Protecting American Taxpayers: Highlighting Efforts to Protect Against Federal Waste, Fraud, and Mismanagement — House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing (April 19, 2023)
Summary
The printed record of a House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology hearing titled Protecting American Taxpayers: Highlighting Efforts to Protect Against Federal Waste, Fraud, and Mismanagement, Serial No. 118-8, held April 19, 2023 in the 118th Congress. The contents list opening statements by Representatives Jay Obernolte, Valerie Foushee and Zoe Lofgren. The five witnesses are inspectors general: Paul K. Martin of NASA, Allison C. Lerner of the National Science Foundation, Teri L. Donaldson of the Department of Energy, Eric J. Soskin of the Department of Transportation and Sean W. O'Donnell of the Environmental Protection Agency. The hearing is adjourned at 12:30 p.m., with the record open an additional 10 days, and an appendix holds answers to post-hearing questions.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Protecting American Taxpayers: Highlighting Efforts to Protect Against Federal Waste, Fraud, and Mismanagement — House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing (April 19, 2023).”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/protecting-american-taxpayers-highlighting-efforts-to-protect-against-bb546fb828/
, SHA-256 5dea05dfc2ef7391cb9dbbafbea413e7548a720a332eb2a803d4a507f30fe3ca.Full text
[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROTECTING AMERICAN TAXPAYERS:
HIGHLIGHTING EFFORTS TO PROTECT
AGAINST FEDERAL WASTE, FRAUD,
AND MISMANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 19, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
51-794PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking
RANDY WEBER, Texas Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JIM BAIRD, Indiana HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
MIKE GARCIA, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California KEVIN MULLIN, California
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
RYAN ZINKE, Montana MAXWELL FROST, Florida
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
DALE STRONG, Alabama SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
MAX MILLER, Ohio JENNIFER McCLELLAN, Virginia
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia TED LIEU, California
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York PAUL TONKO, New York
TOM KEAN, New Jersey
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
April 19, 2023
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Jay Obernolte, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Statement by Representative Valerie Foushee, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 17
Written Statement............................................ 18
Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 19
Written Statement............................................ 19
Witnesses:
The Honorable Paul K. Martin, Inspector General, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 23
The Honorable Allison C. Lerner, Inspector General, National
Science Foundation (NSF)
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 35
The Honorable Teri L. Donaldson, Inspector General, Department of
Energy (DOE)
Oral Statement............................................... 51
Written Statement............................................ 53
The Honorable Eric J. Soskin, Inspector General, Department of
Transportation (DOT)
Oral Statement............................................... 75
Written Statement............................................ 77
The Honorable Sean W. O'Donnell, Inspector General, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
Oral Statement............................................... 86
Written Statement............................................ 88
Discussion....................................................... 101
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Paul K. Martin, Inspector General, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).................... 138
The Honorable Allison C. Lerner, Inspector General, National
Science Foundation (NSF)....................................... 140
The Honorable Teri L. Donaldson, Inspector General, Department of
Energy (DOE)................................................... 142
The Honorable Eric J. Soskin, Inspector General, Department of
Transportation (DOT)........................................... 143
PROTECTING AMERICAN TAXPAYERS:
HIGHLIGHTING EFFORTS TO PROTECT
AGAINST FEDERAL WASTE, FRAUD,
AND MISMANAGEMENT
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 2023
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jay Obernolte
presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Obernolte. The hour of 10 o'clock having arrived, this
hearing of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee is
hereby convened.
I'd like to begin today by thanking Chairman Lucas and
Ranking Member Lofgren for allowing both myself and Mrs.
Foushee to lead this Full Committee hearing. And I'm very
excited about the topic we're going to be discussing today.
This hearing focuses on a topic of great importance both to
me and to this Committee, which is to review the oversight and
investigative efforts of the Inspectors General (IGs) within
each agency within the jurisdiction of our Committee. The role
of the OIG (Office of Inspector General) in these agencies is
an essential one, which is to protect the American taxpayer by
working to identify Federal waste, fraud, and mismanagement.
Inspectors General have a strong historical precedent in
our Nation. IGs are meant to be the watchdogs for Congress and
the American taxpayer. The independent oversight capability the
IG wields to expose waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement is
their core responsibility. It's critical to the independence of
Inspectors General that this independence is maintained. IGs
are meant to be in their parent agencies, but not of their
parent agencies, or frankly, of any Administration. They're
meant to be apolitical and set apart in order to do the hard
task of publicly highlighting the flaws of their parent
agencies, and I know that that is not an easy one. Helping to
achieve transparency and accountability within an
Administration is a difficult but a very necessary role that
the IG leads.
Each agency has a very different mission and goal, which
makes it challenging to have a single, all-encompassing metric
to evaluate the effectiveness of each IG. I hope that this
hearing will be an opportunity to discuss the potential metrics
by which each Office of the Inspector General should be
measured and where those offices currently stand.
This hearing is also a chance to highlight the important
work done by each of the offices here before us today. I'd
particularly like to highlight the oversight work surrounding
the growing threat to our cybersecurity and research integrity
standards. The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed technologies
forward and implemented remote capabilities far sooner than any
of us had anticipated. Hearing from each of you today on the
oversight efforts your agencies have taken to enhance
cybersecurity standards and promote research integrity is
particularly important to me. I hope that this topic can be
effectively discussed as it relates to the security of
passwords and protective internal practices of each of the
agencies that you represent. This is likely to be discussion
for future hearings as well. I certainly hope it will be. But I
encourage conversations on this topic today.
Several of the agencies here today before us have received
millions if not billions of Federal dollars to advance research
and development initiatives. Massive spending bills such as the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, CHIPS and Science Act,
and the Inflation Reduction Act have recently become law, and
have provided agencies with new statutory mandates, as well as
research and development funds to advance innovation in our
country.
However, more spending also means more opportunities for
mismanagement of those taxpayer funds, making the IGs' role
more important than ever. I'd like to hear how each IG has
already begun to provide oversight of these taxpayer funds, as
well as future oversight plans in these areas. It's critical as
new programs and funds are implemented that every proper
measure is taken to safeguard them from fraud and abuse.
This hearing also serves as an opportunity for this
Committee to emphasize the various findings the IGs have
reported on in areas that have raised considerable concerns.
Just a few issues we hope to address here include the law
enforcement presence and mitigation efforts of sexual assault
and harassment allegations in the Antarctic, the extent of
work-from-home policies that are in place, and various award
and procurement issues as we move closer to the congressional
appropriations season.
At this time, I would like to welcome our esteemed
witnesses and thank you all for joining us. I'm looking forward
to a robust discussion with each of you. And I'm hopeful our
conversation today will highlight the good work being done in
accountability and transparency and hope it also strengthens
your oversight and investigatory efforts. So I thank you very
much for being here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Obernolte follows:]
Good morning. I would like to begin today by thanking
Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Lofgren for allowing myself
and Ms. Foushee to lead this full committee hearing.
Today's hearing focuses on a topic of great importance to
this committee: protecting the American taxpayer by working to
expose federal waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Essentially,
the role of the Office of Inspectors General.
Inspectors General have a strong historical precedent in
our nation. IGs are meant to be the watchdogs for Congress and
the American taxpayer. The independent oversight capability the
IG wields to expose waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement is
their core responsibility.
It is critical that the independence of Inspectors General
is maintained. IGs are meant to be IN their parent agencies,
but not OF their parent agencies or any administration. They
are meant to be apolitical and set apart in order to do the
hard task of publicly highlighting the flaws of their parent
agencies. Helping to advance transparency and accountability
within an administration is a difficult but necessary role that
the IG leads.
Each agency has a different mission and goal, making it
challenging to have a single, all-encompassing metric to
evaluate the effectiveness of each IG. I hope this hearing will
be an opportunity to discuss the potential metrics by which
each office of the inspector general should be measured and
where those offices currently stand.
This hearing is also a chance to highlight the important
work done by each of the offices before us today. I
particularly want to highlight the oversight work surrounding
the growing threat to our cybersecurity and research integrity
standards. The COVID-19 pandemic pushed technologies forward
and implemented remote capabilities far sooner than any
anticipated. Hearing from each of you today on the oversight
efforts your agencies have taken to enhance cybersecurity
standards and promote research integrity is particularly
important.
I hope this topic can be effectively discussed as it
relates to the security of passwords and protective internal
practices of each agency. This is likely to be a discussion for
future hearings, but I encourage conversations on this topic
today as well.
Several of the agencies here today have received millions,
if not billions, of federal dollars to advance research and
development initiatives. Massive spending bills such as the
Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act, CHIPS and Science Act,
and the Inflation Reduction Act have recently become law and
provided agencies with new statutory mandates as well as R&D
funds to advance innovation. More spending means more
opportunities for mismanagement of taxpayer funds, making the
IG's role more important than ever. I would like to hear how
each IG has already begun to provide oversight of these
taxpayer funds, as well as future oversight plans in these
areas. It is critical as new programs and funds are implemented
that every proper measure is taken to safeguard them from fraud
and misuse.
This hearing also serves as an opportunity for this
committee to emphasize the various findings the IGs have
reported on in areas that have raised considerable concern.
Just a few issues we hope to address include the law
enforcement presence and mitigation efforts of sexual assault
and harassment allegations in the Antarctic; the extent of work
from home policies in place; and various award and procurement
issues as we move closer to the Congressional appropriations
season.
At this time, I would like to welcome to our esteemed
witnesses and thank you all for joining us. I am looking
forward to a robust discussion with each of you. I am hopeful
our conversation today will highlight the good work being done
in accountability and transparency and help to strengthen your
oversight and investigative efforts.
Mr. Obernolte. And I'll now recognize my Ranking Member,
the gentlewoman from North Carolina, for 5 minutes for her
opening statement.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Chairman Obernolte, and thank you
for leading today's hearing. I'm very pleased to serve beside
you this Congress as the Ranking Member of Investigations and
Oversight Subcommittee. Science Committee oversight of Federal
scientific enterprise is crucial. I look forward to working
with you in a bipartisan fashion to support the incredible work
that scientists inside and outside of government are doing
every day to confront the challenges of the 21 century and to
maintain American leadership in science and innovation.
I am a strong supporter of Federal scientific research, and
I believe the Federal Government is irreplaceable in its
ability to deploy resources on a vast scale to fund
breakthroughs in basic and applied science. But with that
singular role comes a responsibility to use taxpayer dollars
effectively. Through the work of their offices, the Inspectors
General testifying here today are helpful to uphold core
principles of good government that we all share. That is why I
am proud to support their work and eager to hear their
perspectives on strengthening the integrity of Federal
scientific programs.
I am proud to represent North Carolina's 4th Congressional
District, which is one of the Nation's leading hubs for
scientific research, led by research universities such as Duke
University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
and North Carolina Central University, as well as innovation
centers like Research Triangle Park. My district understands
the power of science to generate innovation, transform
industry, and create jobs.
Federal science agencies such as NSF (National Science
Foundation), DOE (Department of Energy), and EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency) are important participants in this research
ecosystem. North Carolina's 4th is home to the world-class EPA
lab, where Federal researchers at EPA's Office of Research and
Development provide the scientific underpinning for crucial
health protective regulations. Agencies also fund programs and
initiatives at local institutions in support of a wide range of
cutting-edge scientific activities, such as DOE's Triangle
University's Nuclear Laboratory Center of Excellence and NSF's
Research Triangle Nanotechnology Network. So I have a keen
interest in ensuring that Federal research programs are managed
well and adhere to best practices in using the funds that are
entrusted to them.
The researchers in my district are some of the most
brilliant people you will ever meet, and they deserve to know
that the Federal agencies working to support them are upholding
the same rigorous standards that they apply to their own work.
I also want to emphasize that support for rigorous
oversight does not in any way signal a lack of support for
investing in Federal research at the levels we need to maintain
American preeminence in science and technology. Indeed, the two
priorities go hand-in-hand.
The last Congress made critical investments in Federal
science through landmark legislation like the CHIPS and Science
Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the
Inflation Reduction Act. These investments are a pillar of
America's future, and I am committed to making sure that they
endure. Careful oversight by Congress, OIGs, and others will
help maximize their impact because when it comes to Federal
research funding, good government is good policy.
I am grateful to the witnesses for testifying here today
and for the work that you do.
Once again, Chairman Obernolte, it is my great hope that
through our oversight efforts this Congress, we can find common
ground in support of American science. I believe we can. And I
will work with you to do so. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Foushee follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Obernolte, and thank you for leading
today's hearing. I'm very pleased to serve beside you this
Congress as the Ranking Member of the Investigations &
Oversight Subcommittee.
Science Committee oversight of the federal scientific
enterprise is crucial. I look forward to working with you in a
bipartisan fashion to support the incredible work that
scientists inside and outside of government are doing every day
to confront the challenges of the 21st Century and to maintain
American leadership in science and innovation.
I am a strong supporter of federal scientific research. And
I believe the federal government is irreplaceable in its
ability to deploy resources on a vast scale to fund
breakthroughs in basic and applied science.
But with that singular role comes a responsibility to use
taxpayer dollars effectively. Through the work of their
offices, the Inspectors General testifying here today are
helping to uphold core principles of good government that we
all share. That is why I am proud to support their work and
eager to hear their perspectives on strengthening the integrity
of federal scientific programs.
I am proud to represent North Carolina's Fourth
Congressional District, which is one of the nation's leading
hubs for scientific research. Led by research universities such
as Duke University, the University of North Carolina-Chapel
Hill, and North Carolina Central University, as well as
innovation centers like Research Triangle Park, my district
understands the power of science to generate innovation,
transform industry, and create jobs.
Federal science agencies such as NSF, DOE and EPA are
important participants in this research ecosystem. North
Carolina's Fourth is home to the world-class EPA lab, where
federal researchers at EPA's Office of Research and Development
provide the scientific underpinning for crucial, health-
protective regulations.
Agencies also fund programs and initiatives at local
institutions in support of a wide range of cutting-edge
scientific activities, such as DOE's Triangle Universities
Nuclear Laboratory Center of Excellence and NSF's Research
Triangle Nanotechnology Network.
So, I have a keen interest in ensuring that federal
research programs are managed well and adhere to best practices
in using the funds that are entrusted to them. The researchers
in my district are some of the most brilliant people you will
ever meet, and they deserve to know that the federal agencies
working to support them are upholding the same rigorous
standards that they apply to their own work.
I also want to emphasize that support for rigorous
oversight does not, in any way, signal a lack of support for
investing in federal research at the levels we need to maintain
American preeminence in science and technology. Indeed, the two
priorities go hand in hand.
The last Congress made critical investments in federal
science through landmark legislation like the CHIPS and Science
Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the
Inflation Reduction Act. These investments are a pillar of
America's future, and I am committed to making sure they
endure.
Careful oversight by Congress, OIGs, and others will help
maximize their impact, because when it comes to federal
research funding, good government is good policy. I am grateful
to the witnesses for testifying here today and for the work
that you do.
Once again, Chairman Obernolte, it is my great hope that
through our oversight efforts this Congress, we can find common
ground in support of American science. I believe we can, and I
will work with you to do so.
I yield back.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Ranking Member Foushee. I
completely agree with you, and I think we will follow--find
that common ground.
Chairman Lucas' opening statement will be submitted for the
record.
At this time, I'd like to recognize the Ranking Member of
the Full Committee, Congresswoman Lofgren, for her opening
statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. I want to thank Chairman
Lucas, Chairman Obernolte, for holding this hearing today. I'm
a big fan of the Inspector General concept. You do good work
helping us to find issues that need improvement. And given the
large investments that we made in science in the last Congress,
it's important that we take a look at how those programs are
being administered.
