse. I suspect you have seen the letter from the
    OIG. In that same letter, I requested that the OIG investigate
    the retaliation that you outlined in your testimony. They
    responded that they believe that there was ``insufficient
    evidence'' to open an investigation.
        Do you believe that that response is a satisfactory one?
        Dr. Caffrey. No.
        Mr. Neguse. Well, we are certainly going to continue to
    call attention to your case in particular, and to try to do
    what we can to hold the folks at the Department of the Interior
    accountable. I appreciate again your courage in sharing your
    story, and I think your story underscores why Representative
    Tonko's legislation is so critically important.
        Finally, Dr. Rosenberg, I am just going to give you an
    opportunity to respond to some of the prior exchange. I was
    going to ask you a specific question about the secret science
    rule, but the exchange that I witnessed earlier underscored for
    me that perhaps folks that are here at this side of the dais
    should stick to policy making and we should let the scientists
    stick to science. Perhaps you can expound upon that.
        The Chairman. Unfortunately, Doctor, you have about 14
    seconds to expound.
        Dr. Rosenberg. Now 11. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for the question.
        I do believe that there has been a great switch to talking
    about scientific misconduct, which has mechanisms in place to
    address within our system, compared to scientific integrity,
    which is the misconduct of others to suppress science. I think
    the focus should be on scientific integrity. And that is all I
    have time for.
        The Chairman. Mr. Bishop, the time is yours, sir.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        I am sorry Mr. Cartwright had to leave again, as did many
    of the others, because he made a unique distinction between
    employee and contractors and what kinds of options and rights
    that you have.
        Ms. Caffrey, is it correct you were never a full-time
    employee of the Park Service. You were a contractor. Correct?
        Dr. Caffrey. No. I was a partner. I was not a contractor.
        Mr. Bishop. No. That is not, you were a--were you ever a
    full-time employee?
        Dr. Caffrey. Of the National Park Service?
        Mr. Bishop. A full-time employee of the Department of the
    Interior. Ever.
        Dr. Caffrey. No.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. You were a contractor, then. There are
    different----
        Dr. Caffrey. No, I was not.
        Mr. Bishop. Yes. You can make those distinctions if you
    want to, but it doesn't make a difference.
        I do want entered into the record, though, what the
    Inspector General has reported about your situation because it
    has been written as being moot because your report was
    published without edits. That is the official statement from
    the Inspector General. If you want to challenge the Inspector
    General for any other reason, you do that. But that was the
    official statement that was going there.
        But let's move above that. Actually, how much were you paid
    for your work?
        Dr. Caffrey. $25,000. In the last year, I was bumped down
    to an intern status.
        Mr. Bishop. What is the total amount? Because----
        Dr. Caffrey. Oh, for the actual grant?
        Mr. Bishop. For everything, yes.
        Dr. Caffrey. Somewhere over $500,000 that was paid.
        Mr. Bishop. So, you got a half a million dollars for what
    you were doing.
        Dr. Caffrey. I did not, no. The University of Colorado did.
        Mr. Bishop. It is nice, but that is what was the contract,
    which is why you were a contractor.
        Mr. Bakst, let's move on to that as to something that is
    distinctively different here. Can you discuss any valid or
    legitimate reasons why any administration, Republican or
    Democrat, may want certain portions of a contractor-drafted
    report to be edited?
        Mr. Bakst. Sure. I mean, I think there is this assumption
    that it is just because of--out of bad faith. But there are
    many reasons why. And I am not necessarily referring to the
    specific instance, but just generally. The language may not be
    science in nature, as we talked about. It might just be
    opinion. It might not be describing what is but what should be,
    so that is not exactly a scientific decision. The substance of
    a report may be disconnected with the purpose of the report.
        Mr. Bishop. So, all these things you are talking about, is
    there a distinct difference between what you referenced here
    and malicious stifling of scientific integrity and research?
        Mr. Bakst. Yes. Because, quite honestly, like I am saying,
    in these instances there are legitimate reasons why the
    Government may choose not to move forward with a particular
    report, including ensuring that the science has integrity, has
    been peer reviewed properly, that it is accurate, it is
    reliable, and it is reproducible.
        Mr. Bishop. We are witnessing one of the unique phenomenon
    during this administration, where FOIA requests are up, actual
    complaints are significantly down. But we did see in the prior
    administration when there are significant amounts of accuracy
    complaints, and yet some people said nothing at that particular
    period of time.
        I remember being here when Dan Ashe simply said that if
    there is little information available--talking about a specific
    ESA issue--then oftentimes we go to the experts and ask the
    experts for their best professional judgment. And that becomes
    our policy. Does that statement embody to you the best
    available science or scientific integrity?
        Mr. Bakst. That is the exact opposite of what should be
    done. If there is too little information available, then the
