During calendar year 2010, HHS had 6,697 employees who were appointed under sections 209(f) or (g).served at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while the remaining employees served in the Office of the Secretary or within other operating divisions, as shown in figure 1. Congress provided EPA with the authority to use Title 42 to employ up to 30 persons at any one time through fiscal year 2015. At the time of our study, EPA had appointed 17 fellows in its Office of Research and Development from 2006 to 2011 under section 209(g) and all 17 fellows remained with EPA. Appointments for the three fellows hired in 2006 have been renewed for another 5-year term. Figure 2 shows the cumulative onboard Title 42 staff, by new hire or conversion. According to EPA officials, the agency has identified mission critical personnel needs and is actively recruiting to fill the 13 remaining authorized Title 42 positions. The agency has no plans to use authority under section 209(f) at this time, but may consider it in the future. Officials told us EPA would need to develop guidance for implementing section 209(f) before using the authority. Title 42 fellows at EPA lead scientific research initiatives, are considered experts in the related scientific discipline, and some manage or direct a division or office. According to EPA officials, Title 42 provides two important tools EPA needs to achieve its mission: (1) the flexibility to be competitive in recruiting top experts who are also sought after by other federal agencies, private industry, and academia; and (2) the appointment flexibility needed to align experts with specific skills to changing scientific priorities. EPA officials stated it is not the agency’s intention to hire a fellow long-term under Title 42, but rather employ the individual as long as a priority remains high. Annual salaries for Title 42 fellows at EPA range from approximately $153,000 to $216,000, with an average salary of about $176,000 and a median salary of about $171,000. As shown in table 4, 15 of the 17 EPA fellows had salaries exceeding Executive Level IV. In December 2010, EPA began a pilot of using market salary data to estimate salaries of what Title 42 candidates could earn in positions outside of government given their education, experience, professional standing, and other factors. EPA used the market salary data to inform salary negotiations for the five fellows appointed since the implementation of the pilot. According to EPA officials, the market salary pilot concludes in December 2012 and its effect will be analyzed at that time. In appointing Title 42 fellows, EPA generally followed appointment guidance described in its Title 42 Operations Manual. EPA could, however, improve procedures for resolving potential conflicts of interest. We conducted 10 case file reviews of EPA Title 42 employees and in two cases we reviewed, employees had potential conflict of interest situations arise after appointment resulting, in part, from the agency’s failure to ensure Title 42 employees followed agreed upon ethics requirements. EPA acknowledged it could improve its postappointment ethics oversight and reported it has plans to ensure that Title 42 employees follow requirements such as submitting confirmation of stock divestitures to its General Counsel, for example, and other ethics requirements. However, at the time of our review, EPA had not provided us with implementation plans or timeframes for its improved oversight. To address this issue, we recommended that EPA, as part of its efforts to improve postappointment ethics oversight, develop and document a systematic approach for ensuring Title 42 employees are compliant with ethics requirements after appointment. EPA disagreed with our recommendation, citing certain actions already taken, such as a plan to require proof of compliance with ethics agreements. We acknowledged EPA’s plans to address these issues, but maintained the recommendation was needed to ensure implementation because the two ethics issues we reported occurred over 2 years ago. Our legal opinion, issued on July 11, 2012, responded to a Congressional request for our views on whether there are statutory caps on pay for consultants and scientists appointed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) or (g). We concluded that an appropriations law provision enacted as part of the Fiscal Year 1993 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act established a permanent appropriation cap on the pay of individuals appointed on a limited-time basis under 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) or (g) at agencies funded through that Act. With regard to individuals not subject to this cap, we concluded further that two other pay limitations set forth in Title 5 of the U.S. Code that we considered do not apply to appointments made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) or (g). Federal pay systems are extremely complex, and we encountered challenges in attempting to resolve ambiguities arising from pay laws enacted at different times over nearly 70 years. Sections 209(f) and (g) of title 42 were enacted in 1944 and have not been amended since that time. There have, however, been many significant changes in related laws and regulations that were relevant to our consideration of the issues raised. Consequently, we conducted extensive