[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                        BRAIN DRAIN: REBUILDING
                    THE FEDERAL SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
                             AND OVERSIGHT

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 17, 2021

                               __________

                            Serial No. 117-4

                               __________

 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                    
43-704PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------       

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
JERRY McNERNEY, California           PETE SESSIONS, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York                 DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                MIKE GARCIA, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
DON BEYER, Virginia                  YOUNG KIM, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAY OBERNOLTE, California
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DAN KILDEE, Michigan                 VACANCY
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
VACANCY
                                 ------                                

              Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

                  HON. BILL FOSTER, Illinois, Chairman
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              JAY OBERNOLTE, California,
AMI BERA, California                   Ranking Member
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                PETE SESSIONS, Texas
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                VACANCY
                         
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                             March 17, 2021

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bill Foster, Chairman, Subcommittee 
  on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, 
  and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..................     9
    Written Statement............................................    10

Statement by Representative Jay Obernolte, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..    11

Statement by Representative Pete Sessions, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    12

Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
  Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................    12

                               Witnesses:

Ms. Candice Wright, Acting Director, Science, Technology 
  Assessment, and Analytics, U.S. Government Accountability 
  Office
    Oral Statement...............................................    14
    Written Statement............................................    16

Mr. Max Stier, President and CEO, Partnership for Public Service
    Oral Statement...............................................    38
    Written Statement............................................    40

Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science and 
  Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists
    Oral Statement...............................................    55
    Written Statement............................................    57

Dr. Elizabeth Southerland, Former Director of Science and 
  Technology, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency
    Oral Statement...............................................    66
    Written Statement............................................    68

Discussion.......................................................    74

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. Max Stier, President and CEO, Partnership for Public Service.    88

Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science and 
  Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists.......................    90

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Report submitted by Representative Bill Foster, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
    ``Scientific Brain Drain: Quantifying the Decline of the 
      Federal Scientific Workforce,'' Majority Staff.............    92

Statements submitted by Representative Bill Foster, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
    American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 3403   116
    Climate Science Legal Defense Fund...........................   119

Report submitted by Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center 
  for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists
    ``The Federal Brain Drain: Impacts on Science Capacity, 2016-
      2020,'' Jacob Carter, Taryn MacKinney, Gretchen Goldman....   124

 
                        BRAIN DRAIN: REBUILDING
                    THE FEDERAL SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
     The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., 
via Webex, Hon. Bill Foster [Chairman of the Subcommittee] 
presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Chairman Foster. The hearing will now come to order. 
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at 
any time.
     And before I deliver my opening remarks, I just wanted to 
note the unusual circumstances under which we're operating 
today. Pursuant to House Resolution 8, today, the Subcommittee 
is meeting virtually. I want to announce a couple of reminders 
to the Members about the conduct of this remote hearing. First, 
Members should keep their video feed on as long as they are 
present at the hearing. Members are responsible for their own 
microphones. Please also keep your microphones muted unless 
you're speaking. If Members have documents they wish to submit 
for the record, please email them to the Committee Clerk, whose 
email has been circulated prior to the hearing.
     Well, good morning, and thank you to all of our Members 
and panelists for joining us today for this Subcommittee 
hearing on the brain drain from the Federal scientific 
workforce. This is our first Subcommittee hearing of the 117th 
Congress, and I'm very pleased to return as the Chairman of the 
Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee to continue our 
important work. I'm also pleased to welcome Ranking Member 
Obernolte to the Subcommittee. I look forward to working 
together in support of America's scientific community to ensure 
that our country remains its position--remains in its position 
as the global leader in science and innovation.
     Today's hearing focuses on a subject close to my heart: 
the Federal scientific workforce. The scientists of the Federal 
Government are a pillar of some of America's greatest 
achievements, and federally funded science is a key to long-
term economic growth. Today's hearing is doubly important. 
First, the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics) workforce has been under stress in recent years, 
as we will be discussing. And secondly, we stand on the cusp of 
what we all hope will be kind of a Sputnik-like moment for 
federally funded scientific research.
     We're in a historic position where Democrats and 
Republicans on this Committee and Republicans and Democrats in 
the Senate have dueling proposals to double the scientific 
research budget in this country. And maintaining proper 
stewardship on what we all hope will be a historic return to an 
adequate level of funding for scientific research will require 
a top-notch and well-experienced federally funded STEM 
workforce.
     Government scientists oversee grants for priority research 
areas, fund basic research that expands our horizons through 
breakthrough discoveries, and lead the way in helping to 
address the most pressing challenges of our time, from climate 
change and clean energy to public health, to national security. 
Whether pushing the boundaries of scientific knowledge or 
informing policymaking with the best available science, 
government scientists perform a vital public service.
     Unfortunately, recent years have been difficult for many 
career government scientists. The last Administration's 
hostility toward evidence-based decisionmaking often created a 
significant tension with scientists simply attempting to carry 
out their duties. And as violations of scientific integrity 
worsened and political interference escalated, scientists often 
felt marginalized and demoralized. Far too often, they saw 
their expertise ignored, their motives were impugned, their 
work was dismissed. And this crisis arrived after years of 
budget constraints had already slashed their funding.
     Sadly, the consequences of--one of the consequences of 
failure to properly support the Federal scientific workforce 
are clear: In critical science-based agencies and occupations, 
far too many scientists have recently decided to leave the 
Federal Government. The statistics are alarming. According to 
data reviewed by the Committee staff, EPA's (Environmental 
Protection Agency's) workforce declined by 3.9 percent in the 
last Administration and over 16 percent since 2009. The DOE's 
(Department of Energy's) civil service STEM workforce has not 
increased in four years. The EPA, DOE, and NOAA (National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) have all lost large 
numbers of STEM workers in key occupations such as the 
environmental protection specialists, nuclear engineers, and 
oceanographers. Even offices with broad bipartisan support have 
not been spared. The DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy lost over 
20 percent of its workforce in just the first three years of 
the previous Administration. And in many science agencies, see 
the remaining outsized gender, racial, and ethnic employment 
disparities persisting in their STEM workforces. These facts 
show just how much Federal scientific capacity is at risk of 
being lost due to scientific workforce reductions.
     The departure of so much scientific talent and 
institutional knowledge from the government represents a 
competitive disadvantage for the United States. We must fix 
this. We can rebuild the Federal scientific workforce, but to 
do so, we must recommit ourselves to strengthening scientific 
integrity in the Federal Government and supporting career 
scientists.
     Today's discussion will help us understand how we got 
here, the implications of the reduced scientific workforce, and 
how best to reverse these trends and restore Federal scientific 
capacity. I'm eager to hear from our expert witnesses, who are 
strong advocates for career scientists and the role of science 
in government. I look forward to hearing your ideas on how we 
can address this issue. I'm also attaching a majority staff 
report as part of my written statement for the record. The 
report has been shared with the minority and represents the 
majority staff view on many of the issues here.
     [The prepared statement of Chairman Foster follows:]