    Federal Government should just be honest about that fact and
    not overstate its case and not draw conclusions, and just
    explain what it does know that can flow from the information
    available.
        Mr. Bishop. But that is exactly what happened in the last
    administration. So, in your actual opening testimony, you also
    talked about the quote from the President back then in 2009
    about what they hoped to be as far as transparency. Did the
    previous administration achieve that goal that it laid out in
    the quote?
        Mr. Bakst. No. Not really. I think you saw that with Dr.
    Houser's incident. You see that with the examples I talked
    about with the water rule, you see that with sue and settle
    issues which are unprecedented during the Obama administration,
    and other many examples that are both included in my testimony
    and elsewhere.
        Mr. Bishop. Including with--and I appreciate you talking
    about the sue and settlement concept with Mr. Gosar as well.
    When we have certain groups like the Center for Biological
    Diversity that has 143 lawsuits going on right now, does that
    lend itself to greater scientific integrity, or does it lend
    itself to more political decisions being made behind closed
    doors?
        Mr. Bakst. That is political decisions being made behind
    closed doors. If it was not, it should be transparent and allow
    the public to participate in the process and let us test the
    science. For that discussed today, I don't really know that
    anybody really disagrees with that. Let's make sure the best
    science is used.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. So, I don't have to actually yield back. I
    don't owe you 2, 3, 4, 5 seconds more. I thank you and yield
    back, and I think you have illustrated some of the problems we
    have in looking at this administration versus past
    administrations and having a dual standard. That is why this is
    somewhat of a partisan hearing. Somewhat. A little bit.
    Slightly.
        It is your time, Mr. Grijalva.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Let me recognize a very patient
    gentleman, Mr. Clay. The time is yours.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would hope that we
    would not veer too far off course in this Committee. The topic
    is scientific integrity. And I do remember 4 years ago the last
    hearing we had on this subject, and it seems like a replay in
    some respects because we still have those on the other side who
    want to deny climate, want to deny science, and we know that
    policy decisions should be based on facts and informed by sound
    scientific research.
        And with that, let me go to Dr. Caffrey. Could you recall
    any other specific argumentative points or scientific-based
    reasons from the National Park Service for the removal of your
    references?
        Dr. Caffrey. No. And, in fact, I was in a meeting where at
    one point they completely dropped their defenses and said, ``We
    have to remove this because we could lose the Climate Change
    Response Program if this report includes this information
    because it is not consistent with what the Trump administration
    wants,'' not----
        Mr. Clay. And had no real argument against your sound
    reasoning?
        Dr. Caffrey. No. Initially they used their objection
    because I used the word anthropogenic. But then when I was in a
    meeting, I actually had the Associate Director slapping papers
    on the desk, saying that he cannot allow this to happen because
    if that occurs, he could be relocated to somewhere else in the
    country. He could be replaced with someone who would not be as
    nice to me as he is.
        I had another colleague take me outside, walk me around the
    building, and she said she didn't want to be reassigned because
    she has children, and that I should think about her children.
    So, they completely dropped their defenses on the scientific
    reasoning.
        Mr. Clay. It sounds as though they lacked a real backbone.
        Dr. Caffrey. Correct.
        Mr. Clay. Let me ask Dr. Rosenberg, in your testimony you
    mention President Trump's recent Executive Order to cut the
    number of agency advisory panels by one-third.
        Do you think this decision positively or negatively impacts
    environmental justice leaders in their communities?
        Dr. Rosenberg. I think it negatively impacts environmental
    justice leaders and the causes they are fighting for.
        Mr. Clay. OK. Let me ask Mr. Bakst, while reading through
    your recommendations, I saw one point suggesting agencies, and
    I quote, ``Agencies should appropriately qualify any
    conclusions, including where there might be doubts regarding
    science.'' Do you really believe that, Mr. Bakst?
        Mr. Bakst. You are talking about in my written testimony?
        Mr. Clay. Yes.
        Mr. Bakst. Should they qualify--yes. They should not draw
    conclusions----
        Mr. Clay. Make conclusions----
        Mr. Bakst [continuing]. Based on what the science actually
    tells them.
        Mr. Clay. And you say where there might be doubts regarding
    the science.
        Mr. Bakst. Right. Where there might be doubts in the
    science, they should articulate the fact that there are
    uncertainties that exist and not go beyond making something
    sound definitive.
        Mr. Clay. So, who would qualify or challenge the science?
    Would it be another scientist, or would it be someone, say,
    like you who just doesn't believe it, or what?
        Mr. Bakst. No. First of all, actually, ideally what would
    happen is the public would be able to challenge it. That is why
    I have been strong about advocating the Information Quality
    Act. The science should be able----
        Mr. Clay. The public--excuse me--the public should