research of legislative history to aid in our understanding of congressional actions and the interplay of the laws addressed below, and examined regulations issued pursuant to these provisions over the last 65 years. We also solicited the views of HHS, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the EPA. The appropriations for each fiscal year from 1957 through 1993 included a cap on pay for “consultants or individual scientists appointed for limited periods of time” (underscoring added) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) or (g). The appropriations for fiscal year 1993 established a permanent cap on such compensation, providing that pay may be set at rates not to exceed “the per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate payable for senior-level positions under 5 U.S.C. § 5376.” This cap currently limits base pay to $155,500. Our review of the legislative history of the first appropriation to contain the limit indicated that it was enacted due to other restrictions in law on compensation as an increase over then-existing pay authority. We considered the meaning of the phrase “for limited periods of time,” which has appeared in all of the relevant appropriations provisions from 1956 to 1993. In 1956, when this language was first included in the appropriations law, the Public Health Service’s regulations included time limitations on employment. Thus the time limit generally applied to all consultant appointments made under section 209(f) beginning in 1947, when the regulation containing the limit was first promulgated, unless “special circumstances” led the administrator to approve an extension. Further, the limit was in effect in 1956, when the first appropriations law provision referring to consultants appointed for “limited periods of time” was enacted. However, this time limitation was removed from the regulations in 1966. 31 Fed. Reg. 12,939 (Oct. 5, 1966). Therefore, the appropriations pay cap applied to all section 209(f) consultants from 1956 until HHS changed the regulations in 1966 allowing for the hiring of consultants for indefinite periods. Although the regulations implementing section 209(f) no longer included a time limitation on the employment of special consultants after 1966, the appropriations provisions for 1967 and subsequent years, using virtually identical language each year, imposed a cap only on pay of “consultants or individual scientists appointed for limited periods of time pursuant to .” The appropriations restriction did not impose any cap on pay for those consultants whose appointments were not limited in time. As a result, after the 1966 regulations were promulgated and continuing to the present, HHS has employed two categories of consultants: those appointed for limited periods of time, to whom the pay cap applies, and consultants appointed for indefinite periods, to whom the pay cap does not apply. Importantly, the appropriations pay restriction is applicable only to payments made from Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Acts. Three components of the Public Health Service (the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registrations, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Indian Health Services) are funded by appropriations acts other than the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act, and are not covered by a restriction on funds appropriated under that Act. Thus, we concluded that there is a cap of Executive Level IV on the pay of consultants and scientists employed for limited periods of time pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) or (g) in all but three of the Public Health Service Agencies. With respect to individuals not covered by the appropriation cap, we examined the applicability of two pay limitations found in title 5: section 3109, which limits pay for consultants “procure” on a temporary or intermittent basis, and section 5373, which limits pay fixed by administrative action. Section 3109, enacted in 1946, establishes specific legal parameters, including a pay cap and a limit on appointment duration, governing the employment of experts or consultants whose appointment must be authorized by an “appropriation or other statute.” That pay cap applies unless a different cap is authorized by the appropriation or another statute. Beginning in 1956, Congressional actions signaled that section 3109 did not apply to section 209(f) appointments. From1956 and continuing until 1993, Congress enacted provisions yearly in appropriations acts that set a cap (which may or may not have been higher than that found in section 3109 in any given year) for all those appointed pursuant to sections 209(f) or (g) for a limited period of time and funded out of the Labor-HHS- Education Appropriations Act. From fiscal year 1970 until the provisions became permanent in fiscal year 1993, the appropriations acts for HHS contained separate provisions placing identical compensation limits for experts and consultants subject to 5 U.S.C. § 3109, and for consultants and scientists appointed for limited periods of time pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) or (g). Identical provisions would have been unnecessary if Congress believed that the limitations in 5 U.S.C. § 3109 would apply to 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) and (g) consultants or scientists. Further, in 1992, Congress added subsection (d) to section 3109. It directs OPM to prescribe regulations necessary to administer section 3109. OPM subsequently issued regulations which provide that section 3109 does not apply to the appointment of experts or consultants under other authorities. 