    Good morning, and thank you to all of our Members and 
panelists for joining us today for this Subcommittee hearing on 
brain drain from the federal scientific workforce. This is our 
first Subcommittee hearing of the 117th Congress, and I'm very 
pleased to return as the Chairman of the Investigations & 
Oversight Subcommittee to continue our important work. I'm also 
pleased to welcome Ranking Member Obernolte to the 
Subcommittee. I look forward to working together in support of 
America's scientific community to ensure that this country 
remains the global leader in science and innovation.
    Today's hearing focuses on a subject close to my heart: the 
federal scientific workforce. The scientists of the Federal 
Government are a pillar in some of America's greatest 
achievements. Government scientists oversee grants for priority 
research areas, fund basic research that expands our horizons 
through breakthrough discoveries, and lead the way in helping 
to address the most pressing challenges of our time, from 
climate change and clean energy, to public health, to national 
security. Whether pushing the boundaries of scientific 
knowledge or informing policymaking with the best available 
science, government scientists perform a vital public service.
    Unfortunately, recent years have been difficult for career 
government scientists. The last administration's hostility 
towards evidence-based decision-making created an awful tension 
with scientists attempting to carry out their duties. As 
violations of scientific integrity worsened and political 
interference escalated, scientists felt marginalized and 
demoralized. Far too often, their expertise was ignored, their 
motives were impugned, and their work was dismissed. And this 
crisis arrived after years of budget constraints had already 
slashed their funding.
    Sadly, the consequences of the failure to properly support 
the federal scientific workforce are clear: in critical 
science-based agencies and occupations, far too many scientists 
have recently decided to leave the Federal Government. The 
statistics are alarming. According to data reviewed by the 
Committee staff, EPA's workforce declined by 3.9% during the 
last administration and over 16% since 2009. DOE's civil 
service STEM workforce has not increased in 4 years. EPA, DOE 
and NOAA have all lost large numbers of STEM workers in key 
occupations, such as environmental protection specialists, 
nuclear engineers and oceanographers. Even offices with broad 
bipartisan support have not been spared: DOE's Office of 
Nuclear Energy lost over 20% of its workforce in just the first 
three years of the previous administration. And in many science 
agencies, outsized gender, racial and ethnic employment 
disparities persist in STEM workforces. These facts show just 
how much federal scientific capacity is at risk of being lost 
due to scientific workforce reductions.
    The departure of so much scientific talent and 
institutional knowledge from the government represents a 
competitive disadvantage for the United States. We must fix 
this. We can rebuild the federal scientific workforce, but to 
do so, we must recommit ourselves to strengthening scientific 
integrity in the Federal Government and supporting career 
scientists. Today's discussion will help us to understand how 
we got here, the implications of a reduced scientific 
workforce, and how best to reverse these trends and restore 
federal scientific capacity. I am eager to hear from our expert 
witnesses, who are strong advocates for career scientists and 
the role of science in government. I look forward to hearing 
your ideas about how we can address this issue.
    I now yield to Ranking Member Obernolte for his opening 
remarks.

     Chairman Foster. And now I'll turn it over to my 
Republican colleague.
     Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Foster. 
I am honored to serve as the Ranking Member for the 
Subcommittee. This Subcommittee's jurisdiction is near and dear 
to my heart, as you know, and I think that the subject of our 
hearing today is one of critical importance. We absolutely need 
a strong, dedicated, and talented Federal scientific workforce, 
and we need to make sure that we retain those people and that 
we recruit the best of what is coming out of our Nation's 
schools and universities.
     I'm very much looking forward to hearing what our expert 
witnesses have to say. We're focusing this hearing today mostly 
on retention, and I think that that's of critical importance. 
But I'd also like to see us focus a little bit on recruitment. 
I think that our Federal Government needs to be entrepreneurial 
in our approach to getting the best talent that we can, and 
that means that we need to be cognizant of the fact that we're 
competing against not only other government agencies but 
against academia and against the private sector in recruiting 
top scientific talent for our Federal workforce, so we need to 
make sure that we've set the stage for success in that area.
     Of particular concern to me is the fact that it takes 98 
days to fully onboard a scientist into our Federal workforce 
right now, and compared with private sector where I come from, 
you know, that is shocking to me. You know, we can't be 
surprised that we're failing to recruit the most talented and 
the brightest people that are coming out of our universities 
when our bureaucracy is that sluggish.
     So I'm looking forward to hearing from the testimony of 
our expert witnesses and looking forward to working with you, 
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
     Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous 
consent to speak.
     Chairman Foster. Yes, granted.
     Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much, and I appreciate this. 
I would like for us also to keep in mind that during the period 
of time that preceded this by a few years on a bipartisan basis 
Republicans and Democrats changed processes, many of them, 
including the NIH (National Institutes of Health) and how the 
NIH not only gets its money but is able to make it mandatory as 
opposed to discretionary and that there has been a substantial 
amount of time and I believe progress that at least Chairman 
Lucas and Mr. Perlmutter would recognize. We've not been 
without understanding this challenge. We have made many 
important things, but we also have the United States Air Force 
using our government techniques, and they blew up 10 Titan 
missiles, rockets, and we felt like we had to go to outside 
sources, which really--the content and the technology exists 
within America. It just may not be employed by the government. 
And as an example of that is SpaceX, which is located in Waco, 
Texas, which I represent. We have taken ideas from landing 
capsules out in the middle of the Pacific to where they land on 
the deck of a ship.
     So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, but I think it's 
important for us to note this did not just happen. There has 
been a lot of work that has been bipartisan that has included a 
definite effort to make sure that we grew scientists and not 
just those that work for the government. Thank you very much. I 
yield back my time, sir.
     Chairman Foster. Thank you. And I really concur with that. 
You know, one of the proudest bipartisan achievements 
particularly the last several years is that we've seen 
proposals to really cut the Federal scientific budget, and 
Republicans and Democrats have stood together to say no, that 
this is--these things should be preserved. And that was one of 
the--really the greatest bipartisan achievements of the recent 
past.
     [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Good morning. I would like to begin by welcoming back 
Chairman Foster as the Chairman of the Investigations & 
Oversight Subcommittee for the 117th Congress, and by welcoming 
Ranking Member Obernolte to the Subcommittee. I look forward to 
working with both of you on a vigorous oversight agenda to 
strengthen federal scientific research and promote the 
advancement of American science and technology.
    The subject of today's hearing is critically important for 
the future of research and development in this country. Career 
scientists in the Federal Government are instrumental in 
shaping America's scientific priorities, funding cutting-edge 
research, and ensuring that policies are crafted on the basis 
of the best available science. These public servants frequently 
dedicate their entire careers to essential scientific functions 
as varied as supporting basic research, protecting clean air 
and water, and preparing the country for outbreaks of 
infectious disease. As a nation, we ignore them at our peril.
    But in recent years, due to political and budgetary 
pressures, the federal scientific workforce has struggled. Too 
many career scientists have decided to leave. Fewer federal 
scientists means less research, slower grant processes, less 
mentoring for young scientists, and less specialized expertise. 
It means less informed policymaking and weaker regulatory 
enforcement. This is a problem for the agencies who employ 
scientists, the academic and private-sector researchers who 
work with them, and the American people, who benefit from their 
knowledge and dedication. We need to understand the 
implications of these staff departures for federal science 
agencies so that we can properly address them.
    Additionally, it is imperative that we continue to promote 
greater diversity in the federal STEM workforce. Under my 
leadership, this Committee has been a strong advocate for 
increasing the opportunities available to women and communities 
of color to enter STEM professions. It is vital for the future 
of American science that the nation's scientific institutions 
encourage greater participation among historically 
underrepresented groups, because our strength lies in our 
diversity and broader perspectives lead to better science. The 
Federal Government must be a leader in this effort, and the 
federal scientific workforce must reflect the diversity of the 
country that it represents. Advancing diversity and inclusion 
will be key to revitalizing the federal scientific workforce in 
the years to come.
    It is a longstanding priority of this Committee to 
strengthen the scientific capabilities of the Federal 
Government. A major part of those capabilities is a robust 
scientific workforce. We must look for ways to boost the ranks 
of career scientists, and to encourage scientists across the 
country, from all regions and backgrounds, to join the effort. 
I appreciate the work of our distinguished panelists in 
furthering this goal, and I look forward to hearing your 
perspectives.
    Thank you. I yield back.

     Chairman Foster. And now I'd like to introduce our 
witnesses. Our first witness is Ms. Candice Wright. Ms. Wright 
is an Acting Director of--at the GAO (Government Accountability 
Office) and its Science and Technology Assessment and Analytics 
Team. She oversees GAO's work on the management of federally 
funded research, intellectual property protection, and 
management and Federal efforts to help commercialize innovative 
technologies and enhance the U.S. economic competitiveness. She 
has also served as a congressional Detailee to the Senate 
Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and as 
the head of the GAO's office in Kabul, Afghanistan. Wow. You 
know, people complain about being posted in Kansas City.
     This--after Ms. Wright is Mr. Max Stier. Mr. Stier is 
President and CEO (chief executive officer) of the Partnership 
for Public Service, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization 
dedicated to revitalizing our Federal Government--the workforce 
of our Federal Government by inspiring a new generation to 
serve. Previously, Mr. Stier worked in all three branches of 
the Federal Government, including a clerk for Supreme Court 
Justice David Souter. He is also currently a member of New York 
State--the New York State Spending and Government Efficiency 
Commission and the Brookings Institution's Public Sector 
Leadership Advisory Board.
     Our third witness is Dr. Andrew Rosenberg. Dr. Rosenberg 
is the Director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the 
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). He has more than 30 years 
of experience in government service, as well as academic and 
nonprofit leadership. Dr. Rosenberg has offered peer-reviewed 
studies and reports on fisheries and ocean management and has 
published in the--on the--at the intersection between science 
and policymaking. He previously served as the Chief Scientist 
at Conservation International, the Dean of Life Sciences at the 
University of New Hampshire, and the Deputy Director for the 
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Institute.
     Our final witness is Dr. Betsy Southerland. Dr. 
Southerland retired from her position as Director of the Office 
of Science and Technology in the EPA's Office of Water in 2017 
following a 33-year career with the agency. While at the EPA, 
Dr. Southerland led the development of national regulations and 
guidance manuals informed by science and through the--through 
coordination with State environmental agencies, industry 
representatives, and environmental groups. In 2015 Dr. 
Southerland received the Distinguished Presidential Rank Award 
for her career at the EPA.
     And as our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 
minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will 
be included for the hearing. And when you all have completed 
your spoken testimony, we will begin questions. Each Member 
will have 5 minutes to question the panel. And so we will start 
with Ms. Wright.