    challenge the science?
        Mr. Bakst. The public, including scientists, should be able
    to use the Information Quality Act. First of all, IQA does
    allow requests for correction and the ability to go to agencies
    to challenge the science.
        Mr. Clay. All right. So, do you think you have the
    credentials to challenge?
        Mr. Bakst. No. I am not a scientist. I would not be
    articulating a scientific--I am not trying to make a scientific
    argument. I would not be there. And I am not making it today. I
    am making policy arguments. And it is important that those
    distinctions be drawn.
        Mr. Clay. And it sounds as though you just refuse to accept
    the science. Is that what this comes down to?
        Mr. Bakst. No. All I have been talking about----
        The Chairman. That you don't agree with the science?
        Mr. Bakst. Actually, the entire testimony in my testimony
    today and the world testimony is all about process, and it is
    about policy. It is not about the actual substance of the
    science. And for the most part, I don't think my colleagues
    here on the panel have been discussing too much of the science,
    either.
        Mr. Clay. Well, my time is up, and it looks like I am going
    to have to yield back. But, I mean, this is incredible.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Clay.
        Mr. Bishop. That is the way it is with all cardinals, Mr.
    Clay.
        The Chairman. Mr. Cunningham, the time is yours.
        Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this
    important hearing. And I want to thank the witnesses for
    testifying on their scientific integrity experiences at the
    Interior Department. And thank you for your time here today.
        In my past life, before being elected to Congress, I worked
    as an ocean engineer. And at a very basic level, engineering is
    the practice of applying scientific principles to solve real-
    world problems, whether it is to build a bridge, or create new
    types of medicine, write software, or protect marine resources.
        But if you don't use the most objective and recent science,
    engineers will inevitably make bad decisions that produce bad
    results. In many ways, these same principles apply to decision
    making in Federal agencies. And as we have heard here today
    under both former Secretary Zinke and now under Secretary
    Bernhardt, there has been no shortage of bad decisions made
    with limited transparency. Science itself is clearly under
    attack.
        And this is especially true when it comes to offshore
    drilling. And since January 2017, there have been multiple
    instances of the Interior Department basing its offshore oil
    and gas decisions on politics as opposed to sound science. And
    Interior has tried to mislead the public about what exactly is
    happening.
        Interior halted a National Academy of Science study on
    improving inspections of offshore oil and gas development. The
    Interior rolled back offshore oil and gas regulations developed
    following the Deepwater Horizon explosion oil spill. And most
    recently, Secretary Bernhardt has decided to hide the 5-year
    plan until after the 2020 Presidential election because the
    Administration knows full well that leasing off the coast of
    South Carolina and Florida would come with significant
    political risk.
        So, Dr. Rosenberg, can you discuss some of the ways
    scientific integrity and transparency are under attack at the
    Interior Department, especially as they relate to offshore oil
    and gas development?
        Dr. Rosenberg. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, for your
    comments. And it is great to have a fellow ocean scientist
    here.
        The types of attacks really are sidelining the science
    completely from the discussion, and in many cases, from our
    information, that means that the scientists and the
    professional staff are not even part of the decision-making
    process. They are not even in the room.
        So, moving forward with actions on offshore oil and gas,
    including leasing actions, the safety actions, and others are
    being taken at a political level without developing the
    appropriate information as they go forward. And, unfortunately,
    we are seeing that in other bureaus on other kinds of areas in
    the Department as well, including those that are cited in my
    testimony.
        So, it really is a full-scale sidelining of the science
    from the process of making those decisions. And that means that
    you can make a wholly political decision. You no longer have
    the facts to constrain you.
        Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Dr. Rosenberg. And as the old
    saying goes, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but
    not everybody is entitled to their own facts. Right? We should
    agree on, objectively, a set of facts to work from.
        Dr. Rosenberg. That is correct.
        Mr. Cunningham. Thank you for that.
        Mr. Clement, in 2004, Hurricane Ivan hit the Gulf of Mexico
    and caused an underwater mud slide that destroyed the Taylor
    Energy oil platform, which has resulted in the longest oil
    spill in U.S. history, and a spill that is still occurring here
    today.
        And now, while it is difficult to say that Hurricane Ivan
    was the result of climate change, I think there are lessons we
    can learn from this event that should--should--influence
    current and future decision making. Climate change is going to
    result in sea level rise, and storms and hurricanes that batter
    the Atlantic coast will increase in intensity.
        It is reasonable to assume that this increased storm
    intensity as a result of climate change will increase the
    likelihood of oil spills and accidents that could cripple local
    coastal economies like those in South Carolina should offshore