5 C.F.R. § 304.101. It also informed us that it “does not consider the cap under 5 U.S.C. § 3109 to apply to consultants under 42 U.S.C. § 209(f).” This interpretation is entitled to considerable weight since OPM is the agency charged with administering section 3109. Based on our review, we found that Congress had not spoken directly on the applicability of section 3109 to the authorities in 42 U.S.C. 209(f) and (g) and that OPM’s interpretation was reasonable. Therefore, we concluded that the provisions of section 3109 do not apply to consultants employed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 209(f). The other pay cap that we considered is found in section 5373 of title 5 of the United States Code, which places limits on pay fixed by administrative action. Pay fixed by administrative action refers to the various pay-setting authorities in which pay is determined by the agency instead of pursuant to pay rates under otherwise applicable statutory pay systems, such as the General Schedule. Congress first enacted section 5373 in 1964, 20 years after it passed sections 209(f) and (g). Section 5373 limits pay set by administrative action to no more than the rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule, and lists specific pay authorities which are excepted from coverage. The rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule is currently $155,500 per year. 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) and (g) are not among the authorities explicitly excepted from section 5373. We looked at multiple issues in determining that the section 5373 cap does not apply to 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) or (g) appointees. We found no evidence that Congress had considered the section 209 authorities when the administrative pay cap was enacted. Sections 209(f) and (g) allow for compensation “without regard to the Classification Act of 1923.” We parsed laws enacted in 1923 and later to see if this language should be interpreted to create an exemption from section 5373, which of course was enacted over 40 years after the Classification Act of 1923, and after several additional pay laws had also been enacted. Finally, we looked at Congressional action in appropriations passed from 1964 through 1993, and in extending section 209 authority to EPA in 2005 and in 2009. These Congressional actions led us to believe that it did not intend for the 5 U.S.C. § 5373 pay cap to apply to consultants and scientists hired pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) and (g). Given the evidence of how Congress viewed the authority, we did not object to HHS’s interpretation that the 1993 appropriations cap is the only restriction on its authority to compensate individuals appointed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) or (g). In conclusion, with respect to the first issue, the 1993 appropriations act unequivocally limits the pay of consultants and scientists appointed for limited periods of time pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) or (g) at agencies that are funded by Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Acts. With regard to the two title 5 limitations, we think that the pay limitations do not apply to appointments made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) or (g). The statutory pay provisions we analyzed, as mentioned earlier, were enacted over the course of nearly 70 years, and are in different federal pay systems. As one court has observed, “although some pay systems are ‘linked’ to one another,” they have not been “fastidiously integrated” to achieve uniform federal compensation policies.” In this case, the issues raised – in particular the applicability of the two title 5 limitations on the title 42 authority to hire special consultants and fellows – reflect the difficulty of applying distinct statutory schemes to determine whether specific pay limits apply. Thus if Congress desires upper pay limits for appointments under sections 209(f) and (g), it may wish to consider amending these provisions to specifically establish such limits. Both HHS and EPA have used Title 42 to recruit and retain highly skilled, in-demand personnel to government service in order to execute their missions. At the same time, HHS’s lack of complete data and guidance on its use of Title 42 may limit the agency’s ability to strategically manage its use and provide oversight of the authority. Effective monitoring of the use of Title 42 is particularly important in light of HHS’s increasing use of the authority and the number of employees earning salaries higher than most federal employees. EPA generally followed its Title 42 policies and has incorporated some modifications to improve its appointment and compensation practices; however, EPA’s current ethics guidance does not sufficiently ensure Title 42 employees meet ethics requirements after appointment. EPA acknowledged it could improve its post-appointment ethics oversight and reported it has plans to ensure that Title 42 employees send its General Counsel confirmation of stock divestitures and other ethics requirements. However, at the time of our review, EPA had not provided us with implementation plans or timeframes. Although its plans appear to be prudent steps for addressing the specific issues that arose in the cases we reported, it will be important for EPA to implement them as soon as possible to mitigate the risk of future potential conflict of interest issues. Going forward, our recommendations to HHS and EPA to strengthen certain practices under Title 42, if implemented, should help strengthen the management and oversight of this special hiring authority. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes our prepared statement. We would be pleased to respond to any questions you or others may have at this time. For further information regarding this statement, please contact Robert Cramer, Managing Associate General Counsel, at (202) 512-7227, or Cramerr@gao.gov, or Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-2757, or Goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Trina Lewis, Assistant Director; Shea Bader, Analyst-In- Charge; Dewi Djunaidy; Karin Fangman; and Sabrina Streagle. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Summary: HHS and EPA have been using special hiring authority provided under 42 U.S.C. §§209(f) and (g)referred to in this testimony as Title 42to appoint individuals to fill mission critical positions in science and medicine and, in many cases, pay them above salary limits usually applicable to federal government employees. GAO was asked to review the extent to which HHS and EPA have (1) used authority under Title 42 to appoint and compensate employees since 2006, and (2) followed applicable agency policy, guidance, and internal controls for appointments and compensation. GAO was also asked to determine if there are statutory caps on pay for consultants and scientists appointed pursuant to Title 42. This testimony is based on GAOs July 2012 report (GAO-12-692) and a legal opinion on whether there are statutory caps on pay for consultants and scientists appointed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) or (g). (B-3223357) The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) use of special hiring authorities under 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) and (g) has increased in recent years, from 5,361 positions in 2006 to 6,697 positions in 2010, an increase of around 25 percent. Nearly all HHS Title 42 employees work in one of three HHS operating divisions: the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Title 42 employees at HHS serve in a variety of areas, including scientific and medical research support and in senior, director-level leadership positions. At NIH, one-quarter of all employees, and 44 percent of its researchers and clinical practitioners, were Title 42 appointees. HHS reported that Title 42 enables the agency to quickly fill knowledge gaps so medical research can progress and to respond to medical emergencies. HHS further reported Title 42 provides the compensation flexibility needed to compete with the private sector. In 2010, 1,461 of HHSs Title 42 employees earned salaries over $155,500. The highest base pay amount under the General Schedule  the system under which most federal employees are paid  was $155,500 in 2010. Under certain types of Title 42 appointments, statutory pay caps may apply. 2010 was the last year of HHS data available at the time of GAOs review. HHS does not have reliable data to manage and provide oversight of its use of Title 42. Moreover, HHS did not consistently adhere to certain sections of its Title 42 section 209(f) policy. For example, the policy states that 209(f) appointments may only be made after non-Title 42 authorities have failed to yield a qualified candidate, but GAO found few instances where such efforts were documented. HHS has recently issued updated 209(f) policy that addresses most of these issues. HHS is developing agencywide policy for appointing and compensating employees under Title 42 section 209(g), but it is not clear the policy will address important issues such as documenting the basis for compensation. Since 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has used section 209(g) to appoint 17 employees. Fifteen of EPAs 17 Title 42 employees earned salaries over $155,500 in 2010. EPA appointment and compensation practices were generally consistent with its guidance; however, EPA does not have post-appointment procedures in place to ensure Title 42 employees meet ethics requirements to which they have previously agreed. In its legal opinion, GAO concluded that an appropriations pay cap applies to certain, but not all, employees appointed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 209(f) and (g). If Congress desires upper pay limits for appointments not currently subject to the pay cap, it may wish to consider legislation to specifically establish such limits. In the report on which this testimony is based, GAO made recommendations to HHS to improve oversight and management of its Title 42 authority and a recommendation to EPA to improve enforcement of its ethics requirements. HHS agreed with GAOs recommendations, while EPA disagreed, citing actions already taken. GAO acknowledged EPAs plans to address these issues, but maintained the recommendation was needed to ensure implementation.