    [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]