[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IS NSF PROPERLY MANAGING
ITS ROTATING STAFF?
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT &
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
June 25, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-27
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-567 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
STEVE KNIGHT, California MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
------
Subcommittee on Oversight
HON. BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DON BEYER, Virginia
Wisconsin ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
BILL POSEY, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington ERIC SWALWELL, California
GARY PALMER, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
June 25, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 7
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
The Honorable Allison Lerner, Inspector General, National Science
Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 15
Dr. Richard Buckius, Chief Operating Officer, National Science
Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Discussion....................................................... 32
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Richard Buckius, Chief Operating Officer, National Science
Foundation..................................................... 44
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 54
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 55
Report submitted by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 56
IS NSF PROPERLY MANAGING
ITS ROTATING STAFF?
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight &
Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:34 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barry
Loudermilk [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight]
presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Loudermilk. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
the Subcommittee on Research and Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess of the Committee at any time.
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing titled ``Is NSF
Managing Its Rotating Staff?'' I recognize myself now for five
minutes for an opening statement.
I would like to thank our witnesses for being here this
morning, and I'm looking forward to hearing from both of you on
this very important matter.
We're here today to discuss the National Science
Foundation's use of the Rotator Program, specifically, the
individuals who are assigned through the Intergovernmental
Personnel Act, or IPAs. These IPAs are top scientists,
engineers, and educators from universities and industry who
help staff the NSF on a temporary basis. In addition, the NSF
employs Visiting Scientists, Engineers, and Educators, which,
together with the IPAs, form the NSF Rotator Program.
While the Rotator Program brings expertise, diverse skill
sets, and fresh perspective to the NSF, IPAs come with a
significant cost to the NSF, which is completely unacceptable.
For example, these IPAs remain an employee of their home
institution and their salaries are matched by the NSF
throughout their tenure as an IPA, typically ranging from one
to three years. In addition to salary matching, the NSF pays
IPAs lost consulting fees, individual research and development
travel, fringe benefits, and temporary living expenses.
Considering that NSF employs 184 IPAs, which is 12 percent
of the total NSF workforce, these costs add up very quickly. In
fact, according to the 2013 NSF Inspector General report, IPAs
cost the NSF $36,448 more per IPA on average than the average
permanent federal employee, and in 2013, the NSF spent more
than $6.7 million on IPA-related costs.
When an agency is spending millions on rotating staff--not
permanent staff--one would hope that they are the best-suited
individuals for the positions they are filling. However, that
doesn't appear to be the case with the NSF. In 2010, an NSF IG
report found that IPAs in management-level positions at the NSF
lacked institutional knowledge about the federal employment
protocol, training, and expectations, all key management issues
and functions.
The NSF funds a variety of large research projects,
including multiuser research facilities, tools for research and
education, and distributed instrumentation networks. Taking
into account that some of these IPAs come from organizations
and institutions that would be interested in some of these
funds, there is also the chance that if not properly managed,
an IPA could have a conflict of interest with certain proposals
and awards. The NSF IG recently released a report detailing a
situation that falls into this category, which I am looking
forward to learning more about today.
As a small business owner, I unconditionally understand the
need for accountability. The fact that these temporary staffers
are being paid more money for jobs that they are not
necessarily qualified for and have an inherent ability to take
advantage of, is completely inexcusable. Without proper
oversight, the NSF is wasting taxpayer dollars on individuals
who make more money than they should for jobs they may not be
qualified for in roles that are susceptible to conflicts of
interest. This Committee has warned the NSF about the
irresponsible spending over the past few years, and this is
just another unfortunate example. When will the NSF take
adequate measures to implement proper oversight, management,
and plain responsibility?
I look forward to today's hearing, which I anticipate will
inform us more about IPAs at the NSF, the management of them,
as well as the oversight and accountability of what they are
being paid. We owe it to the American people to ensure that
these assignments are not using hard-earned taxpayer money to
overpay for subpar work. How does that seem fair?
In the end, though, I hope that this hearing will bring to
light the issue of rotating staff and inform us of--on how to
provide better oversight and management of federally funded
rotating staff to guarantee taxpayers that they can trust us
with their money and know that it will be spent in the most
efficient way.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Loudermilk follows:]
Prepared Statement of Oversight Subcommittee
Chairman Barry Loudermilk
I would like to thank our witnesses for being here this morning. I
am looking forward to hearing from you both on this very important
matter.We are here today to discuss the National Science Foundation's
(NSF) use of the ''rotator'' program, specifically, the individuals who
are assigned through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPAs).
These IPAs are top scientists, engineers, and educators from
universities and industry who help staff the NSF on a temporary basis.
In addition, the NSF employs Visiting Scientists, Engineers, and
Educators (VSEEs), which together with the IPAs form the NSF
``rotator'' program.
While the ``rotator'' program brings expertise, diverse skill sets,
and fresh perspectives to the NSF, IPAs come with a significant cost to
the NSF, which is completely unacceptable. For example, these IPAs
remain an employee of their home institution and their salaries are
matched by the NSF throughout their tenure as an IPA, typically ranging
from one to three years. In addition to salary matching, the NSF pays
IPAs lost consulting fees, individual research and development travel,
fringe benefits, and temporary living expenses.
Considering that NSF employs 184 IPAs, which is 12% of the total
NSF workforce, these costs add up very quickly. In fact, according to a
2013 NSF Inspector General report, IPAs cost the NSF $36,448 more per
IPA on average than the average permanent federal employee, and in
2013, the NSF spentmore than $6.7 million on IPA-related costs.
When an agency is spending millions on rotating staff--not
permanent staff--one would hope that they are the best suited
individuals for the positions they are filling. However, that doesn't
appear to be the case with the NSF. In 2010, an NSF IG report found
that IPAs in management-level positions at the NSF lacked institutional
knowledge about federal employment protocol, training, and
expectations--all key management issues and functions.
The NSF funds a variety of large research projects, including
multi-user research facilities, tools for research and education, and
distributed instrumentation networks. Taking into account that some of
these IPAs come from organizations and institutions that would be
interested in some of these funds, there is also the chance that if not
properly managed, an IPA could have a conflict of interest with certain
proposals and awards. The NSF IG recently released a report detailing a
situation that falls into this category, which I am looking forward to
learning more about today.
As a small business owner, I unconditionally understand the need
for accountability. The fact that these temporary staffers are being
paid more money for jobs that they are not necessarily qualified for
and have an inherent ability to take advantage of, is completely
inexcusable. Without proper oversight, the NSF is wasting taxpayer
dollars on individuals who make more money than they should for jobs
they may not be qualified for in roles that are susceptible to
conflicts of interest. This Committee has warned the NSF about
irresponsible spending over the past few years, and this is just
another unfortunate example. When will the NSF take adequate measures
to implement proper oversight, management, and plain responsibility?