       TESTIMONY OF MS. CANDICE WRIGHT, ACTING DIRECTOR,

         SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, AND ANALYTICS,

             U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

     Ms. Wright. Chairman Foster, Ranking Member Obernolte, and 
Members of the Subcommittee, I'm pleased to be here today to 
discuss the Federal science and technology workforce.
     Agencies face the difficult task of keeping pace with 
advances in science and technology. In our prior work, GAO has 
seen how agencies often struggle to attract and retain a 
workforce that meets their needs and positions them for the 
future to address the complex social, economic, and security 
challenges facing the country, not to mention the COVID-19 
pandemic. Our long-standing concerns have led us to include 
strategic human capital management in GAO's high-risk series 
since 2001.
     Today, I will highlight GAO's past work that can provide 
insights in three key areas. First, workforce planning; second, 
pay and hiring authorities; and third, the Federal work 
environment. With regard to the first area, strengthening human 
capital management, particularly for agencies with science and 
technology missions, can help them build a highly diverse, 
highly qualified and agile workforce. To successfully implement 
their missions, agencies need to identify current skill gaps 
and future needs in the workforce. They also need to select the 
right human capital strategies to fill them.
     However, our prior work has identified workforce strategic 
planning challenges that agencies have not fully addressed. In 
October 2019 we found that 18 of the 24 agencies we reviewed 
had not fully implemented certain key workforce activities such 
as establishing a workforce planning process or developing 
strategies to address gaps in staffing. We recommended agencies 
such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) fully implement 
these activities, but not all agencies have done so.
     We've also reported on NSF's use of rotators, who are 
outside scientists and engineers on temporary assignment. We 
made two recommendations aimed at improving NSF workforce 
strategy for balancing its use of rotators with permanent 
staff.
     On the second area, improving Federal pay and hiring can 
help agencies compete with employers in other sectors. Agencies 
can tap an array of incentives when they need to recruit or 
retain experts in fields such as cybersecurity, engineering, or 
in other high-demand fields. Special payment authorities allow 
agencies to pay higher wages, help pay off student loans, and 
provide other incentives. In December 2017 we reported that 
fewer than 6 percent of employees at 27 agencies reviewed 
received special payments. Agencies reported that incentives 
were helpful, but the extent of impacts was not known, and the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has not assessed how the 
authorities help improve recruitment and retention. Similarly, 
agencies have multiple hiring authorities but afford 
flexibility in the hiring process.
     In August 2016 we reported on 105 hiring authorities. 
Among the most used authorities was direct hire, which allows 
agencies to fill positions that have a severe candidate 
shortage or a critical need such as for STEM personnel. OPM and 
agencies have not analyze the effectiveness of such hiring 
authorities. GAO made six recommendations to OPM to assess and 
improve the use of pay and hiring authorities, and OPM is in 
varying stages of implementation.
     For the third area, our work has identified several 
factors that, if left unaddressed, may negatively influence 
agencies' ability to attract, hire, and retain a diverse, 
highly skilled science and technology workforce. For example, 
we reported last year that individuals who experience sexual 
harassment at work are more likely to leave their jobs. We've 
made recommendations to agencies to improve implementation of 
their policies and procedures to prevent and address sexual 
harassment both in their own workforce and also at the 
university level as Federal research grant recipients can be 
important part of the pipeline for the future Federal 
workforce.
     In April 2019 we reported that while selected agencies we 
reviewed had taken various actions to help achieve the 
objectives of their scientific integrity policies, additional 
actions were needed. Here, we made 10 recommendations to six 
agencies to address various issues, including developing 
procedures to identify and address scientific integrity policy 
violations.
     In closing, science and technology is integral to how 
agencies execute their mission. The Federal Government's 
success in attracting, hiring, and retaining a world-class 
science and technology workforce is tied to how it effectively 
and strategically utilizes the wide range of available 
authorities and other resources. As science and technology 
continues to rapidly evolve, so too must the government's 
recruitment and retention efforts. How the government responds 
or doesn't to face its human capital challenges today will have 
lasting effects for the future workforce it needs.
     Chairman Foster, Ranking Member Obernolte, and Members of 
the Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be 
pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
     [The prepared statement of Ms. Wright follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairman Foster. Thank you very much for that. And thank 
you for all the work that you and the GAO does, you know, every 
year for us.
     So reading over your written testimony earlier reminded me 
of how important it is to have you around for--to lengthen the 
attention span of the U.S. Congress.
     And so next is Mr. Stier.

         TESTIMONY OF MR. MAX STIER, PRESIDENT AND CEO,

                 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

     Mr. Stier. Thank you, Chairman Foster and Ranking Member 
Obernolte and all the Members of the Subcommittee. It is 
tremendous to see the bipartisan approach that you've taken to 
such a vital issue. Your Committee staff has done an 
exceptional job at laying out the problem, and I thought I 
would take my time to talk about why the problem exists and 
offering a few recommendations about what you can do about it.
     Starting with why the problem exists, if we don't 
understand that in the right way, we'll never solve it. And 
there are five big reasons that I would focus on in terms of 
the problems that are facing recruiting and hiring top-tier 
STEM talent begins with the fact that the Federal brand itself 
has been damaged. Government shutdowns, hiring freezes, 
negative rhetoric, political interference in science have all 
tarnished that brand.
     No. 2, opportunities for young people are hidden and 
scarce. You can see this from one devastating statistic. Just 4 
percent of new hires in the Federal Government are drawn from 
Federal programs employing current students and recent 
graduates. The talent doesn't know about the opportunities, and 
therefore, they can't even pursue them.
     No. 3 and really important, the hiring process is deeply 
broken. The barriers to entry are many. I can take my entire 5 
minutes and many more on this issue. One stat that has already 
been cited is that it takes nearly 100 days to hire people on 
average, which is more than double what you would see in the 
private sector, but the barriers are way more diverse and 
problematic than that.
     And No. 4, very important here, even when people are hired 
into the STEM field, we aren't retaining that talent once 
recruited. The full-time employees under 30 who voluntarily 
quit the Federal Government, nearly 3/4 of them have only been 
there for 2 years. One of the key reasons for this is that 
we're not creating an environment that is welcoming, that grows 
them. We see that in our Best Places to Work employee 
engagement scores, which are 15 points below in the Federal 
Government than they are in the private sector.
     And finally, clearly, diversity in STEM is a real issue in 
the general workforce and a very prominent one in the Federal 
Government itself. So now we need to do more than just admire 
this problem. We need to actually do something about it. So 
here are 10 quick ideas that I can extend on if they are 
interested in the question-and-answer period.
     No. 1, it begins with leadership. We need to create high 
expectations of Federal leaders to own this problem, and that 
includes in Congress the work that you're doing is fundamental. 
We have a public sector leadership model. What does it look 
like to be a leader in government, and I would advise that this 
Committee and Congress more general hold executives to that 
model. There's also in terms of accountability our Best Places 
to Work rankings around effective leadership. And finally, I 
would say we ultimately need to reduce the number of political 
appointees, and that would make a big difference.
     No. 2, we need to promote the government's mission, and 
this is something that NASA (National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration) has done very well as an example with their 
custom-built career website that includes video stories and 
great things that NASA people are doing. We have our Service to 
America medals. We need to tell the stories that will then 
encourage others to follow.
     No. 3, we need to improve recruiting and hiring, again, 
lots to be done here, but the beginning point is to enact the 
civil service recommendations from the final report of the 
National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. 
They did a tremendous job. That stuff is ready to go.
     No. 4, we need to get young people in government, and one 
of the key ways to do that is to have internships be the 
primary mechanism of bringing them in. Government doesn't use 
internships nearly enough, paid internships, and there's more 
that can be done.
     No. 5, we need to promote innovative talent models. 
Partnership has the cyber talent initiative where we work with 
several companies, MasterCard, Microsoft, Workday, and a dozen 
Federal agencies to create a 2-year special fellowship for top 
talent in cyber to come into government. Those kinds of special 
channels work, and we need to invest in more of them.
     No. 6, we need to overhaul the pay and classification 
system. Think about it, the pay system we use today was 
designed in 1949. No private sector company is in business 
today operating under the same system as it did 70 years ago 
with respect to compensation. It doesn't work.
     No. 7, we need to invest in the H.R. workforce and create 
a governmentwide STEM human capital strategy. It's one 
government and yet it operates vertically, not good enough.
     No. 8, we need to create a culture that embraces 
technology, innovation, and collaboration. The pandemic has 
created lots of innovation. It should serve as a future model 
of how government can operate, lots to talk about there.
     Nine, I mentioned DEI has to be a key part of this 
workforce strategy: diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) at 
all levels, including the leadership in government.
     And number 10, we need your continued oversight. This 
ought to be an annual hearing. We ought to learn from agencies 
across the board, and you need to visit agencies and see what 
they're doing. There's great things that are going on.
     And finally, help with the government brand by telling 
great stories about what's happening. Thank you so much.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Stier follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairman Foster. And thank you. And I think your--the last 
thing--or second to last thing you said was spot on. The 
importance of having Members of Congress visit the agencies, 
you know, one of my biggest activities in Congress as the Co-
Chair of the National Labs Caucus where I drag Members of 
Congress around to visit the Department of Energy national 
labs, which is--you know, they are without exception just blown 
away with the tremendous science that's being done there. And 
equally important would be in-person visits to all of the 
science operations in all of our Federal agencies, so I 
definitely agree with that.
     And so next is Dr. Rosenberg.