The investments in Federal science agencies are going to
bring about new discoveries on the shoulders of impressive
accomplishments in the past. I'll just note that the Department
of Energy will continue leading us into a clean energy future,
building upon the incredible breakthroughs in fusion energy
that we saw at the--in the last year and, frankly, the last
years.
The--as I said, the Inspectors General play an important
role. We've provided additional funding because with your
additional responsibilities will come additional work. If--some
challenges may be difficult because some of these agencies may
be standing up completely new endeavors. It won't be the same
old, same old. And I'm confident that the IGs will take that
responsibility and that new challenge seriously and be
successful.
Now, the fact that I support rigorous oversight does not
mean that I am suspicious or unhappy about the investments that
we made in the last Congress. It's important that we did that.
And we did it on a bipartisan basis. But investments made in
the CHIPS and Science program in particular, are--we need
oversight. We need oversight to make sure that those
substantial investments are making the best possible use of
taxpayer dollars. I know that we will do this on a bipartisan
basis. And I want to thank the witnesses for being here, as
well as thanking our bipartisan science group for once again
working together for science advancement.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Good morning, and thank you to Chairman Lucas and Chairman
Obernolte for holding this hearing today.
Inspectors General are a crucial part of a healthy,
functioning government ecosystem. Congress entrusts federal
agencies with taxpayer money to steward our national
priorities. The 117th Congress, especially, saw the passage of
a number of banner pieces of legislation. I'm proud that these
bills--CHIPS and Science in particular--made heavy investments
in our scientific enterprise. Congress charted a path for
American scientific leadership, and now agencies are
implementing those ambitious plans.
The landmark investments will allow federal science
agencies to bring about new discoveries on the shoulders of
their impressive accomplishments. The Department of Energy will
continue leading us into a clean energy future, building upon
their incredible breakthroughs in fusion energy. The National
Science Foundation will support a strong, diverse STEM
workforce that will foster the talent we need to maintain
global leadership. NASA will bring humans back to the Moon
while keeping our eyes on Mars, advancing human exploration
capabilities.
All the while, the Offices of Inspector General will play a
critical role in ensuring the billions of dollars authorized
last Congress are properly spent. The funding increases give
our federal science agencies substantial resources to fulfill
our national goals. OIGs' oversight of newly established
programs will serve as necessary guideposts, offering decades
of experience and lessons learned to initiatives still in their
infancy. Recommendations from our panel's Officeswill ensure
existing programs are able to scale up their activities to best
utilize increased funds.
The 117th Congress's legislative efforts provided many IG
offices with additional funding to ensure they have the
resources to oversee their home agencies. I hope the Offices
are carefully considering how to best use that money. Today,
we'll hear from our witnesses about what challenges they face
in ensuring their oversight efforts are top-notch. Meeting the
increased oversight needs in part will require a larger
workforce, which is easily addressed by additional funding. But
some challenges may be more complicated. Perhaps a constituent
agency is standing up a program unlike any it's had before,
meaning there is minimal precedent for oversight within the
agency's OIG. Maybe new initiatives involve inter-agency
collaboration that will require more cooperation among IG
offices. And maybe the cutting-edge priorities put forth by
Congress will necessitate new metrics by which to judge federal
science agencies.
As Ranking Member Foushee said in her opening statement,
rigorous oversight goes hand in hand with supporting strong
investments in federal research. I want to be clear that my
emphasis on the need for robust and effective OIGs does not
indicate a skepticism of increased funding for science
agencies. Federal programs are strengthened by the
recommendations of OIGs. In cases of waste, fraud, and abuse by
recipients of grant money, taxpayer funds are recovered by the
work of those appearing before our Committee today.
The investments made in CHIPS & Science enjoyed bipartisan
support. Likewise, I believe all of us here today--on both
sides of the aisle--support strong oversight that will
facilitate the best use of taxpayer dollars. Thank you to the
witnesses for your important work, and for appearing before us
today to educate us on your efforts.
I yield back.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Lofgren.
We will now move to our witness panel. All of our witnesses
here today are extremely accomplished and have participated in
government oversight for years, so welcome to all of you, and
thank you very much for being part of our panel today.
Our first witness today is Mr. Paul Martin, who is the
current Inspector General for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA). Mr. Martin, you are recognized for
5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PAUL K. MARTIN,
INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Mr. Martin. Thank you, Chairman Obernolte and Ranking
Members Foushee and Lofgren and Committee Members.
While undoubtedly innovative and inspirational, NASA faces
longstanding challenges with its contracting and project
management that have led to substantial cost and schedule
growth in many of its programs. This morning, I plan to
highlight three challenges that NASA must address to achieve
its ambitious aeronautics, science, and space exploration
goals. The first, developing comprehensive and accurate cost
and schedule estimates. NASA has struggled for years to develop
reliable lifecycle estimates for many of its multibillion
dollar programs, including Artemis and the James Webb Space
Telescope. For Artemis, NASA lacks a comprehensive cost
estimate that accounts for all program costs, an omission that
contributes to a lack of transparency into the funding required
to sustain the program. Through our audit work, the OIG
developed just such an estimate, and we project that NASA will
spend $93 billion on Artemis from 2012 through 2025. In
addition, we reported a cost of $4.1 billion per launch for at
least the first four Artemis missions, an expense we found
unsustainable. NASA must accelerate its efforts to make its
Artemis-related programs more affordable. Otherwise, relying on
such an expensive single-use rocket system will inhibit NASA's
ability to sustain its exploration goals for the Moon and Mars.
The second challenge, project management. Our oversight
work over the years has identified multiple examples of project
management deficiencies. Specifically, our June 2022 report on
development of Mobile Launcher 2 (ML2), the ground structure
required to launch larger variants of the SLS (Space Launch
System) Orion system, found that NASA is likely to spend over
$1 billion dollars on ML2 or more than 2 1/2 times more than
initially planned, with final delivery at least 2 1/2 years
late. We determined that the project's substantial cost
increases and schedule delays are attributable primarily to the
poor performance of Bechtel, the project's contractor. However,
NASA's management practices also contributed to cost increases
and schedule delays.
And challenge three, choice of contracting vehicles and use
of award fees. NASA has struggled over the years to make the
most appropriate contracting decisions with its programs.
Development contracts such as those for the SLS core stages,
boosters, and engines, and the Orion capsule were sole-sourced,
eliminating the potential benefits of competition, and
competitive follow-on awards for the production contracts for
these programs proved infeasible. Moreover, NASA has a history
of paying overly generous award fees to contractors, fees that
are often inconsistent with the quality of their performance.
For example, in October 2018, we reported that issues driven
mostly by Boeing's poor performance resulted in a 2 1/2 year
schedule slip and $4 billion in cost increases for development
of two SLS core stages. However, between 2012 and 2017, NASA
paid Boeing $323 million in award, milestone, and incentive
fees, of which we questioned nearly $64 million.
We had similar concerns with Lockheed's performance
developing Orion. In July 2020, we reported that Lockheed
received nearly all available award fees over a 9-year period,
even though the program was experienced $90 million--$900
million in cost increases and schedule delays of more than 3
years. We calculated that NASA paid Lockheed at least $27.8
million in excess award fees.
To its credit, NASA is taking steps to improve management
of its major programs. For example, the agency has decreased
the use of award fee contracts from 42 percent in 2020 to 28
percent just 2 years later. In addition, NASA is exploring ways
to make its lunar mission sustainable by transitioning several
programs to fixed price contracts and increasingly utilizing
public-private partnerships.
We look forward to sharing the results of our oversight
work with this Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.
Our second witness today is Ms. Allison Lerner, who is the
current Inspector General for the National Science Foundation.
Ms. Lerner, you are recognized for 5 minutes. The microphone,
please.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ALLISON C. LERNER,
INSPECTOR GENERAL,
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)
Ms. Lerner. There we go. Chairman Obernolte, Ranking Member
Foushee, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you
for having me here today. I appreciate this opportunity to
discuss the National Science Foundation Office of Inspector
General's efforts to combat fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
My testimony today will focus on three key areas: Our
oversight, addressing the strength and integrity of NSF
programs and internal controls, our efforts to hold people
accountable for wrongdoing and to use insights from our
investigations to strengthen internal controls, and our
collaborative approaches to ensure stewardship of NSF funds and
prevent wrongdoing.
On the first point, we use a robust risk assessment process
to focus our work on programs and institutions that appear to
be at highest risk. And we use flexible audit contracts and
approaches to ensure maximum impact of our limited audit
resources. We also seek ways to amplify the impact of our
audits, including a recent report on promising practices from
our external audits, which shares ways for all members of the
NSF recipient community, not just those we audit, to improve
their stewardship of Federal funds.
Recent examples of our work include our report summarizing
key issues from our audits of recipients of the Established
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), which is
helping NSF build the award management capacity and capability
of institutions that have historically received limited Federal
research funds, and our recent summary of Federal OIG findings
and recommendations relating to Other Transaction Agreements
(OTAs), which identified risks inherent to OTAs for NSF to
consider as it develops OTA policies and procedures for the new
Technology, Innovation, and Partnership Directorate.
Moving to the second point, we use our in-depth experience
fighting grant fraud to protect NSF funds and to hold
wrongdoers accountable. We use multidisciplinary investigative
teams to enhance the thoroughness and success of our cases, and
we pursue criminal, civil, and administrative remedies,
including governmentwide suspensions and debarments to hold
individuals who misuse NSF funds to account. We also provide
insights based on our cases to NSF so it can tighten controls
to prevent fraud in the future.
Because awardees who misuse NSF funds are often misusing
research funding from other Federal agencies, we lead two
cross-government working groups focused on research security-
related grant fraud and fraud in the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs
to strengthen the whole-of-government's ability to hold
individuals who misuse research funds accountable.
Finally, we use collaborative approaches to ensure the
effective stewardship of NSF funds and prevent and address
wrongdoing. Such actions include our robust outreach program,
which helps NSF recipients identify ways to prevent fraud and
improve their award management environments, and our deeply
collaborative working relationship with NSF's Chief of Research
Security, Strategy, and Policy, with whom we work to confront
research security-related challenges.
As I close, I'd like to highlight two legislative
initiatives that could strengthen our ability to hold
individuals who misuse NSF funds accountable. The first reforms
the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act to make it a stronger tool
to recover fraudulent expenditures and deter individuals from
committing small-dollar fraud. And the second would protect
Federal funds by creating a mandatory statutory exclusion for
those convicted of violating certain felony fraud statutes,
ensuring that they don't have access to government funds for
the period of that exclusion.
My office will continue to use all our audit and
investigative resources to protect taxpayer funds and safeguard
the integrity of NSF's operations and its investments in
science. We look forward to working with NSF management, the
National Science Board, and Congress to achieve this goal.
This concludes my statement, and thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lerner follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Ms. Lerner.
Our third witness will be Ms. Teri Donaldson, who is
currently the Inspector General for the Department of Energy.
Ms. Donaldson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. The
microphone, please.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TERI L. DONALDSON,
INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)
Ms. Donaldson. Good morning, Chairman Obernolte, Ranking
Member Foushee. Thank you for having me here today.
I'd like to begin my comments by talking about some of the
huge risk factors associated with the newer funds moving to the
Department of Energy, which the Ranking Member alluded to
earlier. So just by way of context, in Fiscal Year 2022, the
Department of Energy's annual budget was $44.3 billion. When
you combine the funds authorized or appropriated under IIJA,
IRA, the CHIPS Act, and $1 billion dollars to support solar
projects in Puerto Rico, that number goes from $44.3 to $478
billion now within the portfolio of the Department of Energy.
These are historic and unprecedented numbers.
I'd also point out to the Committee that the money is
moving quickly. So we already have $62 billion that is on the
move. It is either out the door or the subject of funding
opportunities and moving out the door. So where you have a huge
amount of money that is moving quickly, there are immediately
new risks. Associated with these statutes, we have 71 brand new
programs. By definition, brand new programs are utilizing
untested internal controls, creates enormous risk. Over 1/2 of
these funds will move to State, local governments, and tribes.
It is not yet clear whether those entities are ready to receive
funds in these unprecedented volumes.
So a couple of other things to point out about the
Department of Energy. Even prior to these three bills, the
Department of Energy was the leanest Federal agency on the
block with over 90 percent of its dollars moving through to its
contractors, so something of a passthrough agency. So I noted
when I took over this job a little over 4 years ago, the volume
of reports all concluding that the Department of Energy lacked
appropriate resources for oversight. And essentially, all of
those included the Department acknowledging that it lacked
appropriate resources for oversight. So it is against that
landscape that all of this new money is now going to be
distributed. The Department of Energy received in the IIJA a
cap for most of the IIJA programs of only 3 percent for
oversight, a little more flexibility in IRA, which is positive.
But I would point out that those oversight numbers are largely
utilized to move the money out the door because they're
classified as administrative expenses, most of which are to
help the programs get money out the door. Only a small
percentage will actually be for oversight, which is making sure
that the funds landed where Congress intended them to land. So
the Department is arguably under-resourced for oversight even
in connection with the new funds.
My shop is dramatically under-resourced to conduct
oversight. So--and there's details in my written testimony, but
when I came on board, my shop was already trailing the other
CFO Act (Chief Financial Officers Act) agencies under-resourced
historically. All these new funds came along, and now my shop
is so dramatically under-resourced that I feel compelled to
mention this anytime that I'm on the Hill. So my shop received
zero additional funding in connection with the CHIPS Act, zero
additional funding in connection with the $1 billion for Puerto
Rico, and we received only small numbers in connection with
IIJA and IRA. So it's all detailed in my testimony, but it's
something that will make it very difficult for us to conduct
the audits, inspections, and investigations that are going to
be so needed as we turn the corner into spending these massive
amounts of money.
I always say that all of the coordination and planning in
the world--and we are doing a lot of that right now. We've had
over 27 meetings with the Department since IIJA passed. But all
of the coordinating and the planning in the world is not a
substitute for people. You have to have the money to conduct
oversight, so that's probably my most important theme of the
day.
The Department of Energy is also behind in the world of
data analytics. Congress has been expressing its interest in
that area since 2017. The General Accounting Office has made
specific recommendations to the Department of Energy, that it
be implementing data analytics, acquiring transaction-level
detail. It has not yet done that. And that's unfortunate
because now we have these big amounts of money that will be
moving through, and data analytics is still only in its
earliest stages at the Department of Energy.
And that concludes my comments. I look forward to your
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Donaldson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Ms. Donaldson.
Our fourth witness this morning will be Eric Soskin, who is
the current Inspector General for the Department of
Transportation (DOT). Mr. Soskin, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ERIC J. SOSKIN,
INSPECTOR GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)
Mr. Soskin. Chairman Obernolte, Ranking Member Foushee, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify
on preventing waste, fraud, and mismanagement at the Department
of Transportation. I'm pleased to be joining IGs Martin,
Lerner, Donaldson, and O'Donnell today to discuss how our work
helps safeguard taxpayer dollars while improving the efficiency
and effectiveness of government programs. In our oversight
activities, we routinely collaborate with partners across the
Federal Government, including with the other OIGs represented
here today, as well as with the Department of Justice (DOJ).
For Fiscal Year 2022, DOT's budget authority included
approximately $355 billion to fund programs and operations
through grants, contracts, and other means, including just a
small portion, about $1.5 billion dollars, dedicated to
research and development. Congress has also authorized $660
billion for DOT through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, or IIJA, along with $106 billion in COVID-19 relief
funding. As such, as IG Donaldson was referencing, the
Department now manages and must oversee much higher fund totals
than ever before. This in turn increases the risk of fraud and
mismanagement.