    drilling come to our state.
        So, my question to you is: Do you think the Interior
    Department should incorporate the risk of climate change into
    decisions about whether to open new regions like the South
    Atlantic to offshore oil and gas development?
        Mr. Clement. They absolutely should, in many ways. We don't
    always attribute these calamities of a particular hurricane to
    climate change, but we know the dice is loaded now. We know
    that sea level rise is going to affect storm surge levels. We
    know these hurricanes now speed up very rapidly and they hold a
    lot more water. So, there is no development, frankly, that
    should take place without understanding those considerations.
        Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Clement. And thank you to
    every one of the witnesses for coming today. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. And let me also thank
    the witnesses. And let me recognize myself.
        Dr. Rosenberg, the Union of Concerned Scientists, they have
    published multiple reports on the attacks on science under the
    Trump administration. One of these reports, I believe, focused
    solely on the Department of the Interior. Also, you did some
    polling of Interior employees as well?
        Dr. Rosenberg. That is right.
        The Chairman. Talk about that in terms of both the poll and
    the different ways that we are seeing science being
    marginalized, suppressed, and in particular around Interior, if
    you would.
        Dr. Rosenberg. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
    question. In our polling of scientists, which we have done in
    multiple administrations, as we have evaluated what we view as
    compromises of scientific integrity in previous administrations
    as well, we have found that a majority of scientists within
    Interior are now saying that political interference in their
    work is one of the predominant reasons why they are struggling
    to put forward the information they need.
        We have found that a majority have said they would be
    afraid to file a scientific integrity complaint. So, to the
    data that was put up before, the reason complaints are down is
    because people are afraid to file them, and that there are not
    the processes in place to accept those complaints.
        We have found specific instances of intimidation that have
    occurred, not only those for my colleagues on this panel but
    many other scientists are reporting that they are not allowed
    to use certain language. They are not allowed to issue grants.
    Grants are politically manipulated, and so on.
        Many of these kinds of cases are at a much higher rate than
    in previous administrations. It is certainly the case that
    there have been compromises in previous administrations. We
    have been doing these surveys and these analyses back to the
    George W. Bush administration.
        So, the effort to strengthen scientific integrity was not
    focused solely on the Trump administration, and it has been
    critical, though, to highlight those cases where science has
    just been left out of the public policy process, such as in
    Arizona, as you noted in your opening comments, with
    artificially constraining the analysis around the development,
    a very large-scale development, and many others.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Caffrey, Mr. Clement, both your stories are disturbing,
    truly disturbing. And it is true that both your professional
    and personal lives have been forever changed and altered, and
    there has been much personal sacrifice on the part of both of
    you.
        But I want to ask you a question about who else is impacted
    when science at Interior is threatened, when the empirical
    information is not available to help guide policy so that there
    is a basis for policy discussion as opposed to just open-ended,
    where whoever has the controlling interest controls the policy?
    What is the basis? And I think science and empirical
    information provide that to policy makers to have a guide.
        Who else is affected? Who else is threatened? The average
    person out there, how is their life affected if science is
    suppressed, silenced, and marginalized in decision making and
    in the work of critical agencies like Interior and EPA, I would
    say as well. Either one.
        Mr. Clement. Yes, good question, Chairman. I think that we
    can safely say now that we are all affected by many of these
    conditions. And particularly in the case of EPA, we are just so
    focused on the health and safety of Americans and these
    chemicals that have been thoroughly studied.
        To suppress those summaries has a direct effect on the
    grandmother down the street and the grocer. Right? There are
    more extreme examples that I have described, like the Alaska
    Natives or the people that live on the Pacific island atolls. A
    USGS study came out, completely ignored by the Administration,
    saying they have until mid-century, which is 20 or 30 years----
        The Chairman. We have to move these people, right.
        Mr. Clement [continuing]. Before they are going to be
    unlivable atolls. So, there are people around the world that
    are being affected by this.
        The Chairman. I appreciate that.
        Ms. Caffrey? In the limited time I have left.
        Dr. Caffrey. Yes. Just to build on that as well. From the
    climate change perspective, we are also short-changing our
    future generations by denying the science right now. We need to
    take action. We need to be present. We cannot wait 8 years to
    take action.
        The Chairman. I want to thank all of you for your valuable
    testimony, and I appreciate it very much. If there is no
    further business--without objection, Mr. Bishop's item for the
    record.

