U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

97–567PDF 2015

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 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

HON. BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DON BEYER, Virginia 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

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 

(1) 

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. 
2 
3 
4 
5 

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 com-
6 

pletely 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 ad-
7 

vantage 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 
8 

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 cuttingedge 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:] 
9 

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 conflictsof-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. 
10 

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 
11 

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 tre-
12 

mendous 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 man-
13 

agement 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 
14 

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:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

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 everchanging 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 man-
27 

datory 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:] 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 

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 marketforce value for these folks in order to get them to come to the agency and serve. 
33 

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 longterm 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 fulltime, 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, 
34 

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 longterm federal staff, and therefore, you have to take resources out of 
35 

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 
36 

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 humanset 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. 
37 

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 
38 

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. 
39 

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 
40 

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. 
41 

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.] 

(43) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
44 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Richard Buckius 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

(53) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
54 

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. 
55 

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 meritreview 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. 
56 

REPORT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BARRY LOUDERMILK
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 

Æ