               TESTIMONY OF DR. ANDREW ROSENBERG,

       DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACY,

                 UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

     Dr. Rosenberg. Thank you, Chairman Foster and Ranking 
Member Obernolte and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is 
Andrew Rosenberg, and I direct the Center for Science and 
Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
     Federal scientists are on the frontlines of our Nation's 
capability to respond to society's needs from forecasting 
natural disasters to natural resource management to responding 
to pandemics, and federally funded basic research that enables 
scientific discovery and innovation is critical to economic 
growth, employment, and sustainable development. All science-
based agencies from the Defense Department to NASA to the 
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Energy depend on a 
strong, continuously renewed scientific workforce.
     The last 4 years have seen a significant reduction in the 
scientific workforce at many Federal agencies. Our report with 
the Federal brain drain found that five of the seven agencies 
we analyzed collectively lost more than 1,000 scientific staff. 
Few agencies fared worse than the Environmental Protection 
Agency. In the last 4 years EPA lost nearly 6 percent of its 
workforce and more than 670 staff, including in regional 
offices, especially in the West, Southwest, and Midwest.
     For some agencies, growth stagnated. The CDC (Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention) lost 187 scientific staff prior 
to the pandemic. That's a loss of 2.2 percent. Now, we 
recognize that demography was part of the driving force of this 
loss, but the inflow of new talent was squeezed as well. 
Fellowships were curtailed and recruitment was stagnant.
     Morale matters, too, for retention, recruitment, and 
productivity. We tracked more than 119 instances of attacks on 
science during the Trump Administration, far outnumbering 
previous Administrations. When we surveyed more than 4,000 
Federal scientists in 2018, 80 percent of respondents said they 
noticed workforce reductions and nearly 90 percent reported 
that these losses made it difficult to fulfill their missions. 
And at the EPA fewer than 15 percent of surveyed scientists 
reported their morale is excellent or good.
     In January, the Biden Administration issued a key 
memorandum on restoring trust to government agencies through 
scientific integrity and evidence-based policymaking. That's an 
important step for restoring morale but more is needed. 
Representative Tonko has reintroduced the Scientific Integrity 
Act, which would codify in statute the prevention of political 
interference or manipulation of scientific evidence.
     The Administration and Congress need to rebuild and 
strengthen Federal science--scientific capacity, diversify the 
scientific workforce, and revitalize the pipeline that brings 
early career scientists into civil service. Specifically, 
increasing fellowship programs such as the management--
Presidential Management Fellowship, the STAR, the Sea Grant, 
the Oak Ridge programs bring new talent to agencies, but they 
have been curtailed and need to expand again.
     New fellowship programs should be created that tackle 
other science-related issues such as climate change or equity 
in environmental justice. And to diversify the workforce, 
agencies must also ensure that recruitment is broader and 
compensation resources and benefits for fellows are sufficient 
for those with economic challenges, not just the privileged 
few.
     Recruitment must reach new audiences and counteract the 
tendency for hiring managers to recruit from a known set of 
institutions again and again. Every effort should be made to 
recruit by hosting far more events at historically Black, 
Hispanic, and tribal institutions. The Administration must 
learn from private and nonprofit sectors about recruiting 
tools. Job fairs and other techniques must target a wider array 
of institutions than in the past and account for historical 
disparities in recruitment and hiring. And agencies must learn 
to work effectively with institutions unaccustomed to steering 
students toward civil service. If you want to see how outdated 
the recruitment system is, just have a look at USA Jobs, the 
website that we currently use.
     Reaching scientific capacity quickly will require not only 
recruiting and hiring to fill vacancies but also re-engaging 
with those that have retired from Federal service to regain 
lost knowledge, experience, and expertise. Federal agencies 
must train mid- and senior-level scientists in leadership of 
diverse staffs. Effective science leaders and mentors are not 
necessarily those who publish the most papers or have been in 
service the longest. These are learned skills critical for the 
effectiveness of any enterprise. And young scientists today are 
used to changing jobs and career paths frequently, so the civil 
service must evolve accordingly. More extensively utilizing 
programs for rotating assignments, remote work, joint 
appointments, and joint institutes increases career 
flexibility.
     I appreciate the opportunity to share my views, and I'd be 
happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
     [The prepared statement of Dr. Rosenberg follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairman Foster. I have to unmute. Thank you. And next is 
Dr. Southerland.