        [The information follows:]

    Submission for the Record by Rep. Bishop

          Summary: Alleged Scientific Integrity Violations Related to
                          National Park Service Report

    Report Date: July 10, 2018
    Report Number: 18-0706

    The OIG opened an investigation based on an allegation that National
    Park Service (NPS) officials inappropriately sought to remove
    references to human-caused climate change in an NPS report related to
    sea level rise and storm surge projections at NPS properties.

    Shortly after we opened our investigation, the NPS published the report
    with all original references to human-caused climate change. Because
    the report was published without edits, we closed our investigation.

    This is a summary of an investigative report that we provided to the
    NPS Deputy Director.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. The members of the Committee may have some
    additional questions to the witnesses. Please respond to those
    in writing. The Members will have 3 business days following the
    hearing to submit questions. If there are questions, we will
    forward those to you and we would appreciate your responses
    very much. And any additional information that you feel is
    pertinent, please forward it as well.

        With that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.

        [Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

                                                        October 4, 2017

    Secretary Ryan Zinke
    U.S. Department of the Interior
    Washington, DC

        Dear Secretary Zinke:

        I hereby resign my position as Senior Advisor at the U.S.
    Department of the Interior (DOI).

        The career men and women of DOI serve because they believe in DOI's
    mission to protect our nation's natural and cultural resources and they
    believe that service to this country is a responsibility and an honor.
    I'm proud to have served at DOI alongside such devoted public servants,
    and I share their dedication to the mission and country, so it is with
    a heavy heart that I am resigning as a senior official at the
    Department. I have three reasons for my resignation:

        Poor Leadership. I blew the whistle on the Trump administration
    because I believe you unlawfully retaliated against me for disclosing
    the perilous impacts of climate change upon Alaska Native communities
    and for working to help get them out of harm's way. The investigations
    into my whistleblower complaints are ongoing and I hope to prevail.

        Retaliating against civil servants for raising health and safety
    concerns is unlawful, but there are many more items to add to your
    resume of failure: You and President Trump have waged an all-out
    assault on the civil service by muzzling scientists and policy experts
    like myself; you conducted an arbitrary and sloppy review of our
    treasured National Monuments to score political points; your team has
    compromised tribal sovereignty by limiting programs meant to serve
    Indians and Alaska Natives; you are undercutting important work to
    protect the western sage grouse and its habitat; you eliminated a rule
    that prevented oil and gas interests from cheating taxpayers on royalty
    payments; you cancelled the moratorium on a failed coal leasing program
    that was also shortchanging taxpayers; and you even cancelled a study
    into the health risks of people living near mountaintop removal coal
    mines after rescinding a rule that would have protected their health.

        You have disrespected the career staff of the Department by
    questioning their loyalty and you have played fast and loose with
    government regulations to score points with your political base at the
    expense of American health and safety. Secretary Zinke, your agenda
    profoundly undermines the DOI mission and betrays the American people.

        Waste of Taxpayer Dollars. My background is in science, policy, and
    climate change. You reassigned me to the Office of Natural Resources
    Revenue. My new colleagues were as surprised as I was by the
    involuntary reassignment to a job title with no duties in an office
    that specializes in auditing and dispersing fossil fuel royalty income.
    They acted in good faith to find a role for me, and I deeply appreciate
    their efforts. In the end, however, reassigning and training me as an
    auditor when I have no background in that field will involve an
    exorbitant amount of time and effort on the part of my colleagues,
    incur significant taxpayer expense, and create a situation in which
    these talented specialists are being led by someone without experience
    in their field. I choose to save them the trouble, save taxpayer
    dollars, and honor the organization by stepping away to find a role
    more suited to my skills. Secretary Zinke, you and your fellow high-
    flying Cabinet officials have demonstrated over and over that you are
    willing to waste taxpayer dollars, but I'm not.

        Climate Change Is Real and It's Dangerous. I have highlighted the
    Alaska Native communities on the brink in the Arctic, but many other
    Americans are facing climate impacts head-on. Families in the path of
    devastating hurricanes, businesses in coastal communities experiencing
    frequent and severe flooding, fishermen pulling up empty nets due to
    warming seas, medical professionals working to understand new disease
    vectors, farming communities hit by floods of biblical proportions, and
    owners of forestlands laid waste by invasive insects. These are just a
    few of the impacts Americans face. If the Trump administration
    continues to try to silence experts in science, health and other
    fields, many more Americans, and the natural ecosystems upon which they
    depend, will be put at risk.

        The solutions and adaptations to these impacts will be complex, but
    exponentially less difficult and expensive than waiting until tragedy
    strikes--as we have seen with Houston, Florida, the US Virgin Islands,
    and Puerto Rico--and there is no time to waste. We must act quickly to
    limit climate change while also preparing for its impacts.