To help prevent the loss of Federal dollars, our office
investigates allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse affecting
DOT programs, contractors, grantees, and regulated entities. In
Fiscal Year 2022, procurement and grant fraud investigations
represented about 36 percent of our caseload. High-risk
categories of fraud included bribery and corruption,
overcharges for labor and materials, fraud related to
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, or DBEs, and bid-rigging.
For example, as an outcome of a recent investigation by our
office, a North Carolina engineering firm was sentenced to $8.5
million dollars in fines and restitution. The firm was
convicted of rigging bids related to DOT-funded projects that
facilitate drainage around highways, roads, bridges, and
overpasses.
Strong internal controls and oversight are what's required
to prevent such fraud, including effective procedures to
identify and assess risks. In response to the Fraud Reduction
and Data Analytics Act of 2015, DOT developed a fraud risk
management implementation plan. This plan formalized the
structure of DOT's fraud risk management processes and included
fraud in the Department's assessments of improper payment
risks.
However, DOT must also consider risks beyond improper
payments, both financial and nonfinancial. For example, some
fraud can have safety consequences and other consequences such
as limited competition. We are currently evaluating DOT's fraud
risk assessments for its surface transportation programs,
including those funded by IIJA in an audit we announced last
year.
A number of strategies can help mitigate the risks posed by
fraud to DOT programs. It is critical to educate staff,
grantees, and contractors on how to recognize, prevent, and
report potential procurement and grant fraud. This is
particularly important because of the extent to which DOT, like
the Department of Energy, has its grant funding flow from
States to subrecipients and contractors who have less direct
contact with the agency, as well as to new recipients and
subrecipients who may have less experience managing Federal
funds.
Our Office of Investigations conducts outreach to increase
such awareness, but this outreach does not reach all
stakeholders who may be knowledgeable about fraud-related
activities. For example, prime contractors play essential roles
in obtaining DBE participation and overseeing it. DOT and its
grantees must do their parts to ensure contractors know their
responsibilities to recognize and report suspected fraud. And
such outreach is just one step in ensuring that each recipient
of Federal funds commits in its culture and structure to
preventing fraud.
Strengthening oversight is also vital to detecting and
preventing fraud, waste, and mismanagement. Oversight at the
DOT operating administration level and program level is the
focus of much of our audit work, and we have found that DOT
faces challenges in monitoring grantees' documentation to
ensure they use funds as intended. An example of that was in
our recent oversight and audit report of FAA's (Federal
Aviation Administration's) Cares Act grants. And to its credit,
DOT has already taken steps to address the recommendations we
made in that report.
Nevertheless, opportunities remain to enhance DOT's
oversight and safeguard Federal funds. Our office is committed
to supporting DOT and meeting its mission while strengthening
its processes to prevent fraud, waste, and mismanagement on
behalf of the American taxpayer.
This concludes my prepared statement, and I'm happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Soskin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Soskin.
Our final witness today will be Mr. Sean O'Donnell, who is
the Inspector General at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. O'Donnell, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SEAN W. O'DONNELL,
INSPECTOR GENERAL,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Obernolte,
Ranking Member Foushee, and Members of the Committee. I'm Sean
O'Donnell. I am the Inspector General for the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. I would like to thank the
Committee for inviting me to testify about the EPA Office of
Inspector General's efforts to protect American taxpayers from
fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
Although relatively small, our office has averaged nearly
60 reports a year for the last 10 years, yielding a return on
investment (ROI) of over 300 percent. And we are on pace to do
even better this year. Indeed, during the last year, my office
has risen to the challenge of overseeing critical EPA programs
from identifying cyber vulnerabilities in America's water
sector to reporting potential waste in the EPA's wood heater
changeout programs, and there's more to come. For example, we
are auditing the nearly $50 million that the city of Jackson
received for Mississippi's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(SRF). And we've already uncovered evidence that the EPA may
have instructed States to ignore single audit findings such as
those for the city of Jackson when making award decisions.
Following enactment of the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act, we immediately began conducting oversight, starting
with our inaugural IIJA oversight plan released in April 2022.
Since then, we have published nearly a dozen oversight
products, as well as created an interactive webpage. And we
have seven projects in progress and six more planned, covering
such things as supply chain concerns and SRF capacity issues.
Finally, our investigators are employing every tool available
to us to fight fraud, from task forces to data analytics.
But we have our work cut out for us. For context, in any
given year, the EPA manages around 6,000 grants, totaling
approximately $21 billion. Furthermore, through various
infrastructure programs, the EPA has funded over $230 billion
in water projects, and now the EPA faces the task of managing
$100 billion from the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act.
There are four areas where we can help the EPA meet these
challenges. The first and arguably most important relates to
whistleblowers. From my very first day as Inspector General, I
have encouraged whistleblowers and worked to vindicate their
rights. This includes holding annual National Whistleblower
Appreciation Day panels that draw more than 1,000 attendees.
But encouraging and protecting whistleblowers is a
responsibility we share with the EPA. Last month, we identified
the need for the EPA's terms and conditions to specifically
address whistleblower responsibilities. And we are working to
partner these new provisions with an official policy
implementing statutory protections for recipient
whistleblowers.
Encouraging and protecting whistleblowers at the EPA starts
with the EPA. We have recently reported on the EPA's failure to
share whistleblower allegations of misconduct with us,
particularly when related to science. We are working with the
agency to ensure that we are promptly notified of these
allegations, and we will continue to work with it to ensure
that it has policies protecting its whistleblowers.
The second area we are focused on is raising fraud
awareness among EPA staff and stakeholders. Since the enactment
of the IIJA, our investigators and auditors have conducted
around 170 fraud or cybersecurity briefings, reaching nearly
4,000 attendees. And we recently identified the need for the
EPA to implement best practices in alerting grantees to the
consequences of fraudulent conduct and in reporting such
conduct to the OIG.
A third area of focus is ensuring the OIG access to agency
and grantee information. To facilitate audits and
investigations regulatory provisions augment our subpoena
authority by allowing us access to recipients and their
records. A best practice we have identified is adding OIG
access provisions to the EPA's terms and conditions.
Finally, we are concerned about systemic issues related to
the EPA's grant management. We found that the EPA's various
offices stored grant files in disparate ways from electronic
media to paper files, and an EPA working group found that the
agency uses 55 data bases to store data from around 100 grant
programs. From an oversight perspective, it hinders our ability
to conduct effective oversight, limiting our ability to, for
example, analyze historical data and suspicious trends. It
also, from an administrative standpoint, hampers the EPA's
ability to comprehensively and consistently manage grants.
The EPA OIG is leading the fight against fraud, waste, and
abuse. Moreover, we are doing so despite a decade of flat and
declining budgets. Recognizing the need for IIJA-focused
oversight, Congress provided us with dedicated funding. We are
grateful for this support, and we're putting it to good use.
However, we did not receive IRA funding to carry out IRA-
focused oversight. On a positive note, the agency supports a
reprogramming of funds for the OIG, converting some existing
IRA dollars to dedicated oversight funding. I'm hopeful that
Congress will recognize the value in doing so and take timely
action.
I thank you for your support and look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Donnell follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you very much, Mr. O'Donnell,
and thank you to all of you for your testimony.
We'll now move to the Member question-and-answers portion
of our hearing. And I will go first by recognizing myself for 5
minutes.
I'm sure that everyone followed with increasingly distress
and horror the shutdown of the Colonial Pipeline recently,
where a loss and compromise of a single password resulted in a
vital part of American infrastructure being shut down for
several days, which disrupted oil supplies to the entire
Eastern United States. It was interesting to see that that was
caused by the compromise of a single password. So I was very
alarmed when recently I read a report from the Department of
the Interior (DOI) who conducted an investigation into their
password security. And what they found was that over 20 percent
of the passwords used in the DOI system were able to be easily
hacked. They found that the most commonly used password was the
word ``password'' followed by the numbers 123456. And in fact,
almost 5 percent of the passwords in use by users on the DOI
system were some variation of the word password. So,
unfortunately, looking at our experience with consumers across
the country, that behavior is not surprising. But in light of
what happened at Colonial, I think it is very disturbing. I'm
wondering if any of you have conducted similar investigations
into password security at your agencies? I don't see any
volunteers, so I'd like to ask you briefly if you'd be willing
to undertake that task because I think it's one that, you know,
would not be difficult to accomplish but could potentially be
very important. And, Mr. Martin?
Mr. Martin. Be happy to take that----
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you.
Mr. Martin [continuing]. Under consideration.
Mr. Obernolte. Ms. Lerner?
Ms. Lerner. As would I.
Mr. Obernolte. I appreciate that. And, Ms. Donaldson?
Ms. Donaldson. Yes, in fact we already do----
Mr. Obernolte. The microphone, please. Thank you.
Ms. Donaldson. We actually do a lot of work in the area of
cybersecurity. So in Fiscal Year 2021, we identified over
42,000 vulnerabilities across 12 sites at the Department of
Energy. We still have 23 open--or 38 recommendations open from
that work, and we will be issuing 35 new recommendations
shortly, so we do a lot of work in that space. And some of that
does cover the password-related issues. So there's a lot more
work to go with the Department of Energy.
Mr. Obernolte. Well, I'm glad you're focused on it. I know
it's frustrating to have open recommendations but keep pushing
because that's how we get them closed.
Mr. Soskin?
Mr. Soskin. Chairman Obernolte, our information technology
and cybersecurity audits group, on a rotating basis, looks at,
among other things, the cybersecurity of the Department's
operating administrations. Our recent reports on the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration found similar security
vulnerabilities to what you're describing with passwords. And
our audit of the Federal Transit Administration's cybersecurity
found shortcomings in its use of multifactor authentication,
which as you all probably know from your use of bank accounts
and other things that you personally secure, is better than
relying solely on a password. We continue to do that work, and
we are heartened by the Department's efforts to address our
open recommendations. And we look forward to continuing to work
with the Department's new Chief Information Officer and
relatively new Chief Information Security Officer as well.
Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you, Mr. Soskin. Thank you for
the good work.
Mr. O'Donnell?
Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you. For the last 2 years, we've
identified cybersecurity and in particular cybersecurity of the
critical water infrastructure as a top management challenge. We
will continue to do so. And I'd be happy to have my staff come
and meet with your staff to discuss the work we've done,
including on passwords.
Mr. Obernolte. OK. Well, that's good. I'm in particular
interested in the issue of passwords for two reasons: One,
because it is such an easily solved problem if we elevate
awareness of the issue; and second, because the consequences of
failure to solve it can be so severe.
The second thing I'd like to ask about is something I
mentioned in my opening statement regarding the metrics for
evaluating the success of the Office of the Inspector General.
Your agencies represent such a wide variety of roles and
responsibilities. I think it is very hard to come up with one
universal metric for each of you to use to evaluate the
performances of your office. So I'm wondering what metrics you
either use or would suggest that we use to evaluate whether or
not an IG is doing a good job in overseeing their agency.
Anyone ever thought about that?
Mr. O'Donnell. Yes, sir. So--and I'm sure my colleagues
would tell you every type of oversight is different. For us, I
have built into the performance metrics of my entire staff,
timely and relevant work, high quality, timely work. But as an
office, of course, we look at ROI. And as I said, for us, it's
been, you know, around 300 percent for the last 10 years. We
also look at the number of reports that we issue, but then
there are those nonquantifiable ones. And as a former IG once
shared as I was commiserating about some tough responses from
the agency on some of our reports, he said, you know, when
you're catching flak, you know you're over the target. And I
kind of take that as a measure, too. When we're catching flak
from the agency, we know we're doing good work.
Mr. Obernolte. So you mentioned return on investment. How
do you calculate that?
Mr. O'Donnell. We do it through the various forms potential
monetary benefit, questioned costs, identified waste, and then
of course returns to the government through fines, restitution,
and the like.
Mr. Obernolte. And investment? Do you actually track the
manpower on each one of those investigations and assign a
monetary value to it?
Mr. O'Donnell. We do. We do track the cost. In fact, I
personally have a dashboard in my office where I get to see how
many hours are billed to every project so that I can make sure
that they're done efficiently.
Mr. Obernolte. Interesting. And you mentioned timeliness
and relevance. How do you track those?
Mr. O'Donnell. We do it--first of all, I think time and
relevancy are hand-in-glove, also quality. For me it's quality
and it's getting measured, and, again, how quickly we respond
to emergencies. How quickly are we responding to environmental
emergencies for which we need to do oversight. For example, we
just noticed an inquiry into the fuel spill at East Palestine.
That's an example of me seeing my staff being timely and
relevant to the issues that are affecting the EPA.
Mr. Obernolte. Sure. Well, I see I'm out of time. But I'd
like to do some more thinking about this issue because it's
difficult for us to do our oversight unless we have a metric by
which we're evaluating you. And your roles are so diverse. I
think that this is an important topic. So I thank you for your
answers.
At this point, I will yield 5 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from North Carolina, Mrs. Foushee, for her questions.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Inspector General Lerner, I'll direct these first questions
to you. The National Science Foundation has a significant
presence in my district. In the latest fiscal year, NSF awarded
nearly $85 million to Duke University and the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill alone. NSF also supports cutting-
edge research initiatives in the district such as the Research
Triangle, Nanotechnology Network, and the Athena Institute for
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Research. I would like to learn
more about how oversight from NSF OIG helps to strengthen the
kind of research investments that are so important to districts
like mine. So my first question is how does oversight by the
OIG benefit major research institutions that receive awards
from NSF on a regular basis for scientific research?
Ms. Lerner. Happy to answer that. One of the great things
that our audit work does is dig into how people who receive NSF
funds are using that money. And we take the results of what we
find in our audits and we deal with not just with the issues
and problems that we found at the institutions that we've
audited, but we use our outreach program to share what we found
with the research administration community and the research
community so they can see what problems they might have and try
to solve them in their agencies, even though we aren't there to
audit them. So we try to get--to amplify the impact of our work
by pushing it out and getting it to not just the people that we
audit, but to the people that are in other agencies that can
improve their programs based on what we found.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you. And how does the OIG approach its
oversight of research initiatives that span multiple research
institutions and public, private, and academic stakeholders?
Are the important distinctions in how the OIG evaluates these
kinds of investments?
Ms. Lerner. You know, I think we follow risk. And so when
we--if we see a collaborative effort that has greater risk
because of the nature of it, that will receive more attention
from us. If it's an established program, it's less likely to.
One of the areas that we're focusing on, you know, right now is
the development of new programs in the Technology, Innovation,
and Partnership Directorate that are new to the agency, new to
the academic community, and bring greater risks with them. So
we are we are constantly trying to keep a finger on the risk
environment and target our resources where appropriate.
Mrs. Foushee. And finally, how do the relationships that
you build with stakeholders in the research community improve
your ability to conduct oversight of NSF? And what can you do
to develop those relationships even further?
Ms. Lerner. One of the things that I've learned in 13 years
in sitting in this role is that, you know, IGs can't make
anyone do anything. We want to try to convince people through
the strength of our work, but the strength of our relationships
matter. And the--you know, the benefit of having strong
relationships with our agency and with the community that we
audit is we can learn from them, too. And they can come to us--
especially when the pandemic hit and academic community--the
academic community, like the Federal Government had to switch
to a virtual environment, we were able to reach out to our
network of people that we knew and get a sense of how they were
responding to that change and how that might affect the risk
environment. So we can learn from them, they can learn from us,
and everyone has benefited.