I look forward to today's hearing, which I anticipate will inform
us more about IPAs at the NSF--the management of them as well as the
oversight and accountability of what they are being paid. We owe it to
the American people to ensure that these assignments are not using
hard-earned taxpayer money tooverpay for sub-par work. How does that
seem fair? In the end, though, I hope that this hearing will bring to
light the issue of rotating staff and inform us on how to provide
better oversight and management of federally-funded rotating staff to
guarantee taxpayers that they can trust us with their money and know
that it will be spent in the most efficient way.
Chairman Loudermilk. I now recognize the Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee on Oversight, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Beyer, for an opening statement.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The National Science Foundation employs thousands of
hardworking scientists and staff, many of whom live in my
district, and I value the tremendous benefit that the agency
has brought to America and Americans over the past 65 years by
supporting a wide range of scientific discoveries that have
improved our understanding of every facet of the world around
us.
As with any organization, public or private, sometimes
problems emerge. Management improvements can be made and
administrative oversight enhanced. Today's hearing will focus
on the management and oversight of the NSF's Rotator Program.
The NSF's Rotator Program, primarily Intergovernmental
Personnel Act positions, allows nonfederal employees from
academic institutions and research labs to work at NSF for a
temporary period of up to four years. The advantage of this
program is that it guarantees a continuous infusion of scholars
at the forefronts of their fields.
This approach to staffing is similar to another program
that has long been viewed as one of the most valuable in the
U.S. Government, in fact, the most valuable in the world, the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. DARPA also relies on
rotators to come in and manage research portfolios focused on
innovative emerging research.
While there are obvious benefits to this program, it's
impossible to use such a system without running some risks. IPA
staff are not necessarily trained managers but fill
professional staff positions, and as NSF relies on the IPA
program to fill positions far in excess of other federal
agencies, this can cause some problems among rank-and-file
employees. IPAs have also not been brought up through the civil
service ranks with an appreciation of the importance of
avoiding conflicts of interest.
Each year, NSF provides around $7 billion in grant awards
and cooperative agreements to academic institutions. It's
widely praised for the efficiency of its grants management
system and widely copied by foreign governments looking to spur
creativity and innovation.
However, when employees of grant-receiving institutions
come to NSF on temporary assignment, it's important that the
Foundation routinely ensure that each rotator is properly
trained and monitored to ensure they manage their portfolio
wisely and in compliance with the law. The Foundation must take
prompt steps to identify potential conflicts of interest and
that the rotators have the proper training to understand their
obligations to avoid violating conflict-of-interest rules at
the agency.
Today, we'll hear from the Inspector General about a single
rotator who failed to meet obligations for disclosing conflicts
and for taking ethics training. The IG found that the
individual was involved in three grant decisions where
inappropriate ties to the grant recipient call into question
the integrity of the award. It's hard to determine whether the
degree of this one failing represents systemic issues with the
way NSF manages IPAs or whether it's just an unfortunate one
off failing, but I agree with the IG that this incident points
to broader management issues regarding NSF's oversight of the
Rotator Program, and the recommendations contained in their
report seem reasonable and obviously overdue.
I know NSF has not had much time to evaluate the specific
recommendations, but I believe that where management problems
exist, they need to be quickly fixed. Where conflicts of
interest emerge, they need to be removed and rectified, and the
public has to have confidence that NSF is managing its funds
with absolute integrity.
These new recommendations regarding conflict-of-interest
policies join a standing list of other Inspector General
recommendations on the program that were designed to control
the costs of that program. While NSF has moved to put some of
these changes in place, I'm disappointed to learn that those
reforms have been moving a very, very slow track.
Without endorsing any particular recommendation at this
time, NSF should know that we, the members of this Oversight
Committee, expect this leadership to do more and quickly in
this area. I believe that the Rotator Program as a whole can
bring great benefit to NSF and to the Federal Government. It
helps to spark fresh and innovative ideas, it fosters
collaboration between the Federal Government and America's
intellectually rich academic community and improves the
advancement of scientific discoveries and cutting-edge
technological developments on a wide range of subjects.
As we strive to promote greater economic efficiencies on
the NSF Rotator Program, I believe it's important to keep the
benefits of the program in mind. One bad case does not a crisis
make and the Committee would be well-served to keep this in
mind. We read the sad story of the two-star Army General this
week in trouble. We've watched how various Members of our
Congress have been in trouble just this year, and we don't want
to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I look forward to hearing from our two witnesses about--
both about the issues that have been identified but the acts
that you've taken to correct them.
Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beyer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Oversight
Minority Ranking Member Donald S. Beyer, Jr.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) employs thousands of hard-
working scientists and staff, many of whom live in my district. I value
the tremendous benefit that the agency has brought to America and
Americans over the past 65 years by supporting a wide range of
scientific discoveries that have improved our understanding of every
facet of the world around us.
As with any organization, public or private, problems sometimes
emerge. Management improvements can be made and administrative
oversight enhanced. Today's hearing will focus on the management and
oversight of the NSF's ``Rotator'' program.
The NSF's rotator program, primarily Intergovernmental Personnel
Act positions, allows nonfederal employees from academic institutions
and research labs to work at NSF for a temporary period of up to four
years.
The advantage of this program is that it guarantees a continuous
infusion of scholars at the forefront of their fields. This approach to
staffing is similar to another program that has long been viewed as one
of the most valuable in the U.S. government: the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency. DARPA also relies on ``rotators'' to come in
and manage research portfolios focused on innovative, emerging
research.
While there are obvious benefits to this program, it is impossible
to use such a system without running some risks. IPA staff are not
necessarily trained managers, but fill professional staff positions.
And NSF relies on the IPA program to fill positions far in excess of
any other federal agency. This can cause some problems among the rank
and file employees. IPA's also have not been brought up through the
Civil Service ranks with an appreciation of the importance of avoiding
conflicts of interest.
Each year, NSF provides around $7 billion in grant awards and
cooperative agreements to academic institutions. NSF is widely praised
for the efficiency of its grants management system, and widely copied
by foreign governments looking to spur creativity and innovation.
However, when employees of grant-receiving institutions come to NSF on
temporary assignment it is important that the Foundation routinely
insure that each rotator is properly trained and monitored to insure
they manage their portfolio wisely and in compliance with the law. The
Foundation must take prompt steps to identify potential Conflicts-of-
Interest and that rotators have the proper training to understand their
obligations to avoid violating conflict of interest rules at the
agency.
Today, we will hear from the NSF IG about a single rotator who
failed to meet obligations for disclosing conflicts and for taking
ethics training. The IG found that the individual was involved in three
grant decisions where inappropriate ties to the grant recipient calls
into question the integrity of the award.
It is hard to determine the degree to which this one failing
represents systemic issues with the way NSF manages IPAs, or whether it
is an unfortunate ``one-off'' failing. I agree with the IG that this
incident points to broader management issues regarding NSF's oversight
of the rotator program and the recommendations contained in their
report seem reasonable, and perhaps obviously overdue. I know NSF has
not had much time to evaluate the specificrecommendations, but I
believe that where management problems exist they need to be quickly
fixed. Where conflicts-of-interest emerge they need to be removed and
rectified. The public has to have confidence that NSF is managing funds
with absolute integrity.