        Secretary Zinke: It is well known that you, Deputy Secretary David
    Bernhardt, and President Trump are shackled to special interests such
    as oil, gas, and mining. You are unwilling to lead on climate change,
    and cannot be trusted with our nation's natural resources.

        So for those three compelling reasons--poor leadership, waste, and
    your failures on climate change, I tender my resignation. The best use
    of my skills is to join with the majority of Americans who understand
    what's at stake, working to find ways to innovate and thrive despite
    the many hurdles ahead. You have not silenced me; I will continue to be
    an outspoken advocate for action, and my voice will be part of the
    American chorus calling for your resignation so that someone loyal to
    the interests of all Americans, not just special interests, can take
    your job.

        My thoughts and wishes are with the career women and men who remain
    at DOI. I encourage them to persist when possible, resist when
    necessary, and speak truth to power so the institution may recover and
    thrive once this assault on its mission is over.

                Sincerely,

                                                   Joel Clement

                                     ______

                            STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
                        U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                                 July 25, 2019

        Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the scientific
    integrity enterprise that supports science at the Department of the
    Interior (Department).
    Scientific Integrity at the Department of the Interior

        First and foremost, scientific and scholarly information considered
    in Departmental decision making must be robust and of the highest
    quality. Most importantly, it must be trustworthy. The Department's
    reputation for scientific integrity is central to the Department's
    mission. Our scientific integrity infrastructure has been established
    over the past decade and it is designed to protect the scientific
    record, independent of individual administrations. The Department's
    scientific integrity policy assures the integrity of scientific and
    scholarly activities it conducts and the science and scholarship it
    uses to inform management and public policy decisions. Our policy \1\
    was put in place in 2011, and subsequently the Department was lauded as
    an early adopter and leader across the federal government for
    scientific integrity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.doi.gov/scientificintegrity.

        The Department's Scientific Integrity Officer for more than three
    years has been William Werkheiser, a long-serving employee of the U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS). During his 30-year tenure in government, he
    served most recently as Deputy Director of the USGS. Prior to this
    position, he was the Associate Director for Water, overseeing all
    aspects of the bureau's programs in water science. He was also
    appointed Science Advisor to the Secretary of the Interior in February
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2019.

        The Department defines scientific integrity as the adherence to
    ethical and professional standards that lead to objective, clear, and
    reproducible science. We recognize that promoting scientific integrity
    is critical to protecting science from bias, fabrication,
    falsification, and plagiarism. The goals and purpose of our policy have
    not changed since 2011. However, we recognized the need to update the
    policy and developed a procedural handbook in 2014 \2\ to provide
    procedures and guidance for implementing the policy. These changes
    strengthened integrity in the Department by building additional
    supporting infrastructure and by describing the purpose and process in
    greater detail. Most recently, Secretary's Order 3369, ``Promoting Open
    Science,'' signed in 2018, will enhance the Department's reputation as
    a leader in the field of scientific integrity by making the
    Department's data, analysis, and methodology more available to the
    public.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/
    305%20DM%203_%20Handbook%20-%20Scientific%20Integrity%20Procedures.pdf.

        While our policy is well known and objectively embodies the ideals
    of scientific integrity, this statement focuses on its implementation
    and the elements that make up the scientific integrity infrastructure
    here at the Department. This topic was most recently reviewed by the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) \3\ in its April 2019 Report,
    ``Scientific Integrity Policies: Additional Actions Could Strengthen
    Integrity of Federal Research,'' which looked specifically at nine
    agencies including USGS. While that Report found that USGS had taken a
    number of significant steps to achieve the objectives of its scientific
    integrity policy, we would like to highlight some of the Department-
    centric elements not discussed in the GAO assessment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698231.pdf.

    1. Providing Oversight: Department Scientific Integrity Officer and
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureau Scientific Integrity Officers (BSIOs)

            At the Departmental level, the DSIO provides Department-wide
            leadership and implements the scientific integrity policy. In
            addition, each bureau within the Department has a Bureau
            Scientific Integrity Officer (BSIO) responsible for the
            implementation of the scientific integrity policy at their
            bureau. All of these employees perform these duties ancillary
            to their position of record. The DSIO and BSIOs meet twice a
            year to discuss best practices, creating economies of scale on
            cross cutting initiatives like training, trend analysis, policy
            development, and program improvements. The responsibilities of
            these positions, as well as others in the Department that are
            integral to the process, are defined in the Department's
            policies.