Mrs. Foushee. And thank you. With the rest of my time,
would anybody else on the panel like to add your observations
to these previous questions?
Well, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Obernolte. The gentlewoman yields back.
Congressman Posey, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Donaldson, has Department of Energy research grant
funding and loans been used to generate actual commercial
production by American companies?
Ms. Donaldson. You know, I would point to the work being
done at the national labs to say that much of their spectacular
work has a commercial application, as well as the work that the
NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration) labs do. So I
would say, yes. That's not the type of thing that is tracked by
my office so I couldn't quantify that for you.
Mr. Posey. OK. So do you think their office has a measure
to--a system to measure research to commercial production?
Ms. Donaldson. They probably have multiple systems because
there's so many different programs, but I would imagine they're
doing some tracking, at least in some of those programs.
Mr. Posey. Yes, can you get back to me on what they're
doing and kind of----
Ms. Donaldson. I certainly can.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. Mr. Martin, when the space shuttle
was winding down, NASA ramped up the number of firefighters
that they had at Kennedy Space Center. Now with a launch
cadence increasing from 57 last year to 97 this year, NASA is
decreasing firefighters at the Kennedy Space Center. Can you
tell me why? I mean, I was told there was a study on it. Then I
was told there was no study.
Mr. Martin. Yes, Congressman, I was unaware of that
situation until staff brought it to my attention yesterday. I'd
be happy to look into it.
Mr. Posey. OK. I have that commitment?
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Posey. You'll get back to me. Thank you.
Mr. Martin. I will.
Mr. Posey. Now this question is for each of you from left
to right. I will start with Mr. Martin. How many investigations
and audits has your office conducted within the last year, No.
1? How many of those by percentage involve China? Just roughly
swag it. And did any of the China-related investigations
require coordination of activities across other agencies or
other inspectors general? And were any of these cases referred
to the DOJ?
Mr. Martin. Sir, I will start. Investigations ongoing
during the past year, 482 for the Office of Inspector General
at NASA. How many of those by percentage involve China?
Approximately 10 percent. And does any of the China
investigations require coordination? I coordinated with several
my colleagues here at the table, including NSF and DOE. And a
goodly number of our cases were referred to the Department of
Justice and are under prosecutorial consideration right now.
Mr. Posey. Thank you.
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir.
Ms. Lerner. The statistics that I have are for 5 years, so
I can get back to you on the 1 year other than I can say we
worked 175 investigations in the past year, many of those
related to China. I can--about 45 percent of our investigative
portfolio right now, our research security-related matters,
many of which relate to China. And we, as I noted in my opening
remarks, lead a cross-government working group that's focused
on these sorts of research security investigations with the
goal of improving the government's efforts, especially in
situations where there are multiple agencies affected by a
particular researcher's failure to disclose their
relationships. So we are deeply involved in that and will
provide further information for you for the record.
Mr. Posey. Thank you.
Ms. Donaldson. Mic is on so there's that. In Fiscal Year
2022, the Office of Investigations worked on 320 ongoing
matters. Thirty-four were grant fraud cases, over one-third of
those were research security matters related to countries of
concern. And all of those pertain to China.
Mr. Posey. How many were referred to DOJ?
Ms. Donaldson. The bulk of our cases do eventually get
referred to DOJ. We made a total of 61 referrals in this
timeframe, not all research security-related.
Mr. Posey. OK.
Ms. Donaldson. But over half of what we work on goes to the
Department of Justice.
Mr. Posey. Thank you.
Mr. Soskin. In this fiscal year, we have 447 complaints
plus investigations in our inventory. As I mentioned, only a
small fraction of the Department of Transportation's funding
pertains to research and development, and consequently, a
smaller share of our investigations relate to China. I do not
have numbers on that for you, but we could get back to you with
that.
As with the Energy OIG, most of our investigations
ultimately end up in consultation and referral to the
Department of Justice. And I don't have a specific number on
referrals either.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. Mr. O'Donnell?
Mr. O'Donnell. Yes, thank you. And I'll give you as good of
numbers as I can but of course offer to come back and give
clarity. We had in the last Fiscal Year 176 cases opened. The
majority of those I would say, the bread and butter, were
either lab fraud or grant fraud. Some small number involves
China. And I must say that for IG Lerner, her office is really
the leader for us in helping us identify China-related cases.
But our work has recently resulted in a report we just issued
encouraging the EPA to include grant terms and conditions
provisions that require grantees to disclose any foreign
sources that they get after they've received a grant. And of
course, like my colleagues, most of our cases get referred to
the Department of Justice.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has
expired.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee,
Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes. Oh, then we'll go to Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Chair Obernolte and also
Ranking Member Foushee. Thank you to the witnesses as well.
I appreciate the Office of Inspectors General and the goal
of promoting transparency and accountability and protecting
public trust. Ambitious funding for science policy, including
research and development, is intended to lead to evidence-based
decisionmaking and informed agency practices and with strong
oversight by your offices. We know when taxpayer dollars are
used efficiently and effectively, and, importantly, when
policies are implemented as intended.
I have a two-part question for you, Ms. Lerner. Your office
published a white paper last month about the complexities of
investigating and adjudicating sexual assault and stalking in
the United States Antarctic Program. And I have worked a lot
with NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) on
this issue, so I appreciate the careful consideration of both a
complicated legal environment and also the imperative that
responders and investigators be properly trained in a trauma-
informed approach. And I hope that NSF, the prime contractor,
and other stakeholders use this document as they work to
address sexual assault, which is a criminal matter. But some of
the issues raised in your white paper should also be considered
in noncriminal matters such as sexual harassment, which is
treated as a violation of the code of conduct. So what are the
takeaways from the white paper that are also applicable in
noncriminal contexts?
Ms. Lerner. I think that ensuring that there is trust in
the environment and there is not a fear of retaliation so that
people can come forward with concerns is essential, whether
you're dealing with a criminal violation or sexual harassment.
And it's imperative that NSF and--take action and ensure that
the contractors and subcontractors down there are creating an
environment where people feel that they can bring these matters
forward. So that's first and foremost, one, what has to happen
there.
There also needs to be clarity about what rights people
have. We are in the process of conducting an inspection of
what's happening in McMurdo and Antarctica. And what we're
seeing is there--that there--you know, people don't understand
where they can go when they've been assaulted or harassed, and
we are going to produce products to help improve that because
it's essential to create a workplace that the people deserve.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And the second part of the
question is that it's likely that in many cases of sexual
assault in Antarctica and other remote places, there may be
sexual harassment, as well as sexual assault. So one of those
is a crime and another is a violation of the code of conduct.
Some of the survivors of assault may choose not to file a
criminal charge, but they still deserve a remedy and a safe
environment. So when instituting better systems for intaking
and adjudicating sexual assault, how can the institutions such
as NSF guarantee that allegations of sexual harassment are
treated with the same support and investigation that someone--
and resources that someone who alleges a crime may have?
Ms. Lerner. One of the things that we think is critical
right now is that complaints go to an independent, trusted
third party for assessment, and then that victims, if they
choose to pursue criminal redress are able to pursue that. If
not, that there are strong and trusted mechanisms for handling
matters administratively, and we are going to be providing
input----
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. We have a lot of conversations on
this Committee about diversifying----
Ms. Lerner. Yes.
Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. The workforce, so we need to
make sure that employees are safe.
Ms. Lerner. Yes.
Ms. Bonamici. Mr. O'Donnell, I have a question for you as
well. The EPA website states, quote, ``The Portland Harbor
Superfund site was added to EPA's national priorities list in
December 2000.'' Well, that was 23 years ago. So there has been
some progress made, but sections of the Willamette River remain
contaminated by heavy metals and industrial chemicals, posing
risks to human health and the environment and affecting
economic growth in the area. So what role does the EPA Office
of Inspector General play in ensuring the successful execution
of superfund site cleanups? And how does maintaining rigorous
oversight contribute to the effectiveness and accountability of
this important environmental restoration project, which has
been going on for decades?
Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I don't
have my eye specifically on the Portland superfund site, but
it's one that I will definitely look at and get back to you on.
Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that.
Mr. O'Donnell. Since I have been at the OIG, I have begun
the process of instituting inspections of superfund sites and
brownfield sites because, for me, it is very important that we
have boots on the ground looking at what's going on. So it's
one thing to do accountability from afar. It's another thing to
be right there, see what's happening, talk to the people who
are there. We are doing that now down in Alabama. We are doing
it in Missouri as well. And this is a portfolio we intend to
expand.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I know your Region 10 folks have
been involved, but 23 years, that's from the time that it was
actually listed and added to the priorities list, 23 years ago.
And needless to say, the costs of cleanup are not getting any
lower. I'm sure they're significantly more as time goes on. So
I appreciate your willingness to follow up on that.
And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
Congressman Babin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, all of
you IGs, for your expert testimony. It's very, very helpful.
Many of the more controversial problems facing research
agencies can be mitigated by ensuring agencies conduct their
own due diligence and compliance audits. And two that come to
mind are the duplicative Small Business Innovation Research
grants, SBIR; and two, grantee connections to entities with
known foreign economic espionage interests.
Ms. Lerner, when you testified before this Committee in
2009, you indicated that duplicative funding in which companies
obtained payments from multiple SBIR agencies for the same work
is the most frequent violation that we have found in SS-in
NSF's SBIR program.
Mr. Martin, a NASA IG report from 2009 also found that, in
analyzing investigations conducted by NASA OIG and others, we
found that SBIR award recipients received multiple SBIR
contracts for essentially the same research and provided
duplicate deliverables or questionable research products.
I understand a task force was established at the Council of
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to address this
issue over 10 years ago. However, under the Federal Managers
Financial Integrity Act and Office of Management and Budget
requirements, agency managers are required to establish
effective internal controls themselves.
So to the panel as a whole, what is the status of
interagency SBIR duplication oversight? Is this taskforce still
active? If not, why is it not? Has the problem gone away or are
the agencies doing a better job of conducting these compliance
audits themselves? Do you have data to support either of these
conclusions? And can you provide historical trend data related
to SBIR grant duplication, audits, and findings for the record?
So, Mr. Martin, if you would respond first, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Martin. Sure. Actually, if I could kick it to Allison
first.
Mr. Babin. OK.
Mr. Martin. She's the chair of the group, and then I'll
supplement her.
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Lerner. Thank you. And what I can say is that the group
that we started after the hearing in 2009 is alive and well and
had its most recent meeting just last month. It brings together
agents from across government to--who are working these sorts
of cases to highlight opportunities to work together, but also
to figure out how to work better. And, you know--and to
pursue--when we pursue cases, use the best set of facts and
have the strongest possible outcome as a result of that. I'm
happy to provide you with more detail about the specifics of
what that group has accomplished. I'm really, really proud of
it.
Mr. Babin. Thank you very much. And if y'all could keep it
just as brief as you can, I may not have time to do my other
questions.
Mr. Martin. Sure. I would just say there's tremendous
coordination and cooperation within the IG community to address
these cases, but I still don't think there's a singular source
that would indicate duplication of effort by a grantee that
they're going to DOE for funding to NASA. We don't have that
solution yet.
Mr. Babin. Yes. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Donaldson. Yes, sir. It is definitely----
Mr. Babin. Ms. Donaldson.
Ms. Donaldson [continuing]. Still a problem for the
Department of Energy. We still see those cases coming through.
I think the answer lies in acquiring that transactional-level,
recipient-level data and having a robust data analytics
approach to the problem, much like what track has done on the
pandemic spending. And I think a lot of the agencies are
excited about that prospect but not yet far enough along to be
able to do it and share that information, have a data-driven
approach.
Mr. Babin. Thank you. Mr. Soskin?
Mr. Soskin. In our handful of research and development-
related cases, we too have seen the need to coordinate with our
OIG partners because they frequently involve cases where a
grantee is seeking funds from multiple sources for the same
work.
Mr. Babin. Mr. O'Donnell?
Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you. Our SBIR cases are worked here,
many of them with my colleagues here in their offices. With
respect to the EPA, I've already spoken to our concerns with
respect to its grant management practices generally. I think
those concerns extend to their ability to conduct audits inside
of their programs.
Mr. Babin. I knew--I know that you're all familiar with the
Wolf amendment named after Frank Wolf. Mr. Martin, does the
Wolf amendment prohibit NASA from issuing research grants to
individuals with connections to Chinese universities,
especially institutions with known connections to the PLA
(People's Liberation Army) or malign foreign talent recruitment
programs?
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. That is my understanding.
Mr. Babin. OK. Several high profile cases involving NASA
researchers with connections to China were unsuccessfully
prosecuted in recent years, and some of them because of the
confusion over the existing law. And I was just wondering if a
separate provision in the CHIPS and Science Act passed last
summer requires all grant applicants to certify that they are
not a party to malign foreign talent recruitment programs?
Very, very quickly.
Mr. Martin. Yes, that has proved helpful, the
certification.
Mr. Babin. Yes. OK.
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Babin. All right. Thank you very much. And I'm out of
time. Thank you.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
I will now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Congresswoman from Colorado, Ms. Caraveo.
Ms. Caraveo. Thank you, sir. And thank you for--to the
witnesses today for being here. Americans certainly deserve
full transparency and accountability of our science agencies,
so I appreciate and support the work that you all do.
I wanted to briefly highlight a program that I recently
learned about, the National Science Foundation AI Institute for
Student AI Teaming, which is being led by the University of
Colorado at Boulder. The institute is dedicated to transforming
classrooms into more effective, engaging, and equitable
learning environments to help realize the grand challenge of
education for all by leading the Nation toward a future where
all students, especially those with identities that are
underrepresented in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics), routinely participate in rich and rewarding
collaborative learning experiences.
As a Latina in STEM and as the aunt of a young STEM
enthusiast, learning about programs like these serve as a
reminder of how critical funding and oversight for our science
agencies is now and for generations to come.
So for Inspector General Lerner, has your office learned--
has your office recently assessed NSF's efforts to enhance
inclusivity amongst agency grant recipients and research
initiatives? And if so, can you please share some of your
findings?
Ms. Lerner. At this point, we don't have any recent work on
that topic, but it is an area that we have included in our
management challenges. And as we formulate our audit plan for
the upcoming year, we will hope to focus some resources on
that.
Ms. Caraveo. I appreciate that plan, and I'm looking
forward to what you find there.
As a follow up for the rest of the panel, do your offices
have any plans to conduct any further audits related to
inclusivity in any portion of NSF's research agenda?
Mr. O'Donnell. I will----
Mr. Martin. Go ahead, Sean.
Mr. O'Donnell. I pushed it first.
Mr. Martin. Did you win? Go ahead.
Mr. O'Donnell. Yes. So for us for the last 3 years,
environmental justice--and that's what matters at the EPA.
Environmental justice has been a challenge that we've
identified. And I will tell you, I have personally spoken with
the head of the Office of Environmental Justice and External
Civil Rights to make the point that the $3 billion that they
have to give through the IRA is not about who the recipient is.
It's about who the beneficiaries are. Environmental justice is
about the beneficiaries, and we need to make sure that we have
the internal controls that are protecting the funds that
achieve the goals of those programs.
Mr. Martin. Congresswoman----
Ms. Caraveo. Mr. Martin, yes?
Mr. Martin [continuing]. Just to note that the Office of
Inspector General at NASA just recently opened an audit looking
at the effectiveness of the agency's STEM efforts. They invest
about $108--excuse me, $108--$108 million per year in STEM, and
so we're going to assess the effectiveness of their efforts.