            TESTIMONY OF DR. ELIZABETH SOUTHERLAND,

           FORMER DIRECTOR OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

        OFFICE OF WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

     Dr. Southerland. Thank you. Chairman and Ranking Member 
and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I had the 
privilege of working at EPA from 1984 until August of 2017. 
With my Ph.D. in environmental sciences and engineering, I 
worked first as a scientist and then as a manager of scientists 
in the EPA's water and superfund programs. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today.
     While I know that EPA currently has a dedicated team of 
knowledgeable, highly qualified career professionals, today's 
staffing levels are the lowest they have been in 30 years. In 
addition, several hundred career scientists have reported over 
the past 2 years that their research findings were altered or 
suppressed for other than technical reasons.
     As a result, I believe the complex environmental 
challenges of the 21st century cannot be successfully addressed 
unless Congress and the Administration work together to 
significantly increase EPA's staff levels, and EPA leadership 
rebuilds the morale of the workforce.
     Since my retirement, I've been a member of the 
Environmental Protection Network, a bipartisan organization of 
EPA alumni volunteering their time to protect the integrity of 
EPA and its mission. I am here, however, in my personal 
capacity.
     EPA has experienced years of declining resources with 
significant loss of buying power and reductions in staff 
despite the fact that congressionally mandated responsibilities 
have increased substantially over that time. In terms of 
inflation-adjusted dollars, Administrator Regan will have 1/2 
the resources that the agency had in 1980.
     In 2013 and 2014 the Obama Administration gave early out 
retirements to certain senior scientists in order to reduce 
grade levels and the dollars for full-time equivalent (FTE) 
employees. EPA had not backfilled all of those vacated 
positions when the Trump Administration began. Former President 
Trump requested huge cuts in the agency staff every year, and 
his administrators did not authorize any significant hiring 
until 2020. By 2020, over 670 career scientists had left EPA. 
While Congress rejected President Trump's requested budget 
cuts, the Agency's appropriations were basically flatlined 
during these 4 years, further exacerbating the decline in 
buying power.
     I can tell you from personal experience that managers and 
staff in the EPA are doing everything they can to compensate 
for the critically low staff levels, while also struggling with 
out-of-date information technology and lack of cutting-edge 
scientific equipment.
     The lack of staff and resources has forced EPA to focus 
primarily on those rules with statutory or court-ordered 
deadlines. Rules without deadlines, no matter how important for 
public health and environmental protection, are often postponed 
for years or take years to propose and promulgate. One recent 
example of such a delayed rule is the Safe Drinking Water Act's 
lead and copper rule, which was not updated for almost 30 
years, despite the high risk lead poses to our children.
     In order to fully restore the workforce, the new 
Administration should work with Congress to get agreement on a 
4-year goal to rebuild EPA's budget to its 40-year average 
level. This goal would represent a 40 percent increase from 
2021 funding levels.
     Another key opportunity to restore the workforce is for 
the new EPA leadership to reinstate the collaborative working 
relationship with career staff that was lost during the Trump 
Administration. The new leaders should also move quickly to 
identify priority hires for entry-level and senior-level 
scientists, to use all available authorities to speed hiring, 
and invest in a hiring campaign over multiple years that's 
focused on hiring 1,000 of the best, brightest, diverse STEM 
graduates. They must also strengthen staff development and 
strengthen partnerships with EPA bargaining units.
     In conclusion, it is my hope Congress will take concrete 
steps to provide the necessary funds to rebuild the staff and 
core programs and to support critical new initiatives 
addressing climate change and environmental justice. I look 
forward to answering your questions.
     [The prepared statement of Dr. Southerland follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairman Foster. Well, thank you. Thank you all. And at 
this point we'll begin our first round of questions. So the 
Chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes.
     Before we get started, I have statements here from the 
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3403, 
representing NSF employees in STEM fields, and from the Climate 
Science Legal Defense Fund to be entered into the hearing 
record. Without objection, so ordered.
     I guess, you know, I concur with, I guess, all of our 
witnesses here that the Federal Government needs to embrace a 
more innovative and proactive approach in hiring and 
recruitment efforts, especially for young and diverse 
scientists. You know, there are really I think a real hunger 
among this generation of scientists coming out of the--our 
educational system to do something in public service. And 
they're--they really--you know, this is something I've had many 
discussions with about--professors. They said you should have a 
job fair or something like that to--you know, just to make this 
generation of scientists aware of the really tremendous 
opportunities.
     And I think it's also underappreciated how influential an 
excellent scientist can be with a career at least partly in the 
Federal science oversight business because you have--you know, 
you have a tremendous influence that's not often appreciated 
even by the scientific community. And so this is really for--I 
guess for everyone on the panel. And how can things like job 
fairs enhance fellowship programs, streamline hiring 
procedures, and reduction of bureaucratic obstacles? What are 
the most promising initiatives here to really accelerate the 
rebuilding of the scientific workforce?
     Mr. Stier, it looked like you were full of ideas here, so 
we'll start with you.
     Mr. Stier. You're very kind. Chairman Foster, I think it's 
an excellent question, and my advice would be to not think 
about this as an individual intervention but rather think about 
a comprehensive strategy. The reality is is the system is 
breaking down along multiple points, and unless you actually 
deal with the full set of system failings, you'll wind up maybe 
improving the situation but ultimately running into another 
barrier simply further down the pike.
     So absolutely career fairs are great if they're done at 
the right time. Oftentimes, Government comes in the spring 
rather than the fall when a lot of talent is actually thinking 
about what they want to do. But if the people coming to those 
fairs or even people more broadly at the university haven't 
been introduced to the opportunities that exist in government, 
if they're instead thinking about a brand that has been 
tarnished, then you haven't helped yourself a lot. If the 
process of hiring is so difficult that even if they're 
interested once they get to the career fair they're turned 
away, that's a big problem. If they ultimately get hired and 
they leave quickly, then you simply created a bad brand for the 
broader set of peers that they have.
     So I think it's really important to be comprehensive in 
thinking about how to put your arms around this problem and to 
see it as a governmentwide issue for the STEM occupations and 
to create that governmentwide strategy that individual agencies 
can participate in but that they can collaborate in. Certainly, 
there are things you can do in the meanwhile, but I think if 
you really want to move the needle and recognizing the world is 
changing, you need to actually address all those pain points 
along the lifecycle of bringing talent in and keeping it.
     Chairman Foster. Yes. Dr. Rosenberg?
     Dr. Rosenberg. I certainly agree with that. I also think 
that we sometimes--we hurt ourselves with the rhetoric that's 
used around working for the Federal Government. It is really 
public service, and you get to do great science with great 
colleagues, but we need to help people understand that it 
really is a public service job. You are serving the country.
     I also think we sometimes hurt ourselves by implying that 
there is a reduced pipeline. There actually isn't a reduced 
pipeline, and it is very diverse, but we don't recruit fully 
from that pipeline. So I mentioned recruiting from minority-
serving institutions, for example. There are literally 
thousands of engineers, you know, Black engineers--we work with 
the Society for Black Engineers who work with a lot of 
historically Black colleges and universities. There are many, 
many highly trained engineers and other STEM fields across the 
country, but we're not reaching them because we go back to the 
same places to look for staff over and over and over again.
     And then, as the Ranking Member noted, our recruitment 
methods and onboarding procedures are really archaic. And I 
know this as a government management from years ago. I also 
know it from my students when I was in academia subsequent to 
that. You know, the mechanisms for bringing people onboard 
erect so many barriers that by the time a real offer is in 
place, then they've had other offers if they're really 
excellent talent and really want to move forward.
     So a lot of these are self-inflicted wounds. It's not 
because there aren't people. There is a very diverse workforce 
that we could bring onboard. It's just we're not doing it 
effectively.
     Chairman Foster. Thank you. And I guess my time is up, so 
I'll now recognize Mr. Obernolte for 5 minutes.
     Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you very much. And thank you to 
all of our witnesses. This has been a fascinating discussion.
     My first question is for Dr. Rosenberg. In your testimony 
you implied a causal relationship between the policies of the 
Trump Administration and the declines in scientific staffing at 
the EPA. And you mentioned the statistic that the scientific 
workforce at the EPA declined by 3.9 percent during the Trump 
Administration, but looking at a broader set of statistics, 
between 2009 and 2020, the scientific workforce at the EPA 
declined by about 16.6 percent. So on an annualized basis, 
those declines were higher during the Obama Administration than 
they were during the Trump Administration.
     Now, I don't find that comforting. I find that alarming 
because that tells me that this wasn't an isolated incident 
just tied to the policies of one Administration. This is a 
long-term trend. So, I mean, do you share that concern? Is this 
isolated or is this long-term trend that we need to be 
concerned with?
     Dr. Rosenberg. Well, I do share the concern that it's a 
long-term trend, and I did only very briefly mention the role 
of demographics in the staffing at agencies. So several things 
have happened at once, and I firmly believe that the policies 
of the Trump Administration, if you like, harmed the brand in 