    2. Procedures for Identifying and Addressing Alleged Violations of the
            Scientific Integrity Policy

            The Department's policy and Handbook also outline the process
            for addressing violations of the scientific integrity policy,
            including how to report an allegation, how they are reviewed,
            and how they are resolved. In summary, scientific integrity
            allegations can be formally reported to the Office of the
            Executive Secretariat (OES) (``Formal Allegations'') or can be
            informally reported to scientific integrity staff at a bureau
            through a scientific integrity ombudsman or mediation route
            (``Informal Allegations''). Informal allegations are an
            important mechanism for federal scientists to resolve issues
            without initiating a formal review, which may not be
            appropriate depending on the issue. Following review, informal
            allegations can be elevated to OES by the BSIO as formal
            allegations.

            All allegations receive an initial review. The BSIO, if a
            single bureau is involved, is responsible for the receipt of an
            allegation and making the final determination as to whether
            scientific integrity has been lost. The DSIO acts as the
            decision-maker when an allegation involves multiple bureaus or
            the Office of the Secretary. The dispensation of all formal
            allegations is made available to the public on the Department's
            Scientific Integrity web page (case closed summaries).\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.doi.gov/scientificintegrity/closed-cases.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    3. Training/Educating Staff

            Starting in 2015, scientific integrity training has been a
            requirement for most Department scientists, managers, and
            leadership, with a special emphasis on understanding the Code
            of Scientific and Scholarly Conduct, as specified in the
            policy. The training is periodically updated with input from
            all of the BSIOs. The training emphasizes how to report an
            allegation of a violation of the Department's scientific
            integrity policy and describes protections available from
            offices outside the scientific integrity program (through the
            Office of Special Counsel, Office of the Inspector General,
            Merit Systems Protection Board, and others) to those who make
            an allegation of a loss of scientific integrity.
    4. Continuing Improvement

            Our infrastructure is not static, and we strive to improve and
            maintain a culture of integrity. In addition to updates to the
            policy and the creation of a Handbook in 2014 to better
            implement our policy, now, in response to a recommendation from
            the 2019 GAO Report, USGS is advancing efforts to measure the
            effectiveness of its scientific integrity activities. USGS is
            also responsive to findings of misconduct. As a result of a
            misconduct finding at the USGS, the bureau is implementing a
            quality management system (QMS) for all of its laboratories.\5\
            The QMS system will ensure laboratory data uphold the bureau's
            scientific reputation, underscoring its mandate to provide
            reliable science to address pressing societal issues now and
            well into the future.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https: / / www.usgs.gov / about / organization / science-
    support / survey-manual / im-osqi-2018-01-quality-management-system-
    usgs.

        In addition to appointing a senior career Science Advisor and
    issuance of Secretary Order 3369, the Department is also undertaking
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    other activities related to scientific integrity:

         In April 2019, the Office of Management and Budget issued
                additional guidance for agency responsibilities under the
                Information Quality Act, emphasizing quality, objectivity,
                utility and integrity of information disseminated by
                federal agencies; the Department is in the process of
                implementing these changes.

         The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
                announced in May 2019 that the National Science and
                Technology Council will establish a Subcommittee on Rigor
                and Integrity in Research to address scientific integrity
                and other issues; the Department of the Interior is
                actively engaged with interagency partners on this effort.

    Conclusion
        The Department of the Interior has a rich and long-standing culture
    of scientific integrity that prevails independent of individual
    Administrations. Scientific integrity is a serious matter, and the
    Department has worked hard to ensure that the scientific activities
    that it carries out are the result of robust and independent processes.

                                     ______

    I'm a scientist. I'm blowing the whistle on the Trump administration.

    By Joel Clement

    July 19, 2017

    Washington Post OpEd

    Joel Clement was director of the Office of Policy Analysis at the U.S.
    Interior Department until last week. He is now a senior adviser at the
    department's Office of Natural Resources Revenue.

    I am not a member of the deep state. I am not big government.

    I am a scientist, a policy expert, a civil servant and a worried
    citizen. Reluctantly, as of today, I am also a whistleblower on an
    administration that chooses silence over science.

    Nearly seven years ago, I came to work for the Interior Department,
    where, among other things, I've helped endangered communities in Alaska
    prepare for and adapt to a changing climate. But on June 15, I was one
    of about 50 senior department employees who received letters informing
    us of involuntary reassignments. Citing a need to ``improve talent
    development, mission delivery and collaboration,'' the letter informed
    me that I was reassigned to an unrelated job in the accounting office
    that collects royalty checks from fossil fuel companies.

    I am not an accountant--but you don't have to be one to see that the
    administration's excuse for a reassignment such as mine doesn't add up.
    A few days after my reassignment, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke
    testified before Congress that the department would use reassignments
    as part of its effort to eliminate employees; the only reasonable
    inference from that testimony is that he expects people to quit in
    response to undesirable transfers. Some of my colleagues are being
    relocated across the country, at taxpayer expense, to serve in equally
    ill-fitting jobs.