These new recommendations regarding conflicts of interest policies
join a standing list of other IG recommendations on the IPA program
that were designed to control costs in those programs. While NSF has
moved to put some of those changes in place, I am disappointed to learn
that those reforms have been on a very, very slow track. Without
endorsing any particular recommendation at this time, NSF should know
that I expect its leadership to do more and more quickly in this area.
I believe the Rotator program as a whole can bring great benefit to
NSF and to the federal government. The program helps to spark fresh and
innovative ideas. It fosters collaboration between the federal
government and America's intellectually rich academic community. It
improves the advancement of scientific discoveries and cutting edge
technological developments in a wide range of subjects.
As we strive to promote greater economic efficiencies on the NSF
rotator program and endeavor to enhance the agency's administrative
management and oversight of potential Conflicts of Interest I believe
it is important to keep the benefits of the program in mind. One bad
case does not a crisis make and the Committee would be well served to
keep this in mind.
I look forward to hearing from our two witnesses both about the
issues that have been identified and the actions that have been taken
to correct them.
Thank you very much. With that I yield back.
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
If there are any Members who wish to submit additional
opening statements, your statements will be added to the record
at this point.
At this point I ask unanimous consent to enter documents
into the record.
Without objection.
Chairman Loudermilk. At this time I'd like to introduce our
witnesses. Our first witness is Ms. Allison Lerner. Ms. Lerner
is the Inspector General for the National Science Foundation,
or the NSF. Before joining the NSF in April 2009, Ms. Lerner
served in many leadership positions at the Department of
Commerce, including counsel to the Inspector General. She has
received several national awards for excellence and was
selected to be a member of the Government Accountability and
Transparency Board by the President in June 2011. Ms. Lerner
received her law and undergraduate degrees from the University
of Texas.
The final witness today--on today's panel is Dr. Richard
Buckius. Dr. Buckius is the Chief Operating Officer for the
NSF. Mr. Buckius assumed his position of COO in October 2014,
having previously been a Senior Policy Advisor for NSF. He is
an author and coauthor of numerous publications on the topics
of radiation, heat transfer, numerical fluid mechanics and
combustion. Dr. Buckius received his bachelor's, master's and
Ph.D. in mechanical engineering at the University of
California, Berkeley.
At this point the Chair would like to recognize the--I'd
like to recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Research and Technology, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Lipinski, for her opening statement.
Mr. Lipinski. Well, kind of close.
Chairman Loudermilk. Or his. I'm sorry, sir.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Chairman Loudermilk. You're--my apologies. Instead of--I
thought I was--I had it right and then I read the script.
Mr. Lipinski. That's always a mistake.
Chairman Loudermilk. Yes.
Mr. Lipinski. Well, I----
Chairman Loudermilk. My apologies.
Mr. Lipinski. I apologize for being late. I understand we
had to move this up because of votes.
I want to thank Chairman Loudermilk and Chairwoman Comstock
for holding this hearing on NSF's management of the IPA Rotator
Program. I want to thank Dr. Buckius and Ms. Lerner for being
here. Good morning.
I--you know, we know what the issues are. Reports issued by
the NSF Inspector General over the last few years, including
last Friday's report, make it clear that there are some
management and oversight issues with the Rotator Program that
are worthy of our concern and attention. However, as we pursue
our oversight responsibilities, we should not lose sight of the
tremendous value that the Rotator Program brings to NSF and to
the scientific community.
NSF has a very talented workforce across the board. Long-
term federal employees serving in program officer and executive
positions come to the agency with many years of experience in
scientific research, as well as in managing program budgets in
participating NSF grant review process. Those recruited to
executive positions are also experienced managers. After
several years at NSF, their institutional memory and knowledge
of federal rules and regulations is invaluable.
But we also know that rotators also come to NSF with many
years of experience and similar skills. And what makes the
Rotator Program unique and essential is that rotators provide a
constant influx of new ideas, new perspectives, and a frontline
understanding of emerging trends in science and engineering. As
such, they are particularly well placed to evaluate high-risk,
high-reward research proposals and ensure that NSF continues to
support a portfolio that includes transformative research, a
topic which we discuss often in this committee.
While exploring options to strengthen management of the
program and to implement cost controls, we should not even
unintentionally take steps that compromise the benefits this
program provides to the agency and to scientific progress.
Now, having said that, the Inspector General has raised
several issues in the last few years that warrant our review.
From the cost associated with the IPA program to the management
benefits such as independent research and development and the
requirements such as ethics training, there is room for
improvement. The Foundation received the most recent report on
a conflict-of-interest case only last Friday, giving them
little time to review the specific recommendations. It might
have been better, perhaps, to postpone this hearing by a couple
months. However, we are here today.
This particular case dates back to 2013, so I expect Dr.
Buckius will be able to share with us some of his thinking
about what went wrong in terms of management controls and how
procedures can be tightened up going forward. I also hope that
Dr. Buckius will be able to share with us actions NSF has taken
since the 2012 and 2013 IG reports to strengthen management and
oversight of other aspects of the Rotator Program.
In no way do I want to diminish the issues that have been
raised. We need to make sure that we are providing oversight
and that NSF is responding appropriately to the findings.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here, I look
forward to your testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Research & Technology
Minority Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski
Thank you, Chairman Loudermilk and Chairwoman Comstock for holding
this hearing on NSF's management of the IPA Rotator program. And good
morning to Dr. Buckius and Ms. Lerner.
Reports issued by the NSF Inspector General over the last few
years, including last Friday's report, make it clear that there are
some management and oversight issues with the rotator program that are
worthy of our concern and attention. However, as we pursue our
oversight responsibilities, we should not lose sight of the tremendous
value that the rotator program brings to NSF and to the scientific
community.
NSF has a very talented workforce across the board. Long-term
federal employees serving in program officer and executive positions
come to the agency with many years of experience in scientific research
as well as in managing program budgets and participating in the NSF
grant review process. Those recruited to executive positions are also
experienced managers. After several years at NSF, their institutional
memory and knowledge of federal rules and regulations is invaluable.
Rotators also come to NSF with many years of experience and similar
skills. What makes the rotator program unique and essential is that
rotators provide a constant influx of new ideas, new perspectives, and
a front-line understanding of emerging trends in science and
engineering. As such, they are particularly well-placed to evaluate
high-risk, high-reward research proposals and ensure that NSF continues
to support a portfolio that includes transformative research, a topic
we discuss often in this committee. While exploring options to
strengthen management of the program and to implement cost controls, we
should not--even unintentionally--take any steps that compromise the
benefits this program provides to the agency and to scientific
progress.
Having said that, the Inspector General has raised several issues
in the last few years that warrant our review. From the costs
associated with the IPA program, to the management of benefits--such as
Independent Research & Development, and requirements--such as ethics
training, there is room for improvement.
The Foundation received the most recent report on a Conflict of
Interest case only last Friday, giving them little time to review the
specific recommendations. It might have been better, perhaps, to
postpone this hearing by a couple of months. However, we are here
today, and this particular case dates back to 2013, so I expect Dr.