those terms. But we also have many scientists of my generation 
if you like--I'm going to be 66 in a month or so--that are 
going to leave the workforce anyway. The question is do you 
replace them or do you replace them only with contractors? And 
so many previous Administrations have shifted to using contract 
staff. And while that in some cases can be efficient and it 
might be short-term cost-effective, it actually doesn't help 
build the strength of an agency to do the long-term work 
because contractors are always looking for the next opportunity 
or more permanence. And so this is a long-term trend with 
multiple factors involved.
     Now, the Trump Administration isn't the only 
Administration that has had challenges on certain issues 
related to things like scientific integrity, the ability of 
scientists to do their work without political manipulation or 
censorship, but it was a more extreme circumstance. So all of 
those combining factors I think are things that need to be 
addressed to try to stabilize and improve the workforce. Now, 
that doesn't mean that every scientist coming in will be a 30-
year Federal employee because that's not the way people go into 
their jobs these days. So we need to think of alternative ways 
for people to move in and out of government. And I happen to be 
one person who has moved in and out of government, and it's 
possible but difficult.
     Mr. Obernolte. Great. Thank you. I completely agree with 
you.
     And just following up on that, a question for Mr. Stier. 
You said something that I found absolutely fascinating about 
how we need to rebuild the Federal brand and make sure that our 
Federal branding is helping us recruit the talent that we need 
to. And I think Dr. Rosenberg just mentioned something along 
that same line. So I kind of think that we miss out sometimes 
on the opportunity to, as Dr. Rosenberg said, play up the fact 
that we are in the business of public service, so in addition 
to being able to do great science, we get the opportunity to 
serve our fellow constituent, you know, in ways that are 
impossible to do in academia and in the private sector.
     So I just wanted to give you the balance of my time to 
talk about how we might go about restoring that brand and 
burnishing that brand because I think it's extremely important.
     Mr. Stier. Thank you so much, and I think you're 100 
percent right. If you look at the data, our Best Places to Work 
rankings, what you'll see, as I mentioned earlier, that 
relative to the private sector, the employee engagement scores 
are on average 15 points lower in the Federal Government than 
they are in the private sector. But if you look at the mission 
commitment, it's the one place where the Federal workforce 
wherever you are, NASA, NOAA, NIST (National Institute of 
Standards and Technology), it just beats the private sector 
in--with a very big margin.
     The government has something very special, and it's the 
reasons why you're all here as well is the ability to serve the 
American public, purpose, mission, and that mission is really 
the basis for an incredible value proposition. If you wanted--
you look at, bluntly, the contractor firms, they try to present 
their mission as what the government should be doing. You're 
serving the American public, that's why you're here and on and 
on. So the government is not utilizing its core value 
proposition, and it needs to do that in a concentrated way. And 
part of the way it can do that is by telling the story of its 
own workforce. You think about the amazing people helping the 
American public in extraordinary ways, innovative ways. Those 
stories don't go out to the public. They don't even go out to 
the broader workforce inside the Federal Government. We do not 
have a recognition culture in government. There's a lot of 
infrastructure to find a problem, not a lot of infrastructure 
to find the good things. You actually build more strength and 
deal with your weaknesses if you have an upside and if you 
create that recognition culture. So that's where I would begin. 
Begin from the core strength around mission and around the 
achievements of the people that are there. Stories matter, and 
the government has a lot of them that we need to tell better.
     Mr. Obernolte. Right, thank you. I completely agree. And 
just to tie into my opening, I think we need to be more 
entrepreneurial in our approach to recruiting top talent. We 
are never going to be able to compete in terms of salary with 
institutions in the private sector, but we do have a unique 
advantage in the mission that we fulfill, and I think that's 
why we're all in government is this desire to serve our fellow 
man.
     So I want to thank you to all of our witnesses. It's been 
a fascinating discussion.
     Chairman Foster. Thank you. And I will now recognize our 
colleague from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, for 5 minutes.
     Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And the Ranking 
Member, I appreciate the comments of both of you. And just a 
point, Mr. Obernolte said, you know, competition against the 
private sector, competition against academia, there's also 
competition with foreign governments. And we can't forget that. 
And I'll get back to that in a second.
     But my first question is to you, Director Wright and to 
you, Dr. Rosenberg. You talked about contractors. And in my 
area we have the National Renewable Energy Lab, we have NIST 
labs, we have all sorts of labs, and we've seen the contractor 
population really grow. Is there a reason for that in terms of 
the law or what is it that's driving this move from civilian 
employment to contractor employment if you could? And start 
with you, Director Wright.
     Ms. Wright. Thank you for that question, Congressman 
Perlmutter. So I would say that, you know, with regard to 
contractors, there could certainly be a more lucrative 
opportunity financially that they may see, you know, working in 
a contracting--contractor environment rather than in the 
Federal Government.
     You know, our work certainly has shown, you know, that you 
really have to have good practices in place to retain employees 
so that they will feel a commitment to the mission, commitment 
to the work, and not necessarily, you know, just be focused on 
the financial aspects. You know, there is certainly the 
opportunity to really hone in on what the function of the 
government's mission is for the employees, and they might then, 
you know, consider Federal employment rather than, you know, 
pursuing opportunities with a contractor.
     But I think Dr. Rosenberg had touched on the contractor 
issue, so I'll defer to him for additional comments.
     Mr. Perlmutter. OK. Thank you.
     Dr. Rosenberg. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I 
think there's a number of factors at play. Every Administration 
that I've been involved in, which is, you know, the last--going 
back to the first Bush Administration when I was in Federal 
Government beginning my Federal service--has wanted to be able 
to point to statistics showing that they've decreased the size 
of government. And one way you do that is you have fewer full-
time employees but you replace them with contractors. And so 
there's a political reason here I would say, although you're a 
better judge of that than I am.
     There also is a reason around the concern for pension 
obligations of course and for flexibility in staff as budgets 
go up and down, and so stability and agency budgets is an 
important part of this as well.
     And more importantly every other sector, including the 
nonprofit sector and certainly the for-profit sector, is sort 
of thinking about jobs as what are the things that we need to 
do and we know we're going to need to do tomorrow and we're 
going to need to do in the long-term, and what are those things 
that are shorter-term and we need more flexibility to do them? 
And the government often doesn't do that.
     So you hire more contractors at places like national labs 
and within the agencies even for long-term tasks because you're 
not allowed to bring on full-time employees under the hiring 
system because of the way that budgets are constructed and FTEs 
are allocated. And that does cause real problems because those 
scientists are going to look for more stable opportunities, and 
I know many young scientists who come in as contractors, and 
that unfortunately is their situation. They're always looking 
elsewhere.
     Mr. Perlmutter. All right. Thank you. Let me ask one more 
question of Mr. Stier. I noticed that you worked for Jim Leach, 
and then you clerked for a Judge of the Second Circuit and the 
Supreme Court and you also touted internships. So do you want 
to expand on why you think internships or clerkships are 
important for recruiting talent?
     Mr. Stier. Absolutely. And if I could for 2 seconds I just 
want to add that on the contractor point it's often a 
workaround. If the hiring system is broken, the only way you 
can get your talent is through contracting. It's obviously not 
the right motivation, but it's really important to understand 
that so much in government is about working around a crazy 
system, and this is an example of it.
     Internships, to your question, is a very important issue. 
If you look at any knowledge-based organization in our country, 
they get their entry talent primarily through internships. 
That's true whether it's in the law like you just mentioned. 
It's true if you work on the Hill. It's true if you're an 
economist. It's true everywhere. That's not true in the 
executive branch, and that's a big problem. By and large, 
interns are not seen as a core piece or the core piece of the 
entry pipeline in the Federal Government, and if anything, the 
number of folks that are converting from internships into full-
time employees has been--is being reduced.
     Some of this has to do with the fact that, again, leaders 
don't own this, they don't see it as their responsibility, and 
as a result, they're not focused on the longer-term pipeline 
that they ought to be paying attention to. Some of it is just 
bad rules.
     Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Stier, sorry, my time is expired. I 
appreciate--I'm going to probably send you a note wanting you 
to expand on the internships. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that 
extra time. I yield back.
     Chairman Foster. Thank you. And we will now recognize our 
colleague from Texas, Mr. Sessions, for 5 minutes.
     Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, 
interesting discussion. I don't believe I have a different 
perspective than any of the other Members here, nor do I think 
I have a different perspective, but I'd like to throw some 
things in that simply acknowledge the parameters that we've 
been talking about. I am well aware that we either made a 
mistake or we did not when we made the R&D (research and 
development) tax credit permanent. That meant that companies 
that could not count on their R&D budget being a part of their 
regular write-off as an expense changed overnight, and 
companies began hiring long-term employees. That competed 
against a lot of universities, against a lot of medical 
institutions because the Federal Government does not in my 