    I believe I was retaliated against for speaking out publicly about the
    dangers that climate change poses to Alaska Native communities. During
    the months preceding my reassignment, I raised the issue with White
    House officials, senior Interior officials and the international
    community, most recently at a U.N. conference in June. It is clear to
    me that the administration was so uncomfortable with this work, and my
    disclosures, that I was reassigned with the intent to coerce me into
    leaving the federal government.

    On Wednesday, I filed two forms--a complaint and a disclosure of
    information--with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. I filed the
    disclosure because eliminating my role coordinating federal engagement
    and leaving my former position empty exacerbate the already significant
    threat to the health and the safety of certain Alaska Native
    communities. I filed the complaint because the Trump administration
    clearly retaliated against me for raising awareness of this danger. Our
    country values the safety of our citizens, and federal employees who
    disclose threats to health and safety are protected from reprisal by
    the Whistleblower Protection Act and Whistleblower Protection
    Enhancement Act.

    Removing a civil servant from his area of expertise and putting him in
    a job where he's not needed and his experience is not relevant is a
    colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. Much more distressing, though, is
    what this charade means for American livelihoods. The Alaska Native
    villages of Kivalina, Shishmaref and Shaktoolik are perilously close to
    melting into the Arctic Ocean. In a region that is warming twice as
    fast as the rest of the planet, the land upon which citizens' homes and
    schools stand is newly vulnerable to storms, floods and waves. As
    permafrost melts and protective sea ice recedes, these Alaska Native
    villages are one superstorm from being washed away, displacing hundreds
    of Americans and potentially costing lives. The members of these
    communities could soon become refugees in their own country.

    Alaska's elected officials know climate change presents a real risk to
    these communities. Gov. Bill Walker (I) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R)
    have been sounding the alarm and scrambling for resources to help these
    villages. But to stave off a life-threatening situation, Alaska needs
    the help of a fully engaged federal government. Washington cannot turn
    its back.

    While I have given small amounts to Democratic candidates in the past,
    I have no problem whatsoever working for a Republican administration. I
    believe that every president, regardless of party, has the right and
    responsibility to implement his policies. But that is not what is
    happening here. Putting citizens in harm's way isn't the president's
    right. Silencing civil servants, stifling science, squandering taxpayer
    money and spurning communities in the face of imminent danger have
    never made America great.

    Now that I have filed with the Office of Special Counsel, it is my hope
    that it will do a thorough investigation into the Interior Department's
    actions. Our country protects those who seek to inform others about
    dangers to American lives. The threat to these Alaska Native
    communities is not theoretical. This is not a policy debate.
    Retaliation against me for those disclosures is unlawful.

    Let's be honest: The Trump administration didn't think my years of
    science and policy experience were better suited to accounts
    receivable. It sidelined me in the hope that I would be quiet or quit.
    Born and raised in Maine, I was taught to work hard and speak truth to
    power.

    Trump and Zinke might kick me out of my office, but they can't keep me
    from speaking out. They might refuse to respond to the reality of
    climate change, but their abuse of power cannot go unanswered.

    This OpEd can be found at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-
    a-scientist-the-trump-administration-reassigned-me-for-speaking-up-
    about-climate-change/2017/07/19/389b8dce-6b12-11e7-9c15-
    177740635e83_story.html?utm_term=.3c2e0a7b2342.

                                     ______

    [LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
                                OFFICIAL FILES]

    Submissions for the Record by Dr. Rosenberg

      --  CDC Science Under Trump Fact Sheet from the Union of
                Concerned Scientists dated August 2018

      --  Energy Agencies Science Under Trump Fact Sheet from the
                Union of Concerned Scientists dated August 2018

      --  EPA Science Under Trump Fact Sheet from the Union of
                Concerned Scientists dated August 2018

      --  FDA Science Under Trump Fact Sheet from the Union of
                Concerned Scientists dated August 2018

      --  FWS Science Under Trump Fact Sheet from the Union of
                Concerned Scientists dated August 2018

      --  NOAA Science Under Trump Fact Sheet from the Union of
                Concerned Scientists dated August 2018

      --  NPS Science Under Trump Fact Sheet from the Union of
                Concerned Scientists dated August 2018

      --  USDA Science Under Trump Fact Sheet from the Union of
                Concerned Scientists dated August 2018

      --  USGS Science Under Trump Fact Sheet from the Union of
                Concerned Scientists dated August 2018.

      --  Letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists to EPA
                dated August 16, 2018

                                     [all]