Buckius will be able to share with us some of his thinking about what
went wrong in terms of management controls, and how procedures can be
tightened up going forward. I also hope that Dr. Buckius will be able
to share with us actions NSF has taken since the 2012 and 2013 IG
reports to strengthen management and oversight of other aspects of the
rotator program.
I thank the witnesses for being here today and I look forward to
their testimony. I yield back.
Chairman Loudermilk. Again, thank you, Mr. Lipinski, and
again, my sincere apologies.
Pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses will be
sworn in before they testify. If you'll please rise and raise
your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
Before we begin, I will request that our witnesses please
limit your testimony to five minutes. It seems there will be
another series of votes called in about an hour and I want to
make sure that we have time for discussion. Your entire written
statement will be made part of the record.
I now recognize Ms. Lerner for five minutes to present her
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ALLISON LERNER,
INSPECTOR GENERAL,
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Ms. Lerner. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate this opportunity to discuss my office's oversight of
NSF's management of its rotating staff, especially assignments
under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. I'll focus on
recommendations made in three audits completed by my office,
one on cost associated with NSF's use of rotators, a second on
personnel management issues related to rotators, and a third on
NSF's management and oversight of the Independent Research and
Development program, or IR/D.
Finally, since rotators often make funding decisions, I'll
discuss a recent investigative report which identified ways for
NSF to improve its controls to identify and mitigate rotators'
conflicts of interest.
To advance its mission of supporting science and
engineering research and education, NSF brings scientists,
engineers, and educators from academia, industry, or other
organizations to the Foundation for rotational assignments of
up to four years. While there are definitely benefits that come
from having rotators at NSF, there are also challenges. For
example, because of rotators' limited tenure, there's almost
constant turnover in staff, especially in senior leadership
positions. Other challenges include higher cost for rotators
and rotators' lack of familiarity with government processes and
culture.
The additional cost of using rotators instead of permanent
federal employees is considerable. We found that NSF paid an
added cost of approximately $6.7 million or an average of over
$36,000 per IPA for the 184 IPAs we looked at in a 2013 audit.
We recommended that NSF evaluate ways to reduce these costs
such as increasing rotators' use of telework, increasing cost-
sharing by home institutions, and limiting salary to the
maximum federal pay rate for the position. NSF has developed a
plan to examine rotator costs, but much work remains to be done
to accomplish the actions included in that plan.
NSF's reliance on rotators also poses personnel management
challenges. For example, at the time of our 2010 audit, NSF did
not require rotators to have annual performance evaluations
even though they functioned in the same capacity as NSF's
federal executives who are evaluated each year. As a result,
NSF risks not holding IPAs accountable as it does federal
employees for accomplishing NSF's missions and goals. In
response to our recommendations, NSF has put all IPAs under a
performance management system and reports that it received 117
IPA appraisals in the most recent cycle.
We also examined controls over NSF's IR/D program, which is
utilized primarily by rotators to maintain their professional
competencies and remain actively involved with their research
while at NSF. At the time of our 2012 audit, NSF policy allowed
IR/D participants to spend up to 50 days a year, or 20 percent
of their time, on IR/D activities. In 2010, IR/D travel costs
were $1.8 million. Rotators and other visiting scientists took
90 percent of the IR/D trips during this period. Since our
audit, the Foundation has strengthened oversight of the IR/D
program and taken steps to reduce its costs.
In light of the Foundation's reliance on rotators to make
funding decisions, it's critical that strong controls be in
place to identify and mitigate conflicts of interest that occur
as a result of rotators' research activities or their
connections with their home institutions. Such controls protect
rotators, many of whom have never worked in a federal
environment, as well as the Foundation itself.
A recent investigative report documented problems with
controls over COIs that we identified in the context of one
rotator's tenure at NSF. We found that no concrete plan to
manage the rotator's known conflict was developed and
communicated, that there were significant delays in the
rotator's completion of a required ethics course and her
submission of a required financial disclosure form, that
actions taken to assess the impact of the rotator's conflicts
of interest on an award she made were seriously flawed, that
the names of the persons who wrote the justification for
funding and who actually made the decision to fund the award
with which the rotator had conflicts were not included in NSF's
system of record, undermining the agency's ability to identify
and mitigate conflicts of interest, and that a critical tool
used to enforce the one-year cooling-off period following the
rotator's tenure at NSF was circumvented.
We recommended that NSF take various actions to strengthen
its controls over conflicts. Since we just issued our
investigative report last week, the agency has not had an
opportunity to formally respond.
Rotating staff are an important component of NSF's
workforce and bring valuable experience to the Foundation.
While we recognize the significant contributions made by
rotators, it's essential for NSF to examine the cost associated
with the rotator program to ensure that federal funds entrusted
to the Foundation are being spent effectively and efficiently.
It's also critical that funding justifications and
recommendations made by rotators be free from conflicts of
interest, as the integrity of those decisions is essential to
NSF's merit review process.
My office remains committed to providing rigorous and
dependent oversight of NSF's management of its rotating staff
and will continue to work with the Foundation and the Congress
to this end.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lerner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Ms. Lerner.
I now recognize Dr. Buckius for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. RICHARD BUCKIUS,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Buckius. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss NSF's Rotator Programs particularly, as
you've heard, the IPA assignments.
NSF supports fundamental research at the frontier across
all fields of science and engineering through an investment in
more than 42,000 active awards. NSF seeks to create and exploit
new concepts in science and engineering and provide global
leadership in research and education. This requires NSF to
create an ever-changing vision for the future innovations and
provide the resources to make vision into a reality. The
expertise needed to carry out this work is constantly changing.
The challenge for NSF is to blend change with continuity in
managing our merit review process and overseeing our awards.
A mix of federal employees and rotators, some of whom are
IPAs, is essential to NSF. Experienced federal employees
provide continuity of scientific expertise, management, and
oversight, while rotators come from across the country with new
perspectives in science, engineering, and education. Because
NSF supports fundamental research at the frontier, NSF relies
on a mix of federal employees and rotators for a constant
infusion of new knowledge into the structure of the rigorous
merit review process and post-award oversight.
The scientific community sees serving as a rotator at NSF
as a public service. The opportunity to serve, while expanding
the rotator's scientific perspectives, can disrupt the
rotator's personal life and lead to a loss in continuity at the
home institution. The IPA's home institution benefits from the
experience and expertise the IPA gains but it does not have
access to the faculty members, contributions, and all the usual
functions during the IPA assignment. Therefore, it is important
for NSF to avoid negative impacts on these rotators who choose
to engage in the public service.
NSF costs and the oversight of our staff are continually
monitored. Reducing our overhead cost to fund discoverers and
discoveries is always a goal, and this must be balanced with
the impact on our programs and the community. In the case of
IPAs, NSF requests cost-sharing from all potential rotators and
scrutinizes all salaries above the maximum federal rate.
