Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - BRAIN DRAIN: REBUILDING THE FEDERAL SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


	BRAIN DRAIN: REBUILDING
	THE FEDERAL SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE

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

	HEARING

	BEFORE THE

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
	AND OVERSIGHT

	OF THE

	COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
	AND TECHNOLOGY
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	__________

	MARCH 17, 2021

	__________

	Serial No. 117-4

	__________

	Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

	[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

	__________

	U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
	43-704PDF WASHINGTON : 2021

	-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

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

	Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

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


	C O N T E N T S

	March 17, 2021

	Page

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

	Opening Statements

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

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

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

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

	Witnesses:

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

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

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

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

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

	Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

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

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

	Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

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

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

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


	BRAIN DRAIN: REBUILDING
	THE FEDERAL SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE

	----------


	WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

	TESTIMONY OF MS. CANDICE WRIGHT, ACTING DIRECTOR,

	SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, AND ANALYTICS,

	U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

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

	Chairman Foster. Thank you very much for that. And thank
	you for all the work that you and the GAO does, you know, every
	year for us.
	So reading over your written testimony earlier reminded me
	of how important it is to have you around for--to lengthen the
	attention span of the U.S. Congress.
	And so next is Mr. Stier.

	TESTIMONY OF MR. MAX STIER, PRESIDENT AND CEO,

	PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

	Mr. Stier. Thank you, Chairman Foster and Ranking Member
	Obernolte and all the Members of the Subcommittee. It is
	tremendous to see the bipartisan approach that you've taken to
	such a vital issue. Your Committee staff has done an
	exceptional job at laying out the problem, and I thought I
	would take my time to talk about why the problem exists and
	offering a few recommendations about what you can do about it.
	Starting with why the problem exists, if we don't
	understand that in the right way, we'll never solve it. And
	there are five big reasons that I would focus on in terms of
	the problems that are facing recruiting and hiring top-tier
	STEM talent begins with the fact that the Federal brand itself
	has been damaged. Government shutdowns, hiring freezes,
	negative rhetoric, political interference in science have all
	tarnished that brand.
	No. 2, opportunities for young people are hidden and
	scarce. You can see this from one devastating statistic. Just 4
	percent of new hires in the Federal Government are drawn from
	Federal programs employing current students and recent
	graduates. The talent doesn't know about the opportunities, and
	therefore, they can't even pursue them.
	No. 3 and really important, the hiring process is deeply
	broken. The barriers to entry are many. I can take my entire 5
	minutes and many more on this issue. One stat that has already
	been cited is that it takes nearly 100 days to hire people on
	average, which is more than double what you would see in the
	private sector, but the barriers are way more diverse and
	problematic than that.
	And No. 4, very important here, even when people are hired
	into the STEM field, we aren't retaining that talent once
	recruited. The full-time employees under 30 who voluntarily
	quit the Federal Government, nearly 3/4 of them have only been
	there for 2 years. One of the key reasons for this is that
	we're not creating an environment that is welcoming, that grows
	them. We see that in our Best Places to Work employee
	engagement scores, which are 15 points below in the Federal
	Government than they are in the private sector.
	And finally, clearly, diversity in STEM is a real issue in
	the general workforce and a very prominent one in the Federal
	Government itself. So now we need to do more than just admire
	this problem. We need to actually do something about it. So
	here are 10 quick ideas that I can extend on if they are
	interested in the question-and-answer period.
	No. 1, it begins with leadership. We need to create high
	expectations of Federal leaders to own this problem, and that
	includes in Congress the work that you're doing is fundamental.
	We have a public sector leadership model. What does it look
	like to be a leader in government, and I would advise that this
	Committee and Congress more general hold executives to that
	model. There's also in terms of accountability our Best Places
	to Work rankings around effective leadership. And finally, I
	would say we ultimately need to reduce the number of political
	appointees, and that would make a big difference.
	No. 2, we need to promote the government's mission, and
	this is something that NASA (National Aeronautics and Space
	Administration) has done very well as an example with their
	custom-built career website that includes video stories and
	great things that NASA people are doing. We have our Service to
	America medals. We need to tell the stories that will then
	encourage others to follow.
	No. 3, we need to improve recruiting and hiring, again,
	lots to be done here, but the beginning point is to enact the
	civil service recommendations from the final report of the
	National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service.
	They did a tremendous job. That stuff is ready to go.
	No. 4, we need to get young people in government, and one
	of the key ways to do that is to have internships be the
	primary mechanism of bringing them in. Government doesn't use
	internships nearly enough, paid internships, and there's more
	that can be done.
	No. 5, we need to promote innovative talent models.
	Partnership has the cyber talent initiative where we work with
	several companies, MasterCard, Microsoft, Workday, and a dozen
	Federal agencies to create a 2-year special fellowship for top
	talent in cyber to come into government. Those kinds of special
	channels work, and we need to invest in more of them.
	No. 6, we need to overhaul the pay and classification
	system. Think about it, the pay system we use today was
	designed in 1949. No private sector company is in business
	today operating under the same system as it did 70 years ago
	with respect to compensation. It doesn't work.
	No. 7, we need to invest in the H.R. workforce and create
	a governmentwide STEM human capital strategy. It's one
	government and yet it operates vertically, not good enough.
	No. 8, we need to create a culture that embraces
	technology, innovation, and collaboration. The pandemic has
	created lots of innovation. It should serve as a future model
	of how government can operate, lots to talk about there.
	Nine, I mentioned DEI has to be a key part of this
	workforce strategy: diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) at
	all levels, including the leadership in government.
	And number 10, we need your continued oversight. This
	ought to be an annual hearing. We ought to learn from agencies
	across the board, and you need to visit agencies and see what
	they're doing. There's great things that are going on.
	And finally, help with the government brand by telling
	great stories about what's happening. Thank you so much.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Stier follows:]
	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Chairman Foster. And thank you. And I think your--the last
	thing--or second to last thing you said was spot on. The
	importance of having Members of Congress visit the agencies,
	you know, one of my biggest activities in Congress as the Co-
	Chair of the National Labs Caucus where I drag Members of
	Congress around to visit the Department of Energy national
	labs, which is--you know, they are without exception just blown
	away with the tremendous science that's being done there. And
	equally important would be in-person visits to all of the
	science operations in all of our Federal agencies, so I
	definitely agree with that.
	And so next is Dr. Rosenberg.

