This bill ensures the continued strength and staffing of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) by exempting it from federal hiring freezes, workforce reductions, and certain property lease cancellations.
Debbie Dingell
Representative
MI-6
The Keep USGS Strong Act ensures the continued vital scientific work of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) by exempting it from federal hiring freezes and workforce reduction mandates. This legislation recognizes the USGS's critical role in monitoring natural hazards, managing water resources, and providing essential scientific data for public safety and resource management. The bill protects current staffing levels and property leases, safeguarding the agency's ability to serve the nation.
The “Keep USGS Strong Act” is pretty straightforward: it’s an insurance policy for the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This bill aims to protect the USGS—the agency responsible for everything from tracking earthquakes and volcanoes to monitoring the water quality in the Great Lakes—from future attempts by the Executive Branch to impose hiring freezes or massive layoffs. Essentially, if a future President orders a government-wide staffing cut, the USGS gets a free pass, provided Congress keeps funding their salaries.
Congress is pretty clear in Section 2 about why the USGS is essential: their work directly impacts public safety and resource management. Think about the data used to set building codes in earthquake zones, or the flood maps that determine your insurance rates. That’s USGS. They monitor 20% of the world’s freshwater in the Great Lakes, track groundwater supplies crucial for farming and cities, and run the seismic networks that give us early warnings about natural disasters. For the construction worker, the homeowner, or the farmer, this isn't abstract science—it's the data that affects their safety and livelihood. This bill is an attempt to ensure that critical monitoring doesn't stop because of a budget fight or a political mandate to cut staff.
Section 3 is where the action is. It explicitly exempts the USGS from any Presidential order that would impose a general hiring freeze or a reduction in force (RIF), which is the bureaucratic term for layoffs. For example, if the administration decides to slash the federal workforce by 10%, the USGS is protected from that mandate. This is a big deal for continuity. If you’ve ever tried to hire a specialized scientist or engineer, you know it takes time. Losing experienced staff to a sudden RIF, or being unable to replace retirees due to a freeze, can cripple an agency’s ability to perform long-term monitoring—the kind of work that takes decades to yield results.
However, there’s a catch in the fine print of Section 3: this protection only kicks in if Congress has specifically passed a law setting aside the money to pay those salaries and expenses. If Congress doesn't appropriate the funds, the protection against layoffs is meaningless. This sets up a potential power struggle where the agency’s stability hinges on annual funding battles.
Another interesting provision in Section 3 deals with property leases. It states that the USGS cannot have any of its real property leases—think offices, labs, or field stations—canceled unless the Director of the USGS personally signs off on it. This gives the USGS Director significant power to veto cost-cutting measures or consolidation efforts directed by the broader government. While this ensures that critical field stations don't get abruptly shut down, it also means the USGS could potentially hold onto leased space even if the rest of the government identifies it as inefficient or unnecessary. For the Director, it's job security for their facilities; for the taxpayer, it’s a potential shield against efficiency mandates that other agencies would have to follow.
Overall, the “Keep USGS Strong Act” is designed to put a fence around a critical scientific agency, shielding it from the political and budgetary whims that often lead to brain drain and operational instability in the federal government. It’s a move to prioritize long-term scientific data collection over short-term executive cost-cutting.