While rotators perform their responsibilities at NSF, they
are not allowed to handle any matters related to their home
institution and are subject to NSF policies on conflict of
interest, performance, training, and conduct. Like federal
employees, rotators must follow conflict-of-interest statutes,
as well as government-wide ethics regulations.
To bolster the awareness and compliance of these statutes
and regulations, IPAs, like other federal colleagues, are
subject to mandatory conflict-of-interest training. Also like
other federal employees, IPAs provide performance plans for
their IPA service.
The Foundation has benefited from the Office of the
Inspector General reports on opportunities to improve the NSF
IPA programs. As she has referred, the 2010 OIG report noted
the importance in incorporating the IPAs in the agency's Formal
Performance Management System. NSF responded by taking action
to incorporate all IPAs, including those operating at and below
the executive level, into the agency's Formal Performance
Management System. The OIG recommendation was satisfied the
very next year. The change ensures that IPAs are held
accountable to the agency and to the taxpayers.
This approach to accountability is also applied to NSF's
Independent Research and Development Program, IR/D. In response
to the OIG management report that identified internal control
issues on our IR/D program, NSF immediately formed a task group
and proposed changes. In 2012 the OIG auditors favorably
reviewed the task force recommendations and suggested
additional controls. NSF put those controls in place. The IR/D
program, available to federal employees and rotators, now has
much more accountability.
I recognize that the OIG released a new report last Friday
focused on the management of conflict of interest of our
rotators. It is important to note that this was one specific
case. Well before the release of the OIG report, the agency
worked to address the situation and hold individuals
accountable.
My written testimony does not address the report's
recommendations due to the timing of its release. I would like
to thank the IG, though, for her support of NSF and for her
concerns about the integrity of the IPA program.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, bringing
scientists, engineers, and educators from the community to join
NSF's permanent staff contributes to the NSF mission of
advancing the progress of science and its strategic goals of
transforming the frontiers and addressing national needs. The
Rotator Programs at NSF, including the IPA assignments, are
essential elements of achieving NSF's mission. With the support
of the OIG and Congress, the Foundation will continue to
enhance these programs to best serve science and technology in
the national interest.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Buckius follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you to both of our witnesses for
being here today, and now we're going to begin our questioning.
And the Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, the IG found that
in 2013 the NSF spent more than $6.7 million on IPA-related
costs, with the NSF spending on average $33,448 more on IPA
assignments than average permanent federal employees. These
costs include salary matching, lost consulting fees, individual
research and development travel, fringe benefits, and temporary
living expenses.
Dr. Buckius, of that $6.7 million spent in 2013, how much
of it was spent on these varying costs that I just mentioned?
Dr. Buckius. You want the fractions on each one of those?
Chairman Loudermilk. Yes, sir.
Dr. Buckius. The biggest one is $3 million in salaries of
the $6.7 million. It's important to note, too, if you read her
report carefully, on a footnote it only provides you the
numbers for those that are above the federal rate. If you
include those that are below the federal rate, the net gain is
only half of that, $1.5 million. The other costs, lost
consulting fees, location allowance, and IR/D are accurate as
far as we can tell.
It's also important to note, though, that the IR/D is
available to all rotators and federal employees at NSF. Only 63
percent of those allocations are to IPAs. The rest goes to
federal employees and visitors. So it's not only available to
IPAs.
Chairman Loudermilk. Okay. Thank you.
Can you tell me, what did the National Science Foundation
spend in 2014 on IPA-related costs?
Dr. Buckius. I'm sorry. I can get you that number. I don't
have that with me.
Chairman Loudermilk. Okay. You don't?
Dr. Buckius. No, I do not.
Chairman Loudermilk. Mrs. Lerner, do you know what that
number is?
Ms. Lerner. I do not.
Chairman Loudermilk. Okay. That'll be helpful if you could
get back with us on that number.
Dr. Buckius, how do you justify the additional cost these
IPA assignments--of these IPA assignments than what you pay the
average permanent federal employee?
Dr. Buckius. As it's been discussed by Ms. Lerner, as well
as Mr. Lipinski, this is a very different agency than a lot of
the other agencies. The Rotator Program is an absolutely
essential part of our program. We have very, very excellent
federal employees that give us the continuity, but we don't
have the ability--unlike, say, DOE that has staff that does
research at the forefront, has facilities at the forefront. We
don't do that. That's not in our mission. By bringing these
forefront leaders into our agency, they're able to bring that
new expertise, and bring that new knowledge, bring the ability
to change into our agency. This is essential to our agency.
The costs that we have to pay, we want to make sure that we
can recruit the best possible leaders and scholars to come and
help this agency. Therefore, we really need to be able to pay
market-force value for these folks in order to get them to come
to the agency and serve.
Chairman Loudermilk. Can I ask you, is--what benefit do
these scientists and other IPAs have leaving their permanent
job to take a leave of absence or whatever to come to NSF?
Dr. Buckius. Okay. Let me just preface this with I am an
IPA and I was a department head, and I also was an AD, and so
I've been on all sides of this issue. As a rotator, when they
first come, which I did in '88, you're trying to manage your
program at the university, your students, and you're trying to
also manage the portfolio that you're having to access at NSF.
I would argue most IPAs that are involved in this probably work
more than 40 hours a week for sure just in order to make it all
work. Your family sometimes stays at home. You then come and
spend your time here. In all fairness, it's a 24/7 kind of a
job because you don't have your family with you, so you spend a
lot of time doing it.
The home institution, though, gains, too, so I don't want
to ever belittle that. By bringing the IPA back, the IPA then
has a much broader perspective of what the country's about,
what the research is about, and that will help--that will
definitely help the home unit.
But, unfortunately, the home unit doesn't gain all the
other attributes that the faculty member provides, committee
work, general advising, and issues that relate to the community
aspects of a department. You lost all that. So the department
gains and loses: the IPA gains and loses.
What happens, though, is when you're on the side of NSF and
we want to recruit these top scholars and we want them to come,
we don't want to have any impediments that'll make it more
difficult for them to come. As a department head also, I often
don't want them to go either because I need them as a
department head. It's this constant balance. I think the way
we've done it so far, everybody gains and everybody loses, and
I think that's probably the fairest way we can go.
Chairman Loudermilk. One last question. I see I'm running
out of time and I'll be respectful of everyone's time. Is there
a recruitment issue or do you have a backlog of those that want
to be IPAs?
Dr. Buckius. It is a recruitment issue. We often don't get
the people we want for all the commitments that I've just said.
Individuals, when they consider coming to NSF, it really
affects their long-term career programs, their research
programs, and they have to balance that with the public
service.
Chairman Loudermilk. Are you fully staffed now?
Dr. Buckius. In IPAs, no. We can go up to 195 and I think
you said we're at 180. We've been down to as low as 173.
Chairman Loudermilk. Okay. Thank you. I see my time is
expired and I now recognize Mr. Beyer for five minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Buckius, I was going to ask you a question about can
full-time, long-term government employees provide the same kind
of insight and creativity in science that these IPAs do? And I
think you've done a great job answering that. I am concerned,
though, that the same argument could be made for many other
government agencies, for example, the Department of Justice
where I see lots of sort of mid-career brilliant attorneys
stolen out of private practice who come work for the same
governmental maximum for three, four, six years in order to
contribute their expertise on terrorism, on financing, and lots
of interesting things.