Ms. Caraveo. That's great, in particular, given that my
niece is Latina, and she is interested in a future at NASA, I'm
glad to hear about those plans.
And speaking of NASA, I did have a kind of separate
question for you, Inspector General Martin. Based on your
office's work, do you believe NASA's management of contractor
performance has improved in--over time? Colorado has a big
aerospace industry with several NASA contractors based out of
the State, and so this interests me.
Mr. Martin. I think it ebbs and flows. It's program-
specific, the effectiveness of their contract oversight and
project management.
Ms. Caraveo. And what are kind of future plans for
oversight of it?
Mr. Martin. Well, the IG's Office, we're involved in all
the major programs, particularly the high-profile programs
involved in the Artemis missions----
Ms. Caraveo. Perfect.
Mr. Martin [continuing]. The rocket, the capsule, the
ground infrastructure. We're keeping tabs on all of those.
Ms. Caraveo. Wonderful. I appreciate that, and I yield back
my time.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Ms. Caraveo.
We'll go next to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma, Mrs. Bice.
You're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the
witnesses for being here.
First, Ms. Donaldson, you shocked me with your numbers that
you stated earlier that Fiscal Year 2022 DOE spend was $44
billion, and because of the programs that were passed last
year, you're looking at a $400 billion budget for the
Department of Energy. And not as frightening, given that a lot
of those dollars are grant dollars.
And my first question is for any of the panelists, and that
is do you believe that there is an issue with the grant
awarding process, given that we have so many instances of grant
fraud that have been identified through your through agencies?
And the reason I bring this up is an important one. I'm
extremely excited to be a Member of this Committee for my
second term, but I'm also a new Committee Member on the
Appropriations Committee. And as I recall, Congress has the
power of the purse. And I believe that we have abdicated that
responsibility to agencies through this grant awarding program,
you know, across the board. And we're finding fraud, taxpayer
fraud across the board. So I'd love maybe a little bit of
insight about those grant programs that you all are overseeing.
Open to anyone.
Mr. Martin. Do you want to run down the line?
Mrs. Bice. Quickly, sure.
Mr. Martin. Yes, I think what--yes, I think we've seen
historically that the grant oversight capacity at our
individual agencies is way underfunded, and so they don't
conduct--because of the bandwidth issue, the contracting
officers at the agency don't have enough hours in the day.
They're pushing the money out they annually appropriated each
year.
And second, we've seen that some universities don't conduct
appropriate due diligence over the grants that are coming to
the faculty and the researchers at their universities.
Ms. Lerner. I think there's no one-size-fits-all answer, so
I'll just give you the perspective from NSF. In the 13 years
that I've been there, I've seen real improvements in the amount
and sophistication of the oversight the agency provides to
its--of its recipients outside of my office, but they are
still, you know, hard-pressed because of the limitations on
funding that they have for that to touch as many things as
would be ideal. But real progress has been made, but progress
remains.
Mrs. Bice. Anyone additional wanted to comment on that, or
I can move forward? Because I do have another question.
Mr. O'Donnell. I would just briefly add, and I want to
amplify some concerns, the IIJA gave the EPA $60 billion. Most
of that is going through familiar funding mechanisms like State
Revolving Funds. And so what we see are capacity issues at both
the distribution and the recipients. But the IRA gave the EPA
over $40 billion for entirely new programs that are going to
entirely new recipients. And unfortunately for us, I think the
biggest risk is Congress didn't fund oversight of this. And I
gave one example recently of the Environmental Justice Office,
which went from 12 components of about $12 million to now one
component with $3 billion, and that's----
Mrs. Bice. And no oversight.
Mr. O'Donnell. I'm going to steal a term from Teri
Donaldson. That's faster money to newer recipients and we are
very concerned about that and the ability to do effective
oversight of it.
Mrs. Bice. Thank you for that, appreciate it.
To pivot for a moment, this is going to be directed at Ms.
Donaldson. Secretary Granholm was a former board member of
Proterra, which was an electric bus company before joining the
Department. It is listed on her ethics agreement as a covered
relationship for the first year under the Federal regulations
and 2 years under the Biden ethics pledge. She was required to
divest her stock within 6 months of becoming Secretary. The
obligations require Secretary Granholm to be recused from
matters involving Proterra or those that could directly and
predictably benefit them. Yet she was personally involved in
the DOE's SuperTruck 3 program that ultimately saw the
Department hand out $80 million under the program. At least
three of these recipients of SuperTruck 3 grants announced
personally by her at a public event with the words of $80
million are companies with ties to Proterra. Were you aware of
this?
Ms. Donaldson. I was aware of part of that. I'm not sure
that all of what you just said was familiar to me.
Mrs. Bice. OK. Daimler, for instance, received $25 million
in SuperTruck--in a SuperTruck 3 grant. The company has made
multiple large investments in Proterra and created exclusive
partner partnerships between Daimler Commercial Vehicle
divisions and Proterra. While announcing its deal to go public,
which involved in investment of more than $400 million from a
group led by Daimler Trucks, Proterra described the company as
a strategic partner. Do you think there's a conflict of
interest there, Ms. Donaldson?
Ms. Donaldson. I think whether or not there's a conflict
would depend on applying the law to it. So depending on the
timing of that--so if you divest and then participate, there
may not be a conflict. So we do occasionally get items like
that in the door. We lay out the legal framework. And then the
answer emerges on the other side, sometimes based on timing.
Mrs. Bice. But this was--some of this information,
admittedly, you are not aware of. Is that correct?
Ms. Donaldson. That's--I--part of that. I was not aware of
the detail of it.
Mrs. Bice. OK. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Congresswoman Bice.
We'll go next to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms.
Lee. You're recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Western Pennsylvania, where I serve, has a rich history of
relying heavily on the hard work and dedication of its
workforce. Every dollar we spend is hard earned. So it feels
silly that we're here trying to scrutinize funding that will
support further American leadership in scientific innovation
and deployment when last time I checked, the Department of
Defense has consistently failed its annual audits. I want to
address how strong worker protections through the IGs at
agencies like the ones you represent will support further
American leadership in scientific innovation and deployment.
So my first question is directed to Mr. O'Donnell. With the
investments of the IRA, how does your office help to ensure
that your agency is operating efficiently and effectively,
while also upholding their commitment to worker protections?
Mr. O'Donnell. So, as I mentioned, we did not get any
funding to oversight IRA spending. I can tell you that with
respect to IIJA spending, we already have planned a project on
the agency's decisionmaking with respect to Build America, Buy
America (BABA) provisions. And when we start doing inspections
of project sites, it will include BABA checklists, Davis Bacon
protections, and the like. These are, I think, critical when
the government is paying for something. The government wants to
get what it's paid for, and we believe that, too.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Can you discuss more about the success
of your agency's human resources policies and practices that
financially reward whistleblowers and support of the protection
of scientific energy--or integrity? Excuse me.
Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you. Scientific integrity is always an
issue at the EPA because I think, unlike a lot of agencies, it
does science and it makes decisions based on science. In a
series of reports, we've raised concerns about the agency's
scientific integrity policy and I think, more importantly, its
practice of not reporting allegations of scientific integrity
or loss of scientific integrity to us. We have to find these
sort of coincidentally.
And so we are working with the agency to--as it's revising
its scientific integrity policy, to make sure that it
recognizes the unique, independent, and objective role of the
EPA OIG in investigating those allegations. So that for us is
very important.
And then with respect to whistleblowing, I can tell you
that I am instituting a policy, a program at the EPA OIG under
5 USC (United States Code)--I want to say 4712, but please
don't quote me, where we will reward EPA whistleblowers,
employees who come to us with identifiable cost savings of
fraud, waste, and abuse.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Finally, for you, Mr. O'Donnell, can
you discuss how existing protocols supported and strengthened
the investigations by your office of the Newton County
superfund site?
Mr. O'Donnell. Can I get back to you on the Newton
superfund site? We have looked at a number of superfund sites.
For us, a big thrust of that is in communicating to
stakeholders in the community on the risks. And in fact, I can
tell you, we are releasing a report. It's on the 35th Avenue
site in Alabama, but it really speaks to the EPA's ability or
lack of ability to speak to the cumulative risks that are
involved in a superfund site, air, water, land.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Ms. Lerner, how do you ensure that
agency leaders are held accountable to make directorates like
the new Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and
Partnerships more efficient in their formulation and
implementation?
Ms. Lerner. We engage early and often, especially when word
of the new directorate, you know, came through. We watch the
agency's efforts. We--and we ensure that the thoughts of
efficiency and effectiveness and actions that can help prevent
fraud are at the front of their minds as they plan. And we
provide proactive advice as we can, like the Other Transactions
Authority report I mentioned earlier. So we engage early and
often with them, as appropriate, while maintaining our
independence.
Ms. Lee. OK. In fact, very quickly for Mr. Soskin, from the
financial impact of procurement and grant fraud investigations
since 2017, how can oversight be improved to ensure as much
funding as possible reaches our communities through the various
programs and grant opportunities like the EPA's Clean School
Bus program, and what steps are you taking to address any areas
for improvement?
Mr. Soskin. One of the findings in our recent audits of the
Department's oversight of its procurement and contracts is the
need for the Department to hire and retain and effectively
train contracting officers and contracting officer
representatives so that they have enough to pay attention to
each of their procurement initiatives and so that they have the
training required to provide oversight of those initiatives.
And so in connection with their procurement that's an important
element for the Department to pay attention to.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Thank you to the panel. And thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee.
We'll go next to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Williams.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On April 5, Mr. Obernolte and I sent a letter to the
Secretary of Energy, and we're requesting more information
about the rampant culture of stock trading and total disregard
for the conflict-of-interest laws. As I look over our letter,
just to quote that hundreds of Department of Energy employees,
including one-third of the Department's senior employees,
continue to hold stocks and other assets related to their
official work, despite receiving notices from ethics officials,
and there are literally hundreds of violations and thousands
and thousands of transactions.
Inspector General Donaldson, I'd like to acknowledge your
testimony before the House Oversight Committee this week. And
you mentioned the size and scale of the increased funding to
the DOE also in your opening comments today. I'm interested in
how that may have played a role here. Specifically, this
expanded budget, how exactly in your opinion has this
contributed to this increase in conflict-of-interest trades and
potential ethics violations?
Ms. Donaldson. Well, first, I would point out that the
conduct that you're describing may not constitute an ethical
violation. So the Department of Energy's regulations of these
activities focus on a specific matter. So if you're employed at
the Department of Energy, you can in fact hold stock for a
particular company, as long as you don't work on a matter that
impacts that company directly. So it's focused on the matter,
not on the holding of the stock itself. And then there's a
recusal mechanism. In the event something comes in front of
you, you recuse and step away from it.
Mr. Williams. My understanding from the reports--and thank
you for that clarification. But my understanding from the
reports is that there do appear to be a number of cases where
matters before specific even leaders and employees of the
Department of Energy did hold stocks that would put them in a
pretty clear conflict. Could you comment about your
investigation and maybe your response to Mr. Obernolte and I's
letter?
Ms. Donaldson. Yes, we do work on investigations that look
like this, but the way this process works is that those
notices--these were mentioned in The Wall Street Journal
articles--are sent out prophylactically. So if you hold stock
in Exxon, you may get--and you're employed at the Department of
Energy, you will get a notice that says, make sure you're not
working on anything impacting Exxon. It's not a notice that you
violated the law. It's sort of a prophylactic, be careful sort
of notice. So I think there's some confusion in what those
notices actually mean----
Mr. Williams. So----
Ms. Donaldson [continuing]. Which is inflating those
numbers a bit.
Mr. Williams. OK. So when I was a junior banker very
briefly, the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) certainly
regulated our ability to make trades or to hold stocks related
to any of the transactions that we might be working on. And
this was just part of that--I guess part of the banking
charter, and there's a whole compliance organization around
that to ensure that kind of compliance. And so literally, I
could not even buy or sell stocks as an employee of the bank
without prior approval. It seems in this case that, you know,
either the rules and laws need to be clarified or strengthened
or perhaps there's room for additional investigation. Which
direction is your office going with these--with this news
report and with the letter and information that we've
requested?
Ms. Donaldson. Yes, we are in fact launching a project
looking at conflict-of-interest protections across Federal
agencies because different agencies have different regulations
with different impacts. So it is possible that there are--well,
there are, you know, different sorts of ways of approaching it,
and some are more layered and some do focus on the holding of
the stock if your agency participates in regulating that
entity. So there's different ways to come at it. We don't have
a project that I can tell you what the results are yet because
we're just launching that, but it is an area that interests me.
Mr. Williams. Any comment about Mr. Obernolte and I's
letter, its receipt, and actions being taken in your office?
Ms. Donaldson. It's an--again, it's an area that interests
me. I am not aware of sort of a specific volume of cases that
violate these rules. We have a pretty steady flow of
allegations coming in. Some of them turn out to be a problem,
and some turn out to be notices that were innocently sent and
aren't a problem.
Mr. Williams. There's--and I know my time's up. There's
various degrees of smiles on your colleagues' faces, which
indicates that perhaps the information that I need is--you're
not able to really comment on at this time, so I will--my
time's up. Thank you.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Congressman Williams.
Next, we'll go to the gentleman also from New York, Mr.
Bowman. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
everyone. Thank you so much for being here, and thank you for
your testimony.
I would love to see Science, Technology, and Innovation
Centers built all over this country, particularly in
historically marginalized rural and urban communities. And I
believe that the CHIPS and Science Act gives us the opportunity
to do that. However, there's a lack of infrastructure in place
for some of the historically marginalized communities to
identify, track, and then go after the resources that are
available as part of the CHIPS and Science Act.
My question is for everyone, and we can start to my left
and go all the way down the line. Do your offices intend to
assess how well agencies ensure equitable access to Federal
funding opportunities? And what do previous audits tell us
about how agencies can be better at this?
Mr. Martin. So specifically, NASA did not receive any CHIPS
Act funding on that. But you know, NASA has its 10 centers
across the country, Huntsville, Alabama; Johnson Space Center,
et cetera, where the bulk of their, you know, civilian
workforce and many of their contractors are. So I'll pass to
the folks who actually got CHIPS funding.
Mr. Bowman. All right. Thanks.
Mr. Martin. Thank you.
Ms. Lerner. NSF did receive CHIPS funding, and it has many
projects underway to address the issues that you raised. And I
know that those will be the focus of our audit oversight in the
future.
The work that I can point to right now that we're--we've
done that's trying to improve people's ability where--in--the
ability of institutions that have received limited funds from
Federal research agencies is our work looking at the EPSCoR
program and trying to help NSF help its recipients do a better
job of managing their money and managing their subrecipients,
some of whom have even less experience than they do in managing
Federal funds.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you.
Ms. Donaldson. Yes, sir. So the Department of Energy has
been authorized to receive funds under CHIPS, but it has not
yet been appropriated. They're going to be getting it in
smaller allotments through the appropriations process. So I am
situated more similarly to the first IG who answered this
question.
Mr. Soskin. DOT, like NASA, did not receive any CHIPS Act
funding. We are aware of our department's ongoing efforts to
expand its grants to University Transportation Centers and
include more UTCs in those programs. I anticipate that's one
activity by the Department that will result in greater
geographical reach. I would also note that the statutory
requirements in many of the Department's grant programs include
both a rural and an urban breakdown, as was referenced in your
question.
Mr. Bowman. OK.