opinion pay anything that would be an end-of-year bonus that 
competes with stock options or other things that other people 
provide.
     My point is is that we've got institutions, medical 
institutions, we've got other areas, universities that just 
bust their hump to get what they need. And the numbers of 
people that are out there who are qualified is the issue.
     And that's why I think, as I recall Ed, Dr. Bera, perhaps 
you, too, have been involved in science-based projects back in 
junior and senior high levels, Odyssey of the Mind, these robot 
competitions, things that bring people to science in 7th, 8th, 
9th, 10th grade with equivalent feel-good success stories that 
continued them through this process.
     My son, who's now 31, went to one of the leading-edge 
institutions, private school, was a 35 out of 36 and was about 
midrange of his class. A number of people just--was a great 
school. He's the only one that chose to go into medicine. 
Everybody else chose to go where they could make money.
     And so the opportunities that we need to understand I 
think, yes, they're in internships. I do agree with that, but 
we also I think need to robustly have, Mr. Chairman, someone 
who can tell us about the pipeline, about the pipeline of the 
types of contests--yes, I said that word, but they might be 
generated through competitions that bring these leading-edge 
people to want to build something better and see what the 
competition is through--and some of it is just double E, 
electrical sciences, but I think we ought to hear from people 
who also do understand the pipeline, junior high, high school, 
but, you know, I also think that, as I went to the labs in New 
Jersey, I was on the hiring team, and I'll just tell you, we 
went to University of Chicago, we went to MIT (Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology), and we went to Caltech, and we honed 
our science of what we were after. And I think that these 
institutions produce leading-edge people. We just need more 
people in the pipeline.
     So I don't know if anybody, Elizabeth, you may have 
something on there. Andrew, you may have that--the young 
doctors that are here, but I really want to focus on the 
pipeline. Yes, we need to do a better job with the internships, 
but we really need to build the number of people who want 
science as opposed to us grinding each other down on the few 
that we get. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll let panel take the 
remaining 2 seconds that I have.
     Chairman Foster. It seems like 40 seconds are sort of de 
rigueur here, so if anyone wants to grab 40 seconds, that's 
legit. All right. Dr. Rosenberg.
     Dr. Rosenberg. Thank you. And thank you for the question. 
I actually think that the pipeline is much bigger than people 
appreciate, but as you noted, Congressman, the--you know, if 
you go to the University of Chicago and MIT and Caltech and you 
keep going back to those places, you're only looking at a 
limited portion of the people who actually do STEM work.
     On the other hand, you know, Texas Southern has great 
engineering and science programs. All of the Houston schools 
actually, you know, train scientists. But many agencies and 
many scientists only go back to the places they know repeatedly 
or the places that they were trained, and that's a very natural 
tendency. But--and I've seen it in every institution that I've 
worked in. But it does us a disservice when you're trying to 
expand the opportunity for candidates across a much broader set 
of institutions to think that it's only the elite institutions 
that are training people who could do the job, and so that's 
part of it.
     Chairman Foster. I think the 40 seconds of forbearance are 
sufficient.
     Dr. Rosenberg. OK. Sorry. Sorry.
     Chairman Foster. Thank you. I'll now recognize our 
colleague from California, Dr. Bera, for 5 minutes.
     Mr. Bera. Great, thanks, Mr. Chairman. And this is 
fascinating and certainly a long-term challenge. You know, one 
idea that we've toyed with and, you know, as we think about the 
debate that's taking place around student debt and whether you 
retire student debts, I've always thought that, you know, 
instead of just retiring that student debt and forgiving it, we 
ought to use that as a mechanism to try to get folks to serve, 
whether that's, you know, coming to work in the Federal 
Government fulfilling critical needs or going out and doing 
service, you know, through some other mechanism like the Peace 
Corps, AmeriCorps, or other programs. And, you know, again, I 
don't know that we get any benefit of just forgiving $50,000 of 
loans or $100,000 of loans, but if we could get someone to come 
fill a critical need and perhaps they work for 4 years and you 
forgive $50,000 or $100,000 of loans. By that time they have 
seen what they can do in the Federal Government. You know, 
they're accruing retirement, they're doing some things, and 
hopefully you can get a cohort of those young Americans to 
continue to stay and consider a career in the Federal 
Government. So that's one thing. And I think we ought to work 
on that as a Subcommittee perhaps to address this critical need 
and, you know, do something in a bipartisan way.
     The second piece that, you know, we've thought a lot about 
is there is a talented workforce that has been serving our 
country in the military and in our armed services often doing 
high-level skills perhaps without a degree, but they're 
operating, you know, doing cybersecurity work, et cetera. 
They've learned on the job. When they leave the military, the 
challenge sometimes is we don't actually recognize and put a 
value on that skill set. I know most closely in the medical 
workforce where if folks are operating as EMTs (emergency 
medical technicians) and--but they don't actually have that 
formal degree, so now they come out, we don't actually provide 
a value to that. We may ask them to go back and get a 4-year 
college degree so then they can enter the workforce. I think it 
behooves us to think about ways to take some of these folks as 
they're exiting military service perhaps to figure out how to 
value that, bring them into government service, you know, 
provide some training while they, you know, continue to work, 
and I think that's also another potential pipeline of folks 
that, you know, have already demonstrated a commitment to 
serving the country and now, you know, we could do them a 
service by giving them a job, getting them--and perhaps while 
they're working, continue to upskill them.
     I guess, you know, to any of the panelists, you know, 
thoughts on, you know, whether the idea of student loan 
forgiveness, should----
     Ms. Wright. So----
     Mr. Bera. I guess Mr. Stier if you want to----
     Ms. Wright. OK.
     Mr. Bera [continuing]. You know, take that.
     Mr. Stier. Ms. Wright, do you want to go first, and then 
I'll go after you?
     Ms. Wright. OK. So I was just going to note that, 
certainly, the student loan repayment is one of the pay 
authorities that agencies are using, and they do say that 
it's--you know, in our work we've heard from agencies that they 
do say that it is working well. What we don't know is the 
extent to which it's working in terms of how long--you know, 
what does it say about how long people will stay at the agency, 
and so that's something that we've called on OPM to, you know, 
look at the effectiveness of these various pay authorities and 
to understand the extent to which it is working and making an 
impact in recruitment and retention.
     Mr. Stier. So just to follow up on Ms. Wright's comments 
there, there is authority. Agencies use it very unevenly and in 
my view not nearly enough. There's clearly more work, as Ms. 
Wright [inaudible] understand how effective is, but anecdotally 
we're seeing that this is a major deal for talent to be able to 
have their debt forgiven and by and large, again, there are 
very few agencies that use it to the extent they could.
     If you want to think about this even more ambitiously, 
you--I think there is room to create a program like the ROTC 
(Reserve Officers' Training Corps) program that the military 
has for the civilian side where you're actually getting talent 
to come in with that service payoff commitment. You're helping 
them pay for their education while they're getting it with the 
expectation then that they will come serve their country in the 
government. And we've done a bunch of work around this and 
would love to talk to you if you're interested in that as a 
concept.
     Mr. Bera. Absolutely. We will follow up on that.
     So anyone else in the last 18 seconds? Dr. Rosenberg?
     Dr. Rosenberg. Yes, I would just point out that many 
students that I talk to would like to go into public service, 
are more interested in the academic sector, which has become 
less attractive. And they want to do--you know, work for 
government because they want to make a difference, and it--you 
know, money is important, but there are huge barriers 
particularly for lower-income students to doing so, not only 
student loans but the ability to--for compensation on things 
like internships and fellowships, and that actually needs to be 
addressed so that you can, again, diversify the workforce but 
also just a bigger talent pool of people who can actually 
afford to take these opportunities.
     Mr. Bera. Great, thank you, Chair, and I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
     Chairman Foster. Thank you. And we will now recognize the 
Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Lucas from Oklahoma, 
for 5 minutes.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Wright, in your 
testimony you note that in October of 2020 GAO reported that 
various factors such as unclear job application processes, long 
wait lines for job offers have been identified as contributing 
to the Federal Government's workforce deficiencies in certain 
areas and job categories. Can you please elaborate on these 
findings and how they relate to the USA Jobs portal?
     Ms. Wright. Certainly, happy to take that question, 
Congressman. So I would say with regard to USA Jobs, it's 
certainly something that many people would say isn't the most 
user-friendly experience, and GAO actually did work, as you 
noted last year, looking at what steps OPM is taking to improve 
the website.
     Certainly, a couple of things that we identified is that 
they have really taken a step looking toward looking at using 
data analytics, using web analytics I should say to understand 
where their users are coming from but also, too, putting in 
place different features that would allow you to understand--
allow the applicant, I should say, to understand, you know, 
what the status is of their application because that was 
something that they were getting a lot of calls on.
     There are other things that OPM is considering to help 
improve the experience with USA Jobs, which would include, you 
know, letting applicants know how many other applicants have 
applied and then also notifying applicants when jobs have been 
filled, so that's something that they're continuing to work on 
for the future. They recognize it's a problem, and are taking 
steps to try to improve the system.
     Mr. Lucas. Is it true that sometimes it can take an 