And--but I'm also particularly aware of the balance between
outside people who come in and the long-term federal employees.
I was a politically appointed ambassador, and so I'm very
sensitive to how that affected the morale of the career foreign
service officers who perhaps didn't get a chance to be
ambassador because these political guys were there.
So I look at the numbers, the ones that I have at least, of
the seven Assistant Directors, six are IPAs; of the 32 Division
Directors, 24 are IPAs. If so many of these top-level positions
are filled by IPAs, doesn't it give the rank-and-file federal
service worker not much hope for career advancement? And what
is the effect on morale?
Dr. Buckius. That's a very difficult question for me to
answer. I have heard of a few complaints, really very few
though, by the career federal employees regarding their
interactions with the IPAs. They also gain a lot, too, right?
If I'm a federal employee running a program, and I have an IPA
that comes in and runs a similar program, I get to exchange
creative ideas where the IPA can bring to the forefront ideas
where I might not have that experience. Even individual, at the
one-on-one kind of levels, there's a lot to be gained.
Regarding the executive service, I think you're accurate. I
think that the percentage of IPAs in our most senior leadership
positions is larger than the overall fraction of IPAs in the
agency. We do, though, have a number of federal employees that
end up being our Division Directors, as well as our office
heads, and so it's not that it's closed out; it's just that
it's not as probable.
Typically, though, I noted a couple of comments that IPAs
don't bring the federal experience to these leadership roles.
That's a true statement, but they bring a lot of leadership. We
have folks that have led major departments, led major colleges,
in the case of engineering, around this country. They have a
lot of leadership skills. They just might have to get a little
more fine-tuned on the federal issues. But by and large I think
they're really superb leaders.
Mr. Beyer. You jumped ahead to another question I had,
which is what necessarily makes a great scientist a great
manager because I don't see them as equivalent at all.
Dr. Buckius. I think you're right, and I'll agree with
that. There are some scientists, and engineers, who probably
shouldn't be leaders. They're much better doing the fundamental
research and leading students. Then there are those that
actually have a very strong research portfolio, and they also
are very good leaders. In the case I just referred to we have
deans and department heads who are leading major, major units
around this country who come to NSF and impart that leadership
ability into the agency, and I think it's really valuable.
Mr. Beyer. Doctor, let me get to what seems to me perhaps
the most existential question here, and forgive me for
misinterpreting this. How much of the dependence on IPAs with
the associated problems and benefits is--or let's just say
overdependence on IPAs is because we in Congress don't
authorize enough money for long-term federal staff, and
therefore, you have to take resources out of the research
budget to fund the IPAs? And what if we had--if we committed
more money to the full-time government service, you know, say,
a 50/50 ratio or whatever it is, would we be able to have more
money for the research that then does so much good things?
Dr. Buckius. Well, so that----
Mr. Beyer. Is this--are IPAs a back way of avoiding what
decisions we make in our Budget Committee?
Dr. Buckius. My answer to that would be no. Regardless of
where you tell us to put the money for an IPA, we would still
think that they're essential and we would still hire them and
recruit them the way we do now, regardless of where the money
comes from for the reasons I've just stated. Because of the
nature of this agency, because of the fact that we don't have
these large facilities doing fundamental research, we need this
infusion of folks. We take it out of R&RA. If it was in AOAM, I
have no input on that because we still would need those folks
in the agency in order to be able to make us have the impact
that we're having.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. Thank you, Doctor.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Posey for five minutes.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Buckius, can you describe in one sentence the rotators
or the IPA employee--I mean would you call them like rental
experts that you bring in, just the shortest possible
description for me.
Dr. Buckius. Of what they do or who they are?
Mr. Posey. Both.
Dr. Buckius. Okay. They're typically leaders and scholars
from around the country and they provide two things for us.
They provide an infusion of new, creative, leading-edge
thought, as well as function to perform some of the functions--
--
Mr. Posey. Okay. But--so they're part-timers you bring on?
Dr. Buckius. No, they're full-time employees for a short
period of time.
Mr. Posey. For a short period of time, okay. Can you give
me an example of one or two of them that you think are
especially valuable in what they do?
Dr. Buckius. Let me be personal because I've done all--so
I've been a program person----
Mr. Posey. No, not you. Give me another one. Use another
one.
Dr. Buckius. Good, because I don't like to talk about
myself. In the case of one of our leaders who comes from a
major institution, was a dean, leads one of our major
directorates, has moved that directorate into different areas
that weren't before, hasn't even taken employees----
Mr. Posey. Okay. That's satiric platitudes. Anything really
specific you can tell me?
Dr. Buckius. I think we're looking for leadership and
that's leadership.
Mr. Posey. Well, you can say that about anybody. In March
2013 it was stated that the NSF paid 54 IPAs' salaries
exceeding the federal executive pay limit of almost $180,000,
which is about probably five times the average annual wage in
my district, which is the highest salary earned by federal
employees at NSF, including presidential appointees. Of these
54 IPAs, the NSF paid 34 a salary of over $200,000 in annual
salary and over $300,000 to an Assistant Director. Do you
believe that was appropriate compensation?
Dr. Buckius. Yes, I do.
Mr. Posey. Okay. What procedures does NSF have in place to
properly assess the cost-to-benefit ratio of these high-dollar
rental people or temporary people?
Dr. Buckius. NSF over the years has done a number of
independent studies by various organizations. NAPA, OPM, GAO
have all done assessments of our program and they have
recommended changes, just like Ms. Lerner has recommended. At
the same time, they've given very positive remarks about the
program.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Fifty-four IPAs earned a salary over the
federal executive pay limit. Do you believe that's fair to the
NSF's own employees who cannot receive compensation that
exceeds a pay grade of almost $180,000?
Dr. Buckius. Remember the reason why we bring them. We
bring them to do function, and we bring them to do leadership
in forefront activities----
Mr. Posey. I know. They have talent that your own people
don't have presumably.
Dr. Buckius. No, they have different talents.
Mr. Posey. Oh, okay. I was surprised to find Ms. Lerner's
revelation that the temporary employees you bring in are
responsible for making award funding decisions. Can you tell me
if any of them had any hand in awarding these grants: 340,000
to study human-set fires in New Zealand in the 1980s; 227,000
to study pictures of animals in National Geographic magazine;
$200,000 to study Turkey's failing fashion industry; 1.5
million to study pasture management in Mongolia; 50,000 to
study civil lawsuits in Peru in 1600 to 1700; 200,000 to study
gender bias in Wikipedia pages; 164,000 to study Chinese
immigration in Italy; 170,000 for two studies of native
people's basket weaving in Alaska; 487,000 to study textiles
and gender in Iceland from 874 to 1800, the Viking Era; 136,000
to repatriate recordings of traditional Alaskan music from the
1940s; $50,000 for stem cell education in Sri Lanka; 15,000 to
study gender and fishing practices at Lake Victoria, Africa;
147,000 to study international marriages between France and
Madagascar? And, you know, I have pages here, but can you tell
me if any of these temporary employees were responsible for
funding any of those projects absolutely unequivocally yes or
no?
