Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 610) to amend the provisions of title 5, United States Code, to provide for workforce flexibilities and certain Federal personnel provisions relating to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of S. 610 and I urge my colleagues to approve it and send it to the White House for the President's signature.

This measure is a top priority of the entire administration, especially, of course, of the NASA Administrator. We have taken more than long enough to turn the bill into law.

The need for this bill, it seems to me, is beyond dispute. Events of the past year have highlighted NASA's need to attract and retain the best workforce imaginable, and yet NASA is on the brink of losing the talent that it already has.

Within just 5 years, 5 years, fully one-quarter of NASA's workforce will be eligible to retire. It is no wonder that the General Accounting Office has repeatedly cited strengthening human capital as one of NASA's top management challenges. We must stem the tide of the brain drain. S. 610 is a targeted, carefully crafted, moderate approach to giving NASA additional tools to meet that challenge. The bill does not make any radical departures from current law. Rather, it modifies and expands existing workforce authorities so that NASA can compete with the private sector in the labor market. That is just common sense.

Will changes in civil service laws solve all of NASA's workforce problems? Of course not. But NASA will not be better prepared to recruit and retain the workforce it needs if it is competing with one hand tied behind its back, as it is with current law.

This bill began as a proposal from NASA. We went over that proposal with a fine tooth comb, accepted some provisions, rejected others, and modified many more to clarify and target the new authority.

As a result of those negotiations and additional work in the other body, we

have finally ended up with the noncontroversial product that is before us today. A bill eagerly awaited by the administration, a bill that faces no opposition from organized labor, a bill that passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

In short, this is a bill that will make a real difference to NASA and the work we charge it to do without taking any untested approaches or crossing any ideological trip wires.

I should note that the bill before us is nearly identical to my original bill, H.R. 1085, as reported by the House Committee on Science almost 6 months ago.

The most significant difference between the two measures is that S. 610 no longer includes a provision that would have increased the number of employees who could participate in a personnel demonstration project. We are trying to minimize the number of people that can be in a pilot project. If we do not limit the number, we end up having a universal project. NASA was never able to give us any sense of how it would use the requested new authority, and I have no regrets that it has not remained in the bill.

I probably should also point out that we never included in H.R. 1085 authority the administration sought to allow private sector employees to work as government employees for a set period of time. This reverse Intergovernmental Personnel Act program seemed destined to confuse further the line between contract and government workers that already bedevils NASA.

The result of these kinds of decisions, once again, is that we have before us a bill that is not the least bit controversial, but is no less significant for that. It took a lot of work to get us to this point, but it will be worth it.

I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the rest of the Committee on Government Reform for working so closely with us on this measure. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) had his own NASA provision as a part of a larger workforce bill, H.R. 1836.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), our new ranking member, for getting us off to such an amicable start. It has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) all these years, and I welcome him to this position of new responsibility and authority and am confident he will serve us all well in this post and will carry on the tradition that we have established in the Committee on Science of working across the aisle, working together to sort out things, to minimize our differences and maximize the opportunities we have to address real problems and deal with them responsibly.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) was willing to look at this bill afresh in light of the work we had done with the Senate and events that had transpired since our markup. As a result, we are coming to the floor as a team. Not everyone in this Chamber would have been willing to do that, and I greatly appreciate it.

I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, who contributed important scholarship provisions to the bill, and to welcome the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), the new ranking member of the subcommittee, my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, as I have mentioned, this bill is ready for the President's signature. I urge my colleagues to oppose any amendments that might arise and to give this bill the overwhelming support it deserves and that NASA so needs.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a very valued member of the Committee on Science.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude my remarks by thanking our very capable staff of the Committee on Science on our side, David Goldston and Chris Shank, and this was the last bill worked on by our deceased former counsel, Mr. Barry Berringer, who always gave so much, such great value added to the committee with his outstanding work.

We cannot function in this Congress without the commitment, the ability and the hard work of dedicated professional staff, and we are blessed in the Committee on Science. But we are not the only ones. All across Capitol Hill, the people and the background are there every single day working hard to prepare us to deal responsibly in shaping public policy.

So I want to conclude my remarks by thanking the staff for their outstanding work.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters to and from myself and the Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform regarding the appointment of conferees on this bill.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Government Reform,

Washington, DC, January 27, 2004.

Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,

Chairman, Committee on Science, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for working with me in

developing the H.R. 1085, the NASA Flexibility Act of 2003.

As you know, the Committee on Government Reform reported the

bill, H.R. 1836, the Civil Service and National Security

Personnel Improvement Act. Included in that Act was Title

III, Subtitle B, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration. The House is scheduled to consider S. 610,

the Senate companion to H.R. 1085 tomorrow. Although S. 610

has been held at the Speaker's desk it is my understanding

that the bill would have been referred to the Committees on

Science and on Government Reform.

I support moving this important legislation forward

expeditiously; however, I do so only with the understanding

that this procedural route should not be construed to

prejudice the Committee on Government Reform's or the

Committee on Science's jurisdictional interest and

prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform

should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a

conference with the Senate. Finally, I would ask that you

include a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter in

the Congressional Record during floor consideration of S.

610. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this

matter.

Sincerely,

Tom Davis,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I want to thank the gentleman for his explanation of the amendment. The gentleman from Arizona is a very thoughtful Member, and he contributes significantly to the deliberations of this body. However, let me say a couple of things.

First of all, this legislation will give flexibility to NASA to work within the existing constraints. No new money, we are not coming up with a ton of new money or anything else. We are saying they have an existing budget for personnel and they have more flexibility with it. We are treating them like a business. I think that is very important.

We have to stem the tide of this brain drain. It is very serious. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) pointed out, within 5 years, 25 percent of the workforce is eligible for retirement. We have 15 percent eligible for retirement right now. Those over 60 outnumber by three to one those under 30. It is a very serious problem. We tried to address it in a very responsible way. We did not address like some people around here suggest we address problems, give them a blank check. We did not do that. We said, no, they have to use their existing personnel accounts, no additional money; but we give them flexibility. Having said that, let me point out something else. There is a very practical reason why we should not accept this amendment and should go forward today. We have to get the bill to the President for his signature. This is a bill that has passed unanimously in the Senate, a bill that is going to pass by substantial margin here in the House, hopefully unanimously.

If we amend it, here is what is going to happen. This is something which has been cooking for months now. We just got the amendment today, and that is why I appreciate the explanation. I had not seen the amendment before. We received a thorough, sound, reasoned explanation; but if we pass this amendment, the bill is amended, and it goes back to the Senate, and we start all over again back and forth like a ping-pong match. We have preconferenced this bill. We worked it out with the Senate. They send it back here, we vote ``aye'' today, it goes to the President, he signs it, and we get on with the job of giving NASA the flexibility it needs.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his thoughtful presentation.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, that is within the existing personnel allocation. This is not additional money, additional to the $2 billion. They are saying if NASA took advantage of all these programs, scholarships, retention incentives, moving expenses, the types of things that happen every single day in the business community, they have to do it with the existing personnel budget, no new money.

I am like the gentleman from Arizona, perhaps not as fiscally conservative, but I am moving in that direction. But the point is this does not add money; it allows more flexibility. The estimates that the gentleman from Arizona are referring to are estimates on what this could cost from the existing budget by using the flexibility that we are proposing.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, that is a legitimate concern expressed by the gentleman. Let me assure him, this is not additional money. This says to NASA, using your existing personnel allocation, we are giving you flexibility.

We say constantly, why does government not operate more like business, like they do in the real world? We are trying to give NASA that opportunity. We are not giving them a blank check. We are not giving them the key to the Treasury. We are just saying, existing dollars, you have more flexibility to retain the workforce you need to do the job we expect you to do.

My counsel just advises me, it depends on what the appropriators do in future appropriations. But the answer is clearly ``no.'' I know what the gentleman's intent is, his intent as I understand it, and that is why I appreciate the thoughtful presentation he gave on the floor today. I wish we had had it earlier. As Chairman Rohrabacher has said, he takes a back seat to no one in being concerned about how we spend money around here.

So I agree with the basic intention. It is not to have additional money spent for NASA on personnel. It is to give them flexibility on the existing money we appropriate for them. Who knows, with the President's vision outlined, for this new Mars vision, eventually a generation or two ahead of us and the Moon in this generation, if the Congress decides to be supportive of that, there are going to be budget differences; but I want to assure the gentleman that our intent is to give NASA the flexibility to use existing dollars, not to add to the allocation or appropriation for NASA on personnel or any other thing.

That is right.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, for years we have been sounding the alarm that the Federal Government faces grave danger when it comes to losing highly specialized employees. NASA is certainly no exception. In fact, it leads the pack. Fifteen percent of NASA's workforce is currently eligible to retire. A quarter of the agency will be eligible to retire over the next 5 years. Scientists and engineers over 60 outnumber those under 30 by nearly three to one. The potential loss of institutional knowledge is staggering.

Why are we in the midst of a human capital crisis? When it comes to the kind of very smart, very well-educated, highly specialized people who work in our space program? It is largely because we are competing directly with the higher-paying private sector firms. But it is also because when it comes to the civil service, preserving traditions has become a tradition unto itself, and I think it is time to change that tradition.

NASA, as well as the country as a whole, scored a major victory this month by safely landing two unmanned rovers on the face of Mars. In order to make sure that NASA's successes such as this outweigh its failures, we need to provide NASA with as much flexibility as possible in order to recruit and retain the best and the brightest that this country has to offer for our space program.

The simple fact is that NASA's personnel policies are dated and are holding the agency back. The modernization that this bipartisan legislation promises marks a significant step in the right direction for NASA, for the government, for science and for taxpayers.

It has been over a year since NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe first came to Capitol Hill requesting these much-needed personnel flexibilities. And while I wish we could have responded sooner, I am pleased to be here today to see the legislation finally making its way through the process.

The Committee on Government Reform, which I chair, marked up similar legislation last May, and the House Committee on Science marked up