	TESTIMONY OF DR. ANDREW ROSENBERG,

	DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACY,

	UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

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

	Chairman Foster. I have to unmute. Thank you. And next is
	Dr. Southerland.



	TESTIMONY OF DR. ELIZABETH SOUTHERLAND,

	FORMER DIRECTOR OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

	OFFICE OF WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	Dr. Southerland. Thank you. Chairman and Ranking Member
	and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I had the
	privilege of working at EPA from 1984 until August of 2017.
	With my Ph.D. in environmental sciences and engineering, I
	worked first as a scientist and then as a manager of scientists
	in the EPA's water and superfund programs. Thank you for the
	opportunity to testify today.
	While I know that EPA currently has a dedicated team of
	knowledgeable, highly qualified career professionals, today's
	staffing levels are the lowest they have been in 30 years. In
	addition, several hundred career scientists have reported over
	the past 2 years that their research findings were altered or
	suppressed for other than technical reasons.
	As a result, I believe the complex environmental
	challenges of the 21st century cannot be successfully addressed
	unless Congress and the Administration work together to
	significantly increase EPA's staff levels, and EPA leadership
	rebuilds the morale of the workforce.
	Since my retirement, I've been a member of the
	Environmental Protection Network, a bipartisan organization of
	EPA alumni volunteering their time to protect the integrity of
	EPA and its mission. I am here, however, in my personal
	capacity.
	EPA has experienced years of declining resources with
	significant loss of buying power and reductions in staff
	despite the fact that congressionally mandated responsibilities
	have increased substantially over that time. In terms of
	inflation-adjusted dollars, Administrator Regan will have 1/2
	the resources that the agency had in 1980.
	In 2013 and 2014 the Obama Administration gave early out
	retirements to certain senior scientists in order to reduce
	grade levels and the dollars for full-time equivalent (FTE)
	employees. EPA had not backfilled all of those vacated
	positions when the Trump Administration began. Former President
	Trump requested huge cuts in the agency staff every year, and
	his administrators did not authorize any significant hiring
	until 2020. By 2020, over 670 career scientists had left EPA.
	While Congress rejected President Trump's requested budget
	cuts, the Agency's appropriations were basically flatlined
	during these 4 years, further exacerbating the decline in
	buying power.
	I can tell you from personal experience that managers and
	staff in the EPA are doing everything they can to compensate
	for the critically low staff levels, while also struggling with
	out-of-date information technology and lack of cutting-edge
	scientific equipment.
	The lack of staff and resources has forced EPA to focus
	primarily on those rules with statutory or court-ordered
	deadlines. Rules without deadlines, no matter how important for
	public health and environmental protection, are often postponed
	for years or take years to propose and promulgate. One recent
	example of such a delayed rule is the Safe Drinking Water Act's
	lead and copper rule, which was not updated for almost 30
	years, despite the high risk lead poses to our children.
	In order to fully restore the workforce, the new
	Administration should work with Congress to get agreement on a
	4-year goal to rebuild EPA's budget to its 40-year average
	level. This goal would represent a 40 percent increase from
	2021 funding levels.
	Another key opportunity to restore the workforce is for
	the new EPA leadership to reinstate the collaborative working
	relationship with career staff that was lost during the Trump
	Administration. The new leaders should also move quickly to
	identify priority hires for entry-level and senior-level
	scientists, to use all available authorities to speed hiring,
	and invest in a hiring campaign over multiple years that's
	focused on hiring 1,000 of the best, brightest, diverse STEM
	graduates. They must also strengthen staff development and
	strengthen partnerships with EPA bargaining units.
	In conclusion, it is my hope Congress will take concrete
	steps to provide the necessary funds to rebuild the staff and
	core programs and to support critical new initiatives
	addressing climate change and environmental justice. I look
	forward to answering your questions.
	[The prepared statement of Dr. Southerland follows:]
	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

	Appendix I

	----------


	Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

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

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

	Appendix II

	----------


	Additional Material for the Record

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

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

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

	[all]
	</pre></body></html>