Dr. Buckius. I cannot tell you who has funded those but we
surely can get you that information, whether they're federal
employees or rotators.
Mr. Posey. But they would have--rotators would have
responsibility to fund crap like this, right? I mean----
Dr. Buckius. Rotators----
Mr. Posey. --projects like this, excuse me. I'm sorry.
Dr. Buckius. --could fund projects like that, yes.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yeah, I certainly agree, Dr. Buckius, that the rotator
program is an essential element of the NSF mission, as you
stated, and I have to say it's a little surprising to me to
hear such strong Republican support for federal employees, as
we've heard here, but welcome that.
But I think the Rotator Program is very important. But--and
I've been a defender of it, and when there have been issues
that have come up, I've defended it. But there are issues that
need to be dealt with here. And I wanted to ask about a couple
of the IG recommendations that have not been--my understanding
is that NSF has not followed through on the recommendations.
And these two are, first of all, that the IG recommended the
NSF appoint a single individual to help champion NSF Rotator
Program, would also help improve NSF oversight of the program.
The second one is the IG recommended that the NSF produce
formal guidelines on travel and possible telework for those
engaged in the IR/D program. Could you address why NSF has not
followed through on either of those recommendations?
Dr. Buckius. The first one regarding an individual, I
cannot really answer that question. As I said, I came in
October and I don't know what the practices were before then. I
think it's a very good recommendation. I see no reason why we
shouldn't do that.
On the telework issue, we are starting to implement that.
I'm not confident it's going to see the significant cost-
savings that it's been purported to. I think we have to run the
experiment and see if this actually plays out.
The main issue that was brought up was regarding cost-
share. We ask every IPA when they are working on their contract
if they will cost-share, and some can and some do not. Part of
the problem I think is with a lot of the public institutions
around the country now who are not seeing the budgets that they
saw before, and therefore, providing cost-share for these kinds
of activities is becoming harder and harder. That's a worry
from the point of view of cost savings.
Mr. Lipinski. Okay. And I was going to ask this the other--
two questions the other way around. I wanted to make sure you
had an opportunity to answer those two.
Ms. Lerner, can you just mention some of the things very
briefly--now, you had discussed some of these. What has the NSF
recommendations--have they implemented in a way that you think
has been very responsive and helpful to the Rotator Program?
Ms. Lerner. I think NSF has done a fantastic job of
implementing the recommendations that we made with respect to
the IR/D program. And we made recommendations initially out of
a Management Implication Report and NSF set up an IR/D task
group. We also did a further audit, made additional
recommendations, and NSF has been tremendously responsive. When
we did our audit, they had no idea how much money they were
spending on the IR/D program and they didn't know how much time
people were charging. They now have codes to track both of
those things. There's an annual report on costs associated with
the IR/D program that they've provided in 2013/2014, and I'm
sure they will in 2015, so there's much more oversight of the
program that's taking place.
They have provided more training for people who are using
the program and who are approving the proposals for people who
want to participate in the programs so there is a better
understanding of how that is working. So I think in that area
in particular you've seen a great way that the agency can
respond to concerns that the IG has raised and take them to the
next level.
Mr. Lipinski. And not to diminish any of your
recommendations, but what do you think are the most important
ones that NSF still needs to follow up on?
Ms. Lerner. I think certainly taking more concrete actions
with respect to the recommendations that we made about the cost
of rotators would be quite important.
What we recognized is that there are a large number of
rotators who are not the senior managers and so it seems like
after an initial period for them to get used to the Foundation,
there are real opportunities to use telework more robustly,
especially with all of the technical tools that we have and the
ability to run virtual panels as well. So, I really would like
to see more action with respect to that recommendation.
And on the cost-sharing, I mean certainly we recommend--as
people are asked about whether they want to cost-share but we
did not see, when we did our audit work--much in the way of
negotiation. So it would be helpful if they document that they
had outlined the benefits and that made it easier for them to
really negotiate what was finalized.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Loudermilk. All right. Here's the posture we're in
right now. Votes obviously have been called. We only have two
other Members who are here to ask questions. And what I propose
is if each Member would keep their questions to less than five
minutes and if the witnesses would be succinct and concise with
their answers, we could go ahead and finish out. Otherwise--
that way we wouldn't have to hold you over until after votes if
that works with everyone.
All right. So at this point the Chair recognizes Mr.
Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'll talk fast for
a guy from Arkansas.
Ms. Lerner, your most recent report focused on an IPA
conflict of interest at the NSF and found that NSF failed to
develop a clear plan to manage and mitigate the IPA's known
conflict of interest from the outset. Is it true that it took
months for the IPA to meet with their division conflicts
official to discuss how to handle the conflict of interest?
Ms. Lerner. That's what we were informed.
Mr. Westerman. So given the seriousness of conflict of
interest and those type of issues, have you found that this
kind of delay is commonplace at NSF based on your work?
Ms. Lerner. We haven't looked broadly to see if this issue
is recurring. That's certainly something that I think we want
to talk with the agency about what we do moving forward to
determine the breadth of these issues.
Mr. Westerman. Do you believe proper procedures are in
place to mitigate this kind of issue in the future?
Ms. Lerner. If I did, we would not have made the
recommendations that we did. I think what we identified are
real opportunities to tighten controls so that it's clearer to
everybody that when these people come on, there needs to be
prompt action to train them, to identify the conflicts, and to
make sure that there's a plan in place to manage them.
Mr. Westerman. Okay. So from your work when you
investigated an IPA at the NSF you found that it had clear
conflicts of interest present and they ultimately contributed
to the awarding of three grants that you found did not meet the
merits consistent with standard NSF practices. That is correct?
Ms. Lerner. It wasn't our determination. It was the
determination of--the reviewers that raised questions about
that process, yes.
Mr. Westerman. So what were the total dollar figures of
those grants?
Ms. Lerner. I believe total they came to about $2 million
but I'd have to get back to you with the precise number.
Mr. Westerman. Are they still open?
Ms. Lerner. They are still open and as of the end of May
there was about $400,000 remaining on those three awards.
Mr. Westerman. Okay. So one of the more startling
observations made in your testimony is about how a rotator
violated a one-year ban when applying for $14 million in NSF
funding and how it appears that someone within the agency tried
to cover that person's tracks by creating a different ID number
for that person. Do you think that this is an isolated incident
with one person knowingly and willfully ignoring government
ethics rules or do you have concerns that ethics violations are
more widespread?
Ms. Lerner. I certainly hope that this particular creation
of a second PI ID is isolated, and I don't have evidence to
show that that is a widespread problem, but what we also found
is it would be very difficult for us to tell if who was doing
that. So that is--certainly is a matter of concern for us.
Mr. Westerman. So do you think that a single person
overseeing all of NSF's rotating personnel might do a better
job in ensuring compliance with government ethics laws?
Ms. Lerner. A single person overseeing? I think that having
one person with broad responsibility to look at the use of
rotators and to ensure that they are being appropriately
trained and sensitive to the issues of conflicts would help.
Right now, the management is very diffuse and that makes it
difficult to ensure accountability.
Chairman Loudermilk. In the interest of time so we have one
more Member, is it all right if we----
Mr. Westerman. I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Loudermilk. Okay.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
While NSF's system is by no means perfect, I'm concerned by
the majority's continued fixation with NSF's peer-review
process, which in large part relies on IPAs. Like any
organization, NSF's process--processes have room for
improvement.
In response to past IG reports, NSF has taken concrete
steps to improve its practices. It is likely that similar steps
will be taken in response to the most recent report. However,
based on what I have read, these reports are not signs of
systemic problems that require dramatic changes to the overall
structure of the Rotator Program. In fact, the costs at NSF has
agreed to incur, which are associated with the Rotator Program,
in part show how highly NSF values IPAs.
The NSF and our system of university-based research is the
envy of the rest of the world. NSF's model for funding has made
this program the premier university-based scientific research
program. And although we all want to limit costs and be
accountable, certainly when it makes sense we should be careful
and weigh the savings against any possible reduction in
associated benefits.
Now, Dr. Buckius, in regard to the last series of
questions, I'm assuming you might have a response. Instead of
going with my questions, I'll give you the time that I have
remaining to perhaps respond to that earlier series of
questions.
Dr. Buckius. Thank you. I appreciate that. Conflicts of
interest are taken very seriously at the National Science
Foundation. This is one case. This is one individual. That
individual was recommended for termination and that appointment
was not renewed by NSF. Remember also NSF is the one that
discovered this and told the IG, which subsequently
investigated it. We also then took two of our staff that have
been talked about and administratively removed them in
accordance with established procedures and applicable
regulations. We proceeded very deliberately in this case.
I've been at NSF, like I said, the last six months. I was
here four years before. This is the only case I have heard of.
I did a couple of checks around the agency. We found one person
who knew of one other case.
The point I'm trying to make is conflicts of interest are
taken very, very seriously. We can improve. Definitely we can
improve and we will try, but this is just one case. I think
we've tried to handle it the best way we possibly can. It's not
acceptable what happened. We're not accepting what the IPA did,
nor are we accepting what the two NSF staff members did, and
we're trying to manage that one particular case very, very
carefully.
The 10 or so recommendations that the IG provided us on
Friday--I got them Friday afternoon--and I've had a chance to
review them. We will definitely try to meet all of those
recommendations as best we possibly can.
Mr. Tonko. Can I get another question in or are we ready to
close?
Chairman Loudermilk. It looks like we're going to need to
close. We're running out of time quickly to get to the Floor to
vote so----
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
Again, I thank the witnesses for their testimony and
Members for their questions. I would like to enter into--enter
the following documents into the record for the 2010 IG report,
the 2012 IG report, the 2013 IG report, and the June 2015
redacted IG report.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Loudermilk. And I'll also add Chairman Smith's
opening statement.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith appears in
Appendix II]
Chairman Loudermilk. The record will remain open for two
weeks for additional written comments and written questions for
the Members. The hearing is hereby adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:26 a.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Richard Buckius
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by full Committee Chairman
Lamar S. Smith
Thank you Chairman Loudermilk for holding this hearing. And
I thank the witnesses for being here to share their expertise.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) plays an important
part in ensuring that America remains on the cutting edge of
science and a world leader in scientific research.
It is important that the Science Committee conducts robust
oversight of the NSF to ensure that the American people's tax
dollars are used in the nation's best interest.
This morning's hearing will focus on the NSF's use of what
is referred to as the ``Rotators Program.''
This program allows the NSF and other science agencies to
have external researchers and educators come into the NSF on a
temporary basis. These individuals use their expertise to help
ensure that the NSF continues to pursue high quality research.
Nearly 1/3 of NSF program officers are rotators, so
oversight of this program is essential given the influence
these nonpermanent government employees have on the NSF's
overall mission. These researchers and educators are ``on
loan'' from institutions that likely had, currently have, or
will have grants from the NSF. It is paramount that caution is
used to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or bias.
We should ensure that hard-earned tax dollars are being
used appropriately. This is not the government's money, it's
the people's money. This is even more troubling since the cost
of an average rotator is $36,000 more than the average
permanent federal employee.
The costs associated with these rotators become difficult
to justify when the Committee discovers that, as described in
an Inspector General report from this month, one of these
rotators inappropriately approved grants for her home
institution.
These types of quid pro quo arrangements undermine the
credibility of both the NSF's ability to properly manage the
rotator program, as well as the institutions who seek grants
from the NSF.
Conflicts of interest are serious matters and are typically
dealt with severely. I know the incident described in the IG
report took place before Dr. France C?rdova became the Director
of NSF. However, I am still concerned about the apparent lack
of safeguards in place to ensure that this type of behavior
does not continue in the future.
I hope the witnesses today will explain where the NSF's
oversight procedures in place broke down and allowed this to
occur.
I look forward to hearing about the Inspector General's
recommendations for how to improve the oversight of this
program and how to prevent this from occurring again in the
future. I also am interested to learn from the NSF what their
timeline is for implementing these recommendations.
Unfortunately, if it becomes apparent that the NSF is not
capable of handling this type of program, then maybe we should
consider legislation that limits the use of rotators moving
forward. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back.
Statement submitted by full Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning. I want to the thank the Oversight and
Research & Technology Subcommittee Chairmen and Ranking Members
for holding this hearing, and I also want to thank the
witnesses for their testimony.
I want to echo the comments of Ranking Members Beyer and
Lipinski regarding the value of the Rotator program at NSF, and
also the need to strengthen policies when mistakes are made and
potential management weaknesses are identified. In a series of
recent reports, the Inspector General has uncovered some areas
where the agency needs to implement additional controls. I
encourage the agency to address the IG's recommendations
expeditiously.
NSF's gold-standard merit-review system is not the subject
of this morning's hearing. However, it is the subtext of the
most recent report from the IG's office. So let me take this
opportunity to reiterate my confidence in the strength and
integrity of NSF's merit-review policies and processes. NSF
funds 11,000 grants per year. In the case we are hearing about
today, in which a problem did arise, the problem was quickly
identified and addressed by agency staff. We should take that
as good news.
Let me also reiterate my confidence in the dedication and
integrity of NSF's staff, both the federal employees, and those
scientists and engineers to come to the agency for a temporary
appointment as rotators. NSF's exemplary staff make the agency
and its merit-review system the envy of governments and
scientists across the world.
Today's hearing raises several legitimate oversight issues.
I hope that this Committee will use this hearing as an
opportunity to learn from these two esteemed witnesses about
what can be done better so that even rare incidents, such as
the one NSF found and the IG has now reported upon, can be
avoided in the future.
With that I yield back.
Report submitted by Representative Barry Loudermilk
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]