Mr. O'Donnell. While EPA did not receive CHIPS Act money,
it obviously received money across the board, IIJA and IRA. And
of course the issue of environmental justice animates almost
every aspect of what the EPA does. And I think if you looked at
our reports, you'll see that many of them, even when they're
not directed toward environmental justice, like, for example,
our cybersecurity report, we still do touch on what are the
consequences to communities like you say. So, for example, in
cybersecurity, we found that it was a smaller, rural type of
ones in disadvantaged communities that have not made it. And,
you know, our portfolio on this issue on the EPA's ability and
its subrecipients to make sure that disadvantaged communities
participate is quite vast. And, you know, I'd be happy to have
my staff meet with yours to share with you our great work in
this subject.
Mr. Bowman. Absolutely. I appreciate that. Thank you.
My next question is for Inspector General Lerner. Last
year, your office highlighted the need to address barriers and
growing research capacity for emerging research institutions as
a top management challenge. This is especially important for
artificial intelligence. When large language models have
shifted the landscape of cutting-edge research from
universities to private labs backed by cloud giants, the
National AI Research Resource (NAIRR), which NSF and OSTP
(Office of Science and Technology Policy) are collaborating on,
is an opportunity for us to level the playing field and
democratize who can conduct cutting-edge AI research. How do
you think public institutions like the NAIRR or other programs
that were created or expanded as part of the CHIPS and Science
Act could help NSF address disparities in research capacity?
Ms. Lerner. I believe that there are many things that those
institutions could do sharing their real life experience of
trying to bring new people into this immediate and growing
conversation will help NSF do a better job at dispensing its
funds. So I think that the strong connections that NSF has with
institutions will make both entities' response to this new, you
know, growing area of interest stronger.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Congressman Bowman.
We'll go next to the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr.
Fleischmann, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I wish to
thank all of the panel. I know your job as Inspectors General
is extremely, extremely difficult and important, so thanks to
each and every one of you.
Well, as you may or may not be aware, I am the Chairman of
the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations. I've been
privileged to ask to come back to the Science Committee by the
Chairman, so glad to serve here. I just have one question. And
I do believe, General Donaldson, you've--may have already
touched on this, but--in your previous answers, but in your
testimony, you stated that Congress has authorized $67 billion
for the Department of Energy through the CHIPS and Science Act,
as well as appropriated $62 billion in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act. Please describe, if you will, the
actions your office is taking to prevent fraud and waste in
these programs. Thank you.
Ms. Donaldson. So one of the actions we're taking is to be
over here and talking to appropriators so that we can be more
appropriately funded to do the work. But while that is going
on, we've launched a large-scale data acquisition and
monitoring project which will generate leads for audits and
inspections. We've had approximately 30 meetings with the
Department. We're not allowed to consult or advise, but we ask
a ton of questions, a lot of them about the 71 new programs. So
we're actively in the coordinating and planning. Mr. Soskin and
I chair the group of Inspectors General that received funding
under IIJA, so we meet every month with the other Inspectors
General, share best practices. So we're doing everything that
we can, given our underfunded status.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you for your answer, and I'll yield
back.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Fleischmann.
We'll go next to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Frost. You
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're a nation
recovering from a pandemic, facing threats abroad, and managing
an existential climate crisis. Such big problems require big
solutions and solutions that can't just be left up to the
States. Our Federal agencies can take on these challenges, and
I want to thank you all for your dedication to ensuring that
the billions of dollars flowing through these agencies move as
efficiently and effectively as possible to the important
projects they fund.
For example, in--Ms. Lerner, in your testimony, you
mentioned that NSF funds over 12,000 grants involving over
350,000 researchers. I'd like to know what steps does--what
steps do your office take to ensure the legitimacy of those
researchers?
Ms. Lerner. NSF has a first-class process for reviewing
proposals that come in, for investigative--for merit. They have
two principles, intellectual merit and broader impacts that
they focus on. And so their focus is on the quality of the
research presented. There are vetting rules, you know, that
relate to NSF's own internal employees. But the focus of the
awards that NSF makes is on the research that's proposed.
Mr. Frost. Got you. Thank you. You know, my State of
Florida has received over 1,700 of those grants, which include
almost 200 alone for the University of Central Florida (UCF) in
my district. Go Knights. One grantee in my district, Dr. Mindy
Shoss, who my office recently connected with, Professor Shoss
is an industrial psychologist, teacher, and researcher at UCF-
go Knights--where--when the FBI (Federal Bureau of
Investigation) reported a 400 percent increase in cyber attacks
in 2020, Professor Shoss actually used this grant from NSF to
analyze employee behaviors for weak spots. And this was
research that could secure an incredible amount of personal and
commercial data. All of that came from a $170,000 NSF grant.
Cybersecurity also means America working toward
technological independence. And we can thank that CHIPS and
Science Act for addressing the semiconductor shortage while
creating 44,000 jobs in just 6 months. That includes 200
semiconductor jobs just south of my district in Kissimmee at a
really cool place I recently just visited called NeoCity, which
is a growing technical hub in central Florida. Sensitive
research and technology has to be safeguarded.
And so, Ms. Lerner, in your testimony you mentioned working
with NSF's Chief of Research Security. Could you elaborate on
how your office works to protect sensitive scientific
information?
Ms. Lerner. Absolutely. We work closely with the CRSSP
(Chief Research Officer for Research Security, Strategy, and
Policy) as she's referred to, to address issues, allegations
relating to foreign affiliations that were undisclosed in NSF-
funded research and other research security matters. And the
CRSSP handles the management aspects of those. Our office is
there to look at potentially criminal behavior. And so--because
sometimes complaints come to us that need to go to her.
Sometimes things come to us that need to come to her that need
to go to us, so that's why we work really carefully together.
Mr. Frost. Thank you. Mr. Martin, I've made multiple trips
to Cape Canaveral. I was born and raised in Orlando. I grew up
standing in my backyard seeing shuttles and tons of different,
you know, things go into space. And I also grew up seeing the
Cape's transformation through the success of NASA's successful
public-private partnerships, partnerships that have revitalized
Florida's Space Coast, while delivering benefits for Americans
across the country from better weather forecasting to rural
internet access. I actually just saw the TEMPO (Tropospheric
Emissions: Monitoring Pollution) launch, which was really
exciting.
Mr. Martin, how does your office work to make sure that
sensitive, valuable aerospace technologies move securely within
these partnerships and also within partnerships with other
international space agencies?
Mr. Martin. So first off, go NASA. No, we have excellent
cooperation with NASA's security force. And we do--as you
pointed out, we do a lot of work and increasingly with our
international partners. And so we are key on security for both
the Kennedy Space Center itself and also vetting any
international visitors to NASA facilities.
Mr. Frost. Got you. Thank you so much, Mr. Martin. Yes, go
NASA. If you want to send a Member to space, let me know. And,
you know, I'll say--it was a program.
President Biden's Fiscal Year 2024 budget includes millions
for underfunded IG offices. And, you know, I'm sure we could
all agree with the President that we need more funding for our
IG offices to ensure that this money is being spent correctly
and efficiently, and that's the work y'all have been doing. I
appreciate you coming in today. You've saved the taxpayers
hundreds of millions of dollars and insured that the money's
going toward the big solutions that we need with the big
problems we're facing. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Congressman Frost.
We will go next to the gentlewoman from New York, Ms.
Tenney. You're recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for
having this hearing. And thank you to the witnesses for coming
in today and for what you do to try to provide some oversight
for spending.
And this is--the inflation that is being felt by Americans
in my district is very real. I--upstate New York, we have--are
the highest taxed State in the Nation now. We've taken over the
Chairman's State as No. 1. We have huge costs. We're facing
catastrophic energy policy in my opinion that's coming to the
State, and that's being felt by our farmers in the largest
agricultural district in the Northeast, the largest dairy
district in the Northeast, and only three nuclear power plants
left in the entire State with emission-free baseload power to
try to sustain us when we go to a zero fossil fuel-based system
in New York very soon.
But we are facing $31 trillion in debt. The Federal
Government has lost hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars,
as you noted, to fraud, abuse and waste. And I was looking
through some of your reports here. While most of this, I
understand, doesn't come under this Committee's jurisdiction,
we have the unemployment payroll protection plan. Those are
under the COVID-administrated funds and SBA (Small Business
Administration), $7 billion in military equipment left to the
Taliban, among many of these other things.
But as was recently discovered in the Department of
Energy's Office of Science failed to--that they failed to
report $56 million in awards to for-profit research
organizations. Further, hundreds of Department of Energy
employees, including a third of senior employees, hold stock in
companies directly under their jurisdiction, leading to
potentially conflicts of interests. In addition, the
Environmental Protection Agency recently noted that its PFBS--
and I know those are their perfluorobutane sulfonic--I can't
put the word out there--acidity--toxicity assessment did not
follow scientific integrity standards, rendering the report's
contents unusable. And then, to top it all off, the EPA has
been unable to track the impact of its pandemic grants, calling
into question its ability to conduct basic due diligence and
track the fraud, abuse, and waste with those funds.
With the Inflation Reduction Act, which Mr. Fleischmann--
and you indicated it was $62 billion, the $67 billion
infrastructure bill, and all of these moneys going into in a--
de facto in a sense, a slush fund for the Biden Administration
to implement the Green New Deal. And let me be clear, the IRA
was touted as the Green New Deal, the biggest climate--the
biggest green energy bill ever in the history of the United
States before they talked about the Inflation Reduction Act.
Apparently, inflation is tough to get rid of when you keep
spending.
But it is more important now that Congress does something
about stopping this wasteful spending. And there's no greater
obligation on our part to look to you as our Inspectors General
to say we have to control and figure out what's going on with
taxpayer dollars, especially where we have such high taxes and
such high inflation.
So I have a number of questions. I want to open this up to,
I guess, some--maybe Ms. Donaldson on this teleworking policies
that have impacted the prevalence of fraud, abuse, and waste,
have they impacted waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars?
And has it changed your oversight capacity by not having people
in the office to actually see and touch and be there to make
accountability?
Mr. Obernolte. Could you turn your mic on?
Ms. Tenney. Your mic on, yes, thanks.
Ms. Donaldson. Yes, thank you. Sorry. The Department of
Energy has just initiated a study of the impacts on
teleworking, so we don't have any published materials to talk
about.
Ms. Tenney. Well, let me ask you, what's your personal
opinion on that? I mean, do you think people should be coming
back to work, or do you think that we need to continue this
telecommuting now that the pandemic has been declared over by
our President some time ago?
Ms. Donaldson. Well, I can tell you what's going on in my
shop, and I think it's working well. So we do allow maximum
teleworking but encourage people to come in more often than
those requirements. And we have a lot of people coming in 3, 4,
and even 5 days a week. So we're seeing--even though it's not a
forced march, we're seeing a migration back to the office,
which I think is very valuable.
Ms. Tenney. But has this impacted your ability to do
oversight? Because in your documents here, you've outlined
there's a number of issues we need help with.
Ms. Donaldson. Yes, I would say the greater impact is that
I don't have the funds to hire people. My existing staff are
working very hard in a maximum teleworking capacity.
Ms. Tenney. Thank you. Mr. Martin, I just wanted to ask on
NASA, and thank you for the work that you do and for putting
this out, but we have seen the methodologies and some failures
in project management, which were indicated in one of the
reports. For example, the James Webb telescope took 20 years to
build, it was supposed to be $1 billion, ended up being $10
billion. How do we solve this issue? And I think I'm running
out of time, but if you may answer. Is there a methodology we
could change or use to make NASA more efficient, more
effective, and accountable to the taxpayers? And we love what
you do, but I'm just--this is a huge issue.
Mr. Martin. It is a huge issue. And NASA has been
struggling, frankly, for decades. I think they need to do
best--better cost estimation at the front end. You mentioned
the James Webb Space Telescope, pitched as a $1 billion, 10-
year project, morphed into a $10 billion, 20-year project. And
let me make a point. The fact is $10 billion worth of Webb
Space Telescope, it may be worth $10 billion, but when you
pitch it as a $1 billion project and manage it and it balloons
$9 billion, you've pushed out other science that could be
undertaken, other opportunities for space exploration, so NASA
contract management and project management.
Ms. Tenney. My time has expired. But maybe offline you
could just give me an answer of what--how we can improve the
methodologies of NASA to make it more efficient and to meet
some of the targets that we have. Thanks. Thank you very much.
Thank you to everyone.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Congresswoman Tenney.
We'll go next to the gentleman also from New York. Mr.
Tonko, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And I thank Chair Obernolte and
Ranking Member Lofgren for hosting the hearing today and
certainly to our witnesses for your appearance.
I believe that big problems absolutely require big
solutions, from the climate crisis that was ignored for about 4
years and crumbling infrastructure to our global
competitiveness in advanced manufacturing, the American people
need for us to lead. And so in the 117th Congress, that is
exactly what we did, lofty investments for lofty challenges,
monumental pieces of legislation, once-in-a-generation
investments that were signed into law by President Biden. And
now we have passed the baton to our distinguished panelists to
finish the job on behalf of all Americans. My colleagues and I
in Congress will be watching and doing our part to make certain
your agencies have the necessary support to make the most of
these landmark pieces of legislation.
Let me begin with scientific integrity. I believe that it's
a cornerstone of Federal scientific activities and something
that I've made a priority during my time in Congress by
authorizing the Scientific Integrity Act. What do you all
believe is the appropriate role for OIGs in defending
scientific integrity in Federal agencies and responding to
alleged violations of agency scientific integrity policies? And
this is a question for each and every one of you. Who would
like to start? Mr. O'Donnell?
Mr. O'Donnell. I will start. As I said earlier, EPA is an
agency that relies on science in making its decisions. It does
science internally, and I think that its struggles with
allegations of loss of scientific integrity, which are well
documented in part by us.
One of the hurdles that we experienced at the EPA is that
we are not finding out about allegations of loss of scientific
integrity except by coincidence. During our review of the PFBS
toxicity assessment, we find out that senior officials in the
agency know that there were allegations of misconduct, but we
were not told about it. They saw this with respect to dicamba,
ethylene oxide. It is a recurring problem.
We have been working for the last 2 years with the agency
to try and make clear our role. And I believe agency policy
speaks to this, that we are the only independent agency or a
unit in the agency that can guarantee the confidentiality of
witnesses and whistleblowers that come to us, and that the
agency needs to remember to bring us those allegations as
quickly as possible because--I say this to them all the time.
The American people need to believe you're acting with
integrity, not just that you are, but they believe it. And they
believe it because we act independently to show that you're
acting with integrity.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Soskin, do you have any comments in that
regard?
Mr. Soskin. Yes, we are dedicated to pursuing any and all
allegations that are brought to us and fall within our
jurisdiction, particularly related to fraud or of criminal
activity. And while the Department of Transportation is not
principally a science agency, we did highlight in our top
management challenges report this year the important need for
the Department to make its decisions related to its safety
mission, and promotion of innovation in our transportation
system, based on good data and to be robust in its processes to
identify and acquire the data that it needs to make sure its
decisionmaking is data-driven.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Ms. Donaldson, please?
Ms. Donaldson. Yes, so the Office of Inspector General
primarily is in a responsive mode, so we respond to specific
allegations. I don't have any ongoing projects that look at
scientific integrity writ large. So an allegation comes in,
we'll look at it, decide what's happened, criminal, civil,
whatever it may be.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And Ms. Lerner?
Ms. Lerner. So NSF funds research, but none of our
employees actually conduct science, so we don't have specific
scientific integrity responsibilities. But we do conduct
oversight of people who receive NSF funding. We conduct
research misconduct investigations when there are allegations
of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in NSF-funded
research. And that's how we promote research integrity.
Mr. Tonko. And thank you. And, Mr. Martin, please?