average of 90 days or more for new hires to be onboarded?
     Ms. Wright. We've certainly heard those average 
timeframes. I think one of the challenges is sort of 
understanding when one starts the clock for estimating the 
onboarding time. One of the things that we've heard is that is 
consistently a challenge is--and contributes to the delays are 
security clearances. That's something that GAO has reported on, 
you know, quite a bit in terms of the challenges with getting 
personnel security clearances on time, and we can see where 
that is contributing to delays in onboarding.
     Mr. Lucas. Mr. Stier, can you provide some insights on how 
this may be discouraging especially to recent graduates and 
early career researchers just entering the workforce?
     Mr. Stier. Yes, absolutely, I think it is a massive 
problem, and it's not only the time to hire which you've 
identified and it's a big problem. Great talent is going to 
have options, and they're going to take the option that is 
easier for them and more available than wait, especially when 
they don't know how long it's going to take. So there's no 
doubt that the government is losing out on a lot of talent.
     I would note that there are other problems beyond that, 
including the fact that 90 percent of the job searches involve 
simply the review of self-reported qualifications or the 
resume, not actual subject matter experts looking at their 
resumes and talking to people to determine if they are in fact 
best qualified for the jobs. And then 50 percent of the 
searches wind up getting sent back and never even actually 
used. This is a deeply broken problem. The front door of USA 
Jobs is the starting point, but then there are a series of 
issues where this process breaks down that also have to be 
addressed.
     Mr. Lucas. So it's fair to say that some of the brightest 
people in the country who may very well have many job 
opportunities, potential choices become essentially frustrated 
even at the very beginning, let alone before they become a part 
of the Federal process.
     Mr. Stier. Absolutely.
     Mr. Lucas. I can see why that would be so discouraging.
     Staying with you, Mr. Stier, for a moment, I know we 
discussed a variety of topics this morning, but you acknowledge 
that internships are a critical component of the talent 
pipeline and confirm that Federal agencies should strategically 
recruit and hire college students, but you also emphasize the 
benefits of reaching future scientists earlier in their lives. 
Can you touch for a moment about how STEM education and 
exposure to the work of Federal scientists provides fundamental 
experiences for students at an early age, perhaps maybe even in 
elementary school?
     Mr. Stier. Sure. And I think Congressman Sessions had it 
absolutely right that, you know, there is definite need for the 
Federal Government to do better in its recruiting and retaining 
top STEM talent, and we need to increase the pipeline more 
broadly for our country writ large. And the way you do that is 
starting earlier.
     I would say the role model here is NASA. You know, you 
hear from Charlie Bolden. You know, he participated--former 
NASA Administrator for 8 years, astronaut. He did stuff early 
on in his education. It's the way that the best-in-class 
organizations actually encourage and improve their brand is to 
touch people very early on, and there are great ways for the 
Federal Government to do that.
     Mr. Lucas. I'd say thank you to all of our witnesses, and 
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
     Chairman Foster. Thank you. And the Chair will now 
recognize my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Casten, for 5 
minutes.
     Mr. Casten. Thank you to my colleague from Illinois and 
our Chairman, and thank you so much to our panelists.
     The--Dr. Rosenberg, I want to start with you and 
specifically about a report that UCS did in 2018 in part 
because it jibed so closely with my own experience in 
conversations with a lot of EPA staff. You have a report that 
was detailing the crisis of morale in certain Federal 
scientific agencies and specifically if I got this right nearly 
1/3 of the respondents at EPA felt that, quote, ``influences of 
political appointees in your agency or department or the 
influence of the White House were the greatest barriers to 
making science-based decisions at that agency.'' And it seemed 
to have a pretty clear impact on morale. In 2018 less than 15 
percent of EPA scientists surveyed by UCS indicated that their 
morale was excellent or even good, and that compared with 
nearly 40 percent who felt that way in 2007. As I mentioned, 
that was extremely consistent with the conversation I had--
conversations I had informally with folks at EPA.
     Could you just chat a bit with us about how scientific 
integrity violations and the politicization of science have 
contributed to staffing losses at those agencies, and I guess 
on a more optimistic side how a scientific integrity statute 
could help in retaining good scientists?
     Dr. Rosenberg. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 
And you very accurately cited our survey results. And I should 
point out that we've been surveying Federal scientists for many 
years now. This was not a one-off efforts in 2018, and so we 
had the ability and have published the comparisons to previous 
surveys.
     A couple of things happened. Certainly, the politicization 
of science was a concern with reports being altered or 
censored, and I think Dr. Southerland can speak to that very 
directly particularly at the EPA but not exclusively at the 
EPA. You may have seen the report yesterday that in an 
investigation at the CDC at least three major reports during 
the course of the pandemic were altered by political appointees 
or outside actors during the course of the pandemic that 
related to things such as school opening. But at the EPA either 
science was completely sidelined or censored or manipulated. It 
became a recurrent problem. And the second part of that problem 
was that for many decisions, the career professionals were not 
even in the room, were not even involved in the decisionmaking 
on some of the issues that we worked on. And I can see Dr. 
Southerland nodding, and she may want to expand on that.
     So scientific integrity policies, if they are strengthened 
and codified in statute, can actually give scientists a way to 
ensure that their scientific evidence will not be politically 
manipulated. And while that's been articulated by the 
Presidential memorandum, it's not codified in statute right 
now, and so it could be backed away from in many cases or is 
less--carries less weight than if the Scientific Integrity Act 
went through. So that gives scientists more assurance that the 
work that they do will actually be--present--the evidence that 
they gather will actually be presented as scientific evidence, 
not be manipulated for other reasons. Now, lots of other things 
go into decisionmaking, but you shouldn't manipulate the 
scientific evidence to justify a decision.
     Mr. Casten. So I know we're short on time, so let me put 
this--and I know that you have given a few shoutouts to Dr. 
Southerland, so let me just put this to either one of you who 
would like to answer. We need to atone for the sins of the 
past, but we also have to deal with the realities of where we 
are. And as we think about how to restore this workforce--and, 
again, my own experience is that, you know, we lost some good 
and senior talent. So how much of what we need to do going 
forward is attracting people back when they have left the 
agency early versus bringing new people in to fill those slots? 
And what does that mean? Because preparing for the workforce of 
the future is of course a little bit different than attracting 
people back who are late career stages. And if--I'm just 
curious if either of you have any comment about which of those 
you think is more important to prioritize given the set of 
cards we have dealt however much we may not like----
     Dr. Southerland. So I think I'm finally unmuted by the 
host. I'm having a lot of trouble with verbal. I think the 
important thing will be to get the new employees. What we can 
do with people who have left is we have the ability to bring 
them on even as temporary mentors or part-time employees that 
can help restore the institutional knowledge at the Agency. But 
I think the real emphasis needs to be to get us new, qualified 
young people who can really revitalize the mission.
     Mr. Casten. Thank you, and I yield back.
     Chairman Foster. Thank you. And as we bring this to a 
close, I'd like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Obernolte, 
for some brief closing comments.
     Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
all four of our panelists. This has been an incredibly helpful 
discussion. I think we all share a unified belief that we need 
to enhance the role of scientists in our Federal workforce and 
to create an environment that is welcoming to them and that can 
be successfully competitive against the other entities that are 
seeking to hire this talent as it comes out of our schools and 
universities. So let's definitely continue this discussion as 
things move forward. I think there are lots of excellent ideas 
raised here today, we stand with you unified ready to try and 
implement some policy changes that will help us enhance the 
competitiveness of the Federal Government in that respect. So 
thank you, everyone. Happy St. Patrick's Day.
     Chairman Foster. Thank you. And I'd like to reiterate our 
thanks to the--to our witnesses, you know, not only for your 
verbal testimony but the really high-quality written testimony, 
as well as the documents that they referred to. I confess I 
stayed up way too late last night reading your written 
testimony, and, you know, I commend it to my colleagues and 
their staff really because this is something that Congress and 
this Committee is going to have to come back to repeatedly, 
that when we hopefully come up with a plan to double the 
overall scientific effort, that that is accompanied by a plan 
to overcome the near-term emergency issues, as well as the 
structural changes to ensure that we have the strongest 
possible scientific workforce in our--for our government.
     So I thank you all again, and before--and so the record 
will remain open for 2 weeks for additional statements from 
Members for any additional questions to the Committee that they 
may have for our witnesses. The witnesses are excused, and the 
hearing is now adjourned.
     [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the Subcommittee was 
adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Responses by Mr. Max Stier
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Responses by Dr. Andrew Rosenberg
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              


                   Additional Material for the Record

             Report submitted by Representative Bill Foster
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Statements submitted by Representative Bill Foster
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Report submitted by Dr. Andrew Rosenberg
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]