Mr. Martin. Right. I think we're much more similar to Ms.
Donaldson, IG Donaldson. We're in a reactive mode. When
allegations are raised at the Office of Inspector General, we
coordinate closely with the Department itself.
Mr. Tonko. OK. And perhaps since Mr. O'Donnell had the most
to say on this topic, how can the OIG coordinate with
scientific integrity officials and other agency leaders to
preserve scientific integrity and enhance scientific integrity
best practices?
Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you. As I said, for the last 2 years,
we've been working with the Scientific Integrity Office to try
and institute coordination procedures exactly like you are
speaking to, to ensure that we're notified of these. And I
understand for my colleagues, for them, it's mostly reactive,
but for us, we are proactive. We hold whistleblower events. We
speak to scientific integrity issues to the agency, and we
remind employees that we can help them if there are allegations
of misconduct. And in fact, I stood up an administrative
investigations directorate that is absolutely full in its
docket with scientific integrity allegation issues. And so when
we speak on those issues, we really are being, I think,
proactive in the future.
Mr. Tonko. And have they been longstanding?
Mr. O'Donnell. The complaints?
Mr. Tonko. Or the concerns that you expressed today, have
they been longstanding?
Mr. O'Donnell. Oh, those concerns are very longstanding.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
We will go next to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. Baird,
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate all
the witnesses being here today, appreciate your testimony.
And so the questions I have deal with the office--Ms.
Donaldson, I'm going to direct this to you--conduct oversight
on classified programs at the Department of Energy. But
instead, the oversight of classified programs at the Department
of Energy is conducted by an internal unit known as the
Enterprise Associates. And so your office conducts oversight of
Enterprise Associates, essentially, to grade their work. So can
you please explain to us how your office does not conduct
oversight if you believe that this should be changed?
Mr. Obernolte. Microphone, please.
Ms. Donaldson. Sorry about that. So at the Department of
Energy, we do split this work. But--so my shop does the
cybersecurity reviews on the non-class system. And then the
Office of Enterprise Assessments does very similar work in
connection with the classified systems. The way that we
interact, we do conduct oversight of the Office of Enterprise
Assessments, so there's a series of meetings reviewing the
work. So it's more tightly woven than you might think.
Others have asked me whether or not my shop should take
over the cybersecurity reviews for the classified system. Right
now, as underfunded as we are, that would be a challenge, but
that's certainly possible in the future.
Mr. Baird. Can you give me some idea how often you do that?
Is this an annual review? Is it an annual review or periodic or
whatever?
Ms. Donaldson. So it works in two ways. There is a required
annual review, and then there are whatever other projects we do
along the way that are designed and done in parallel to the
annual review.
Mr. Baird. Thank you.
Ms. Donaldson. You're welcome.
Mr. Baird. So, Ms. Lerner, I'm going to move to you next.
You know, the Antarctic is not claimed as a territory by any
nation. Therefore, international implications exist in the
implementation and enforcement of laws. Can you provide the
Committee with the main international challenges that have
arisen surrounding this issue?
Ms. Lerner. At this point, I think the two that I'm aware
of deal with, you know, if a criminal act occurs in Antarctica,
you know, who has jurisdiction over the investigation of that,
whether--if it occurs in a U.S.-funded research base, is that
the United States' responsibility, or are there other nations
that could exert responsive--you know, over--responsibility for
that investigation?
And the second issue is if someone is found to have
committed a crime and needs to be removed from Antarctica,
typically they're--they leave Antarctica and travel out through
New Zealand. And there are challenges of moving a prisoner
through New Zealand that need to be worked out.
Mr. Baird. So could you elaborate a little bit on your
relationship with the United Nations in that regard?
Ms. Lerner. I have none. I'm happy to talk to anyone about
these matters, but this would be, I think, more NSF's
responsibility as the manager of the program to engage with,
you know, all the Department of State, the United--you know,
and the Government of New Zealand and sort these issues out.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Let's take a different approach. The
main law enforcement officer is deputized through the special
deputy marshals?
Ms. Lerner. Yes.
Mr. Baird. Has the IG coordinated with the Deputy Marshals
Service? And can you provide the Committee with more details on
the relationship of NSF and OIG and how that maintains a
relationship with the Marshals Service?
Ms. Lerner. We have a strong relationship with NSF, and in
fact, NSF supported our sending a team of three, one auditor
and two investigators, down to Antarctica in February. And,
among other people, they met with the station manager, who is a
Special Deputy U.S. Marshal. So he is responsive to us when we
have questions. He does not work for us. His responsibility in
investigating crimes is to coordinate with the Marshals Office
and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Hawaii.
Mr. Baird. One last quick question, does--is there a U.S.
Marshal in the area all the time in Antarctica or----
Ms. Lerner. The only person with a connection to the
Marshals Service on a regular basis is the deputy--is the
station manager. There are no other U.S. Marshals folks on a
regular basis in Antarctica.
Mr. Baird. Thank you all very much. My time is up, and I
yield back.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Congressman Baird.
We will go next to the gentlewoman from Michigan. Ms.
Stevens, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Sexual harassment and assault creates a hostile environment
for women in science and affects their ability to achieve their
full potential. Ms. Lerner, this Committee held a hearing in
December of last year about sexual harassment and assault in
the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). An NSF-commissioned
report described harrowing stories about what scientists and
contractors have endured and the failure of the agency and of
Leidos, the prime contractor to hold perpetrators accountable.
I'm glad to see the OIG is engaged. Last month, your office
released a white paper describing the law enforcement-related
difficulties in Antarctica. Can you briefly summarize why
Antarctica poses unique challenges when dealing with crimes
committed to the continent?
Ms. Lerner. Absolutely. I mean, let's start with just its
general isolation. It's more like being on the Moon than being
anywhere else on the planet. And it's about as challenging to
get there, although not as expensive. Not as expensive, I'll
give you that. Beyond that, the mass of people with folks down
there complicates who's in charge when it's a noncriminal
matter. From a criminal perspective, having a deputy--a station
manager who's deputized as a U.S. Marshal, is, you know, we
think, not the most effective way to provide criminal avenues
to victims of crime.
For anything that's not criminal, the fact that you have
some NSF employees down there, some contractor employees, some
subcontractor employees, and then scientific researchers from
the United States, and then a whole passel of people that come
through McMurdo in particular from other nations, you know,
brings great complexity----
Ms. Stevens. Yes.
Ms. Lerner [continuing]. To the process.
Ms. Stevens. So in NSF's testimony at the December hearing
indicated that the agency is considering significant changes to
the structure of the USAP contract to address the findings of
the SAHPR (``Sexual Assault/Harassment Prevention and
Response'') report. So how do you think the OIG might be able
to play a part in investigations in a revamped U.S. Antarctic
Program? And do you think the OIG should have a presence on the
ice?
Ms. Lerner. We are open to doing that. After reading the
SAHPR report, I sat down with my head of investigations and
said I think we have--we've never done this, but we've got to
look at this. And we are absolutely open to doing that. In
fact, my head of investigations is down at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center right now taking training on
investigating sexual assaults.
Ms. Stevens. Excellent. And so this Committee has and will
continue to engage in active oversight over sexual assault and
harassment in the Antarctica, and we're eager to review future
work from your office. Any preview that you can give us of
forthcoming work that will come from your office on this topic?
Ms. Lerner. Absolutely. We have an inspection that we're
working on that'll focus on reporting and investigating sexual
assault in what we've learned about that. And I think our next
area of focus is going to be on reporting and investigating
sexual harassment. And we're also looking at safety and health
issues that came to our attention during our time onsite. So we
will have, you know, ongoing work in this area for some time.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And, Mr. O'Donnell, under the prior
Administration, our Federal science agencies faced a crisis of
scientific integrity. This was a topic of conversation before
we headed into COVID-19 and certainly after in your office has
certainly done some very significant work in confronting
attacks on science, and you've issued reports. This is
something that Mr. Tonko and I have also worked on together.
What lessons did you learn from the recent 4-year crisis of
scientific integrity? And what steps can you and other OIGs
take to ensure that you are equipped to deal with similar
problems in the future?
Mr. O'Donnell. Of course, this is generalized, but I think
some of the lessons we learned were that it was important to
communicate to EPA staff, EPA scientific staff, that there is a
mechanism for reporting allegations of misconduct, and that by
reporting to the OIG, their confidentiality can be protected. I
know that if we go back to the time period of which you speak,
our scientific integrity office would often express their
frustration and the inability to protect confidentiality. And
of course, I'm always reminding them that we are by law the
only entity in the EPA that can protect confidentiality.
Ms. Stevens. Do you have the resources you need?
Mr. O'Donnell. As I said, I created an Administrative
Investigations Directorate of about six lawyers and two
investigators. Their docket is so incredibly full right now
with complaints that, I promise you, for every new investigator
we could get, we would take on four more cases.
Ms. Stevens. It's the investigation of the investigations.
Mr. O'Donnell. Yes.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you all so much for your testimony today
and your time.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Congresswoman Stevens.
We'll go next to the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. McCormick,
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. O'Donnell, in a report in April 13 of this year, the
EPA OIG discussed their concerns on whether foreign gifts could
be linked to federally funded awards as there is no post-grant
award reporting requirements for the EPA research grant
recipients to disclose foreign support. Thank you for bringing
this issue to light. I think it's important. Are there any
other concerns similar to this that you could identify today?
And have you seen any instances where foreign adversaries such
as China, Russia, Iran, or anybody else benefited from grant
money awarded by the EPA?
Mr. O'Donnell. So I think I spoke to this earlier. Our
Office of Investigation prioritizes these issues, and we wanted
to bring to light to the EPA the fact that it doesn't
memorialize a requirement to identify post-award support from
foreign actors. And that report speaks to some of the issues
that we had seen where we had seen support from foreign actors,
but I think we were unable to prosecute those cases. And again,
those are ones we worked collaboratively. I believe those came
from the Department of Education, working with NSF OIG. And so
we will continue to work with the agency to make sure that they
institute that. As far as the technology loss, we haven't yet
assessed that.
Mr. McCormick. Thank you. Mr. Martin, according to your
2022 annual OIG report, the individual Artemis missions have
estimated $4.1 billion-per-launch costs. According to your
reports, this obviously having an impact on the lifetime--or
lifeline for the Artemis program launches. The question I have
for you is what can be done at NASA or by Congress to improve
the efficiency and speed of the program and how we reduce cost
per launch?
Mr. Martin. Yes, as I indicated, NASA is focusing on that.
Again, part of what was the sole source contracting nature that
underlies the rocket known as the Space Launch System and the
capsule known as Orion, in fact, Congress directed that NASA
use the old contractors that were involved in what was known as
the Constellation program. It was a previous Administration's
return to the Moon. So that, I think, put NASA behind the 8-
ball at the outset. And then as I've indicated, both contract
management and project management have kind of gone off the
rails at different times, and we've seen incredible substantial
increases in the cost and in the schedule to these programs.
NASA compounds those with its use, we find inappropriate at
times, of excess award fees to the contractors even when the
programs are slipping years behind and hundreds of billions of
dollars over cost. So----
Mr. McCormick. So to drill down on that, that's actually a
really interesting point that I wasn't aware of. Do you think
that that's a NASA problem or a congressional oversight problem
or a combination thereof?
Mr. Martin. I would assume it's a combination of both.
Mr. McCormick. OK. That's good to know. What do you think
we can do to improve the condition of the International Space
Station? And this withdraw of Russia coming out of there in
2024, is that going to impact that also?
Mr. Martin. We've done a significant amount of audit review
looking at the future, both the economy in low-Earth orbit that
NASA is trying to promote, low-Earth economy. But it has a
decided end of life. Right now, ISS operations have been
extended until 2030 via the CHIPS Act. I think by 2030, you
kick the tires, it's going to be ready to be deorbited, which
is going to be a very expensive, very complicated activity to
do itself, to deorbit that safely.
Mr. McCormick. Is it a useful facility, though, from 2024
to 2030? If we extend it--and you just mentioned the
decommission without really any discussion of replacement,
which has to be the next piece of that also.
Mr. Martin. Right. It's an absolutely essential part of
NASA space exploration efforts. NASA needs, the country needs a
low-Earth orbit destination to conduct microgravity research,
both on the health of human astronauts but also on technology
demonstration, so it's critical. And what really concerns us
the most, obviously, the safety of the occupants of the
International Space Station at the current time, but what we're
concerned about is when it is decommissioned in 2030 or
whenever, that there's not a gap, that there is something to
follow, that NASA has that ability to conduct this critical
low-Earth orbit research.
Mr. McCormick. And to your knowledge, do we have any plans
to realistically have that replaced on time?
Mr. Martin. NASA has a plan. They're going commercial,
which I think makes a lot of sense, but I am--we--our office is
still concerned that there is going to be a gap, which I think
is going to be highly detrimental.
Mr. McCormick. OK. Thank you. I yield.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Congressman McCormick.
We'll go next to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. Casten,
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to
everybody for taking the time today.
Mr. O'Donnell, I'd like to start with you. A couple of
weeks ago, your office issued a report called--the title was
``The EPA's January 2021 PFBS toxicity assessment did not
uphold the agency's commitments to scientific integrity and
information quality.'' I see you nodding. You've read it
thoroughly. In that report, it said, quote, ``During final
clearance, a political appointee from the previous
Administration directed that a last-minute review be conducted
of the uncertainty factors used to calculate toxicity values,
resulting in scientific disagreement that caused delay,
confusion, and significant changes to the near-final peer-
reviewed work product.'' There was a recent Guardian analysis
that went on--an investigative article that went on to say that
the EPA career employees who, during the previous
Administration, had meddled in agency science to weaken
toxicity assessments had never been reprimanded, never been
fired, and flagged that there was a continuing problem
affecting EPA, specifically an unwillingness to address
influence--industry influence on career staff.
I want to start just by asking if you agree with or want to
add any color to what the Guardian reported based on your
report about sort of the backward-looking analysis, is this an
ongoing problem?
Mr. O'Donnell. It is an ongoing problem. As I said, I have
stood up a group devoted to investigating allegations of lost
scientific integrity. It has been one of our top management
challenges for the last 3 years. And that report speaks to the
continuing issue. And I think what for me is most disheartening
about that report is that the agency disagreed with every
single one of our recommendations to try and improve the
scientific integrity protections.
Mr. Casten. In your view, is there--and maybe this is the
answer to that concern. Is there an ongoing problem with
industry influence, and is there something we need to do about
that?
Mr. O'Donnell. Issues of industry influence? Well, that
exists far beyond science. Remember, the EPA does a lot of
science. It does a lot of rulemaking. And for us, this touches
on it, not just on the conflicts of interest with respect to
the science, but with respect to the rulemaking, and it's an
issue that does lie for us now, even now.
Mr. Casten. Are there things you're watching for as a sign
of improvement or that we can do to help you hold them
accountable and make sure we do hold them accountable for the
concerns you flagged from the past Administration?
Mr. O'Donnell. My staff meets with the Scientific Integrity
Office regularly. We are trying to improve that relationship. I
will meet with the Deputy Administrator tomorrow to talk about
this specific issue. And it's my hope, and I believe their
commitment to improve things, but I'm happy to keep you
posted----
Mr. Casten. OK.
Mr. O'Donnell [continuing]. On how things are going for us.
Mr. Casten. OK. Thank you. Moving to Inspector General
Donaldson, the DOE's Environmental Management (EM) Program, as
you know, is responsible for all things nuclear waste, cleaning
up contaminated sites, safe storage. No need to go on. You
understand all those issues. The GAO (Government Accountability
Office) has fairly consistently had that DOE Environmental
Management Program, which I think has about a $7.9 billion
budget, on their high-risk list for some time. I wonder just in
the--first question is just do you agree with GAO's assessment
that the DOE's Environmental Management Program needs
improvement?
Ms. Donaldson. I do.
Mr. Casten. In 2020, there was a GAO report that said that
45 of their recommendations related to the high risk area
remained open, including recommendations pertaining to things
like ensuring that costs and schedule estimates met best
practices, incorporating project management best practices.
That was 2020. Has there been any improvement in your view
since that time?
Ms. Donaldson. I'm not sure I could comment on that
comfortably without actually going back and looking at those
specific recommendations and then getting an update from the
Department.
Mr. Casten. OK.
Ms. Donaldson. Nothing immediately comes to mind as an
informed response.
Mr. Casten. OK. Well, in that case, then would you like to
add any color to your initial response? I do. I recognize this
is not a wedding. But----
Ms. Donaldson. Right.
Mr. Casten [continuing]. I need more color.
Ms. Donaldson. So we work very--we've worked very closely
with the General Accounting Office, so we review all--we
deconflict our work. We talk to them about what they're doing.
They've done a lot of work in this space, and they have had the
EM program on that list for a very long time. And it's due in
part to that being the largest environmental liability known to
man at this point in time, possibly even planet Earth-wise, so
it's a tremendous amount of money. And it's managed in little
snapshots called annual appropriations, which make it very hard
to conduct efficient cleanups. And then across that complex,
you also have consent agreements that are complicated, involve
multiple parties, and so in order to improve your plan at a
particular site, you have to go back in front of a district
court judge and modify your consent agreement. So there's a lot
of baked-in risk and turmoil managing this huge environmental
portfolio.
Mr. Casten. And I don't know if you meant it this way. Are
you suggesting that if we maybe did more than just 1 year
appropriations, some of these problems would go away?
Ms. Donaldson. That observation has been made by many
folks, and there's a lot of common sense to that.
Mr. Casten. I've heard that in a few other of our programs
as well every once in a while. Well, if there's anything--in my
next election, I'm going to run for king, and I'll fix that.
Barring that----
Ms. Donaldson. Great, good.
Mr. Casten. Barring that, anything we can do to help,
please let us know, and thank you all for your service.
Ms. Donaldson. Appreciate that.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Congressman Casten.
We will go next to the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins,
you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Inspector General Soskin, I think it's safe to say that the
Department of Transportation is currently a mess because Pete
Buttigieg is focused on his left-wing social agenda more than
building and maintaining our Nation's critical infrastructure.
There's a case in point. While Ohioans in East Palestine were
fleeing their homes and worried about their health, Buttigieg
refused to visit, but he found time to go on TV and say that
there are too many White people working in the construction
business. And a few days ago, he basically said that the roads
and car accidents are racist. In your work reviewing the
Department's decisionmaking about grants and procurement, has
the Secretary's radicalism on social issues affected how the
Department is making decisions?
Mr. Soskin. Our views of the Department's grantmaking and
procurement have focused on a number of challenges that the
Department faces, and many of those relate to DOT's efforts to
administer the large volumes of pandemic oversight or pandemic-
related and Infrastructure Act funds. GAO has done some
reporting on the decisionmaking in discretionary grant
programs, following up on work that we have done over time.
Ultimately, the Department's success and failure in these
programs is the responsibility of department leadership, and
we're optimistic that if our recommendations are embraced,
these funds will be administered to the benefit of the Nation's
transportation system.
Mr. Collins. Right. But I think making a decision on how
you appropriate those funds out, it should be based on the
ability to do the work and not based on a social agenda. So
that's what I was wondering, if you were looking into that side
of it.
Mr. Soskin. We don't have any current work looking at the
decisionmaking criteria in the discretionary grant programs.
Mr. Collins. I'd like to switch gears just a little bit
then. I seem to remember a previous Cabinet Secretary during a
previous Administration being forced to resign for taking
private jets, just like Secretary Buttigieg is doing. Are you
currently looking into Buttigieg's travel choices? And if so,
is there any indication of any waste or abuse? Do you see a
double standard with how Secretary Price was treated versus
Buttigieg?
Mr. Soskin. Earlier this year, we announced an audit of the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation's compliance with
regulations and policies for executive travel on FAA's 40
aircraft, which are used for multiple purposes, including the
Secretary's travel. At this time, that work is ongoing, and
it's too soon to share any findings.
Mr. Collins. Do you have a estimation when you'll have that
available?
Mr. Soskin. At this point, I don't have an estimate for
you.
Mr. Collins. How long does it normally take to do something
like that?
Mr. Soskin. We set as our goal for timely audit completion
an 11-month time period. Frankly, we haven't been successful in
always meeting that timetable. But one of our priorities and a
priority of our new principal in overseeing our audits is to
make progress on the timeliness of our audits.
Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back. That's all I got.
Mr. Obernolte. All right. Thank you very much, Congressman
Collins.
We are awaiting questions from one final Member, so out of
a courtesy, we will give him a couple more minutes to get here.
And rather than sitting here in silence, I will exercise the
Chair's prerogative and ask an additional question of Mr.
Martin. Chairman Lucas----
Mr. Martin. Or we could wait.
Mr. Obernolte. That was a nice try.
Chairman Lucas and I sent a letter to NASA a few weeks ago
expressing some concerns about the remote work policies at that
agency. Specifically, we had been alarmed to discover that, in
the first several months of this year, over 50 percent of NASA
employees were apparently working remotely instead of working
onsite. And to be clear, I'm not an opponent of remote work,
and I know the Chairman is not either. However, it's undeniably
true that there are many circumstances at NASA that either
require or certainly would be much more productively
accomplished by people that are there at the job. I understand
that the agency responded to our inquiry this morning. And
although we are still digesting that, it seems like they are
verifying that the salient points that we raised in our letter
are true.
I'm wondering, have you conducted any investigations
related to remote work policies at NASA? And are you concerned,
as we are, about the potential for reduced productivity as a
result of those policies?
Mr. Martin. Sure. So no, we have not conducted any
investigations regarding overall agency remote work policies. I
will say that being part of the NASA conversation during COVID,
NASA was coming out of COVID and was leaning pretty
significantly into workplace flexibilities. Back then and now,
they were pushing this down to the center-based decision or
project-based decisions about what the proper cadence of onsite
versus telework was. I think it needs--personally, and what
we're trying to do at the OIG ourselves, is mission focus.
There are certain occupations, certain roles, and certain times
during certain projects where onsite work is absolutely
critical and essential. We have a computer crimes laboratory
that's staffed in person every day because of the equipment and
because of the sensitivity of the information. That has to be
onsite work. And certainly, if you're involved in a NASA flight
project where you're bending metal in a cleanroom, you need to
be onsite.
So I do have concerns. We're going to incorporate these
types of questions and these types of issues into our ongoing
audits that we do across the agency.
Mr. Obernolte. All right. I appreciate that. We're going to
continue our oversight as well. And again, this isn't out of
any sense that we are anti-remote work. But certainly, there
are disciplines that we have identified in our research,
including, for example, space hardware mechanics where it's
hard to understand how remote work could be done effectively.
So I appreciate you continuing to work with us on that.
And we're going to buy another minute or two here. Ms.
Donaldson, I was really, really interested in the part of your
testimony where you talked about the incredible increase in the
research budget at DOE that's been placed on your agency by
recent Federal legislation. In a way, it's an embarrassment of
riches, right, because it's great that we've got these
resources to do this research that we've long wanted to do, but
I was not maybe sufficiently aware at how under-resourced the--
your office was to deal with this influx of, you know, what is
obviously an increased need for oversight. Can you go into a
little bit of detail about what kind of resources you need and
would think appropriate to be able to conduct the oversight
that you think is necessary. Microphone, please, if you would.
Ms. Donaldson. I can. So I can tell you how I approached it
to determine, you know, what amount of resources would be sort
of a first installment. So I looked first at how other
Inspectors General were funded, just the CFO Act agencies.
Independent of the new legislation, I found myself at the
bottom or arguably second to the bottom on that list for
historic underfunding. Then I looked at the new funding streams
and I looked again to how other Inspectors General impacted by
those funding streams had the--how they had fared. And again,
my shop had fared at that point completely at the bottom of
that list. So we did some additional benchmarking and
discovered that .35 percent puts you sort of in the middle of
the pack for Inspectors General, middle to low end----
Mr. Obernolte. So, I'm sorry, .35 percent of----
Ms. Donaldson. Of the agency's----
Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. Grant funding----
Ms. Donaldson. Correct.
Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. Awarded to an agency being----
Ms. Donaldson. That's right.
Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. Steered to the OIG?
Ms. Donaldson. Yes, that's right.
Mr. Obernolte. OK.
Ms. Donaldson. So there's a--it's a good way to do it
because, if you think about it, it allows you to do those
audits, inspections, and investigations so you're growing with
the portfolio of the agency. So I think that's a common metric
that IGs look at, you know, more money going out. And then I
looked at all the risk factors at the Department of Energy, and
there are a lot of risk factors, so much of the funding going
to the States, those kinds of things. But I still kept that
number pretty modest at the .35. And then in the materials I
always caution that that does not include a huge number for the
loan portfolio. So it's my intention----
Mr. Obernolte. I'm sorry, the what portfolio?
Ms. Donaldson. The loan portfolio----
Mr. Obernolte. OK.
Ms. Donaldson [continuing]. Which is about half of the
money going to the Department of Energy, so we'll be coming
back for a second installment. So as it is now, we're about
$180 million short in our base budget and over $300 million
short in connection with IIJA, CHIPS Act, IRA, and the
legislation for Puerto Rico, big numbers.
Mr. Obernolte. Sure. Well, you know, a couple things I
think become clear to me as a result of this discussion. You
know, No. 1, perhaps there's an additional metric we ought to
be looking at to figure out whether or not our Inspectors
General are adequately funded based on the amount of activity
that they have to oversee. And also, I think that we here in
Congress need to be more mindful when we are awarding grant
funding of making sure that we simultaneously award your
offices the relatively modest in comparison amount of money
that you need to conduct oversight of that funding.
But, I mean, let me ask you this just playing devil's
advocate. I think it would be very difficult in your position
when Congress really radically varies the amount of grant
funding available to your agency from year to year. How would
you staff up and down your agency in response to that? I think
that would be very difficult to manage.
Ms. Donaldson. It presents some challenges, but it is
doable. So the Department of Energy is now quadrupling in size
and faced with that exact same challenge. So one of the things
we would do similar to what they're doing is hire more people.
But we have another little tool in our tool bag, which is the
use of accounting firms to do some of the audit and inspection
work so you can retain those entities to do focused work on
internal controls and other things and then do some good for
the mission, and then just simply let those contracts expire or
don't utilize those contracts, you know, later in the process.
So we have some built-in flexibilities.
Mr. Obernolte. All right. Well, that's good to hear. And
hopefully, we'll be able to work together to make sure that you
don't face a similar shortfall in the future.
Ms. Donaldson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Obernolte. I will yield now to my colleague, the
gentleman from California, Mr. Issa. Sir, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you so much
for your indulgence with the other Committee's markup.
I'm going to start with a question that you wouldn't expect
probably. Mr. O'Donnell, would you be aware if anyone at EPA
currently worked for the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and
was undercover at your agency?
Mr. O'Donnell. I think because of things that happened
about a decade ago, there was a time it seemed like we were
looking for nothing else. I would be surprised at this point if
there were.
Mr. Issa. Well, I don't want you to be surprised. So I
would say that in each of your agencies, knowing--since the
agency head must be informed by statute of anyone who's
embedded, I would ask each of you to go and find out whether
erroneously, as happened a decade ago, they believed somebody's
with the CIA when in fact they are not. And I only say that
because, fool me once, he went to jail, but he's out now, and I
would really appreciate that question not going by the wayside
because it's--as esoteric as it is, it really happened, as you
know.
On another note, Dr. Lerner, the--you're aware of an NSF
award of about $130,000 in 2022 to the University of Virginia
to conduct climate change research with a Beijing-based company
in Tsing Hua University?
Ms. Lerner. That's not ringing a bell off the top of my
head, but I can certainly learn more and get back to you.
Mr. Issa. I'd appreciate it since, hopefully, during the 2
years I left Congress, we stopped providing aid at the Trade
Development Agency to China as a developing nation. And
hopefully, we now are at a position where any funds which are
directed toward research in China would be scrutinized for
whether they're absolutely necessary.
Along that line, are you familiar with programs known as
WiseDex?
Ms. Lerner. I've just recently become aware of them.
Mr. Issa. And you're aware that its job is funding the
fight against misinformation?
Ms. Lerner. That's what the articles I read indicated.
Mr. Issa. And are you currently exploring that?
Ms. Lerner. I am happy that--you know, our office, because
of the focus of our work, we don't have the scientific
expertise to assess scientific determinations NSF makes, but we
have a history of looking at situations like this to see if
appropriate processes were followed in making the award and if
any other concerns exist.
Mr. Issa. So notwithstanding that--figuring out what
misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information are since
those are revolving terms, as you know, it's not about the
science. The question that I would have for the IG is, on what
basis did Congress allow for particularly the second one, which
is this program--and I'll just read it to you--strategically
corrects misinformation described by the NSF? Now, as it's
defined or described, that's in the eye of the beholder, so the
criteria for how they determine misinformation would seem to be
within the expertise of your agency.
Ms. Lerner. We will certainly look at that situation.
Mr. Issa. And then one of the questions is for each of the
panelists, are you currently involved in an investigation or
any investigations as to whether the agencies you oversee are
in fact suppressing speech or in any way interfacing that would
cause the promotion of or the reduction of certain information
being available to the public?
Mr. O'Donnell. As I mentioned earlier, we have an
Administrative Investigations Directorate that deals with
subjects like this with censorship and suppression. And while I
won't speak on any particular investigation, I can assure you
their docket is quite full.
Mr. Soskin. I'm not aware of any investigation work in this
area, and it doesn't have an obvious link in my mind to the
work of the Department of Transportation.
Ms. Donaldson. Yes, we do have a volume of retaliation
cases year in and year out, whistleblower retaliation cases. I
don't have anything in the portfolio that suggests a link back
to, you know, the most senior leadership.
Mr. Issa. OK. And, Dr. Lerner, of course, you do have them,
and we'll be looking at them.
Mr. Martin. We don't have NASA. In fact, we have more
websites at NASA pushing on information than any other
government agency.
Mr. Issa. OK. And then in closing, hopefully--something I
heard on CNBC not long ago after people became aware that
Hunter Biden's laptop was real and not misinformation or
disinformation, as it was originally marketed by our government
to be, I heard them say, science is never settled. And
hopefully, as your agencies explore science, they will take the
same attitude that you should never eliminate somebody's
contradictory view on any basis while, in fact, science is
never settled. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Congressman Issa.
That concludes our Member questions. I want to thank all of
our panelists for bearing with us and for being so engaged in
the discussion. I think you can judge by the amount of interest
that we had from our Members and the number of quality
questions that we got how interesting a topic we all found this
to be, so I thank you very much. We'll have to do this again in
the future.
The record will remain open for an additional 10 days for
comments or written questions from Members. This hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG-118hhrg51794.htm
- Size
- 167,852 bytes
- SHA-256
- 5dea05dfc2ef7391cb9dbbafbea413e7548a720a332eb2a803d4a507f30fe3ca
- Our copy
- CHRG-118hhrg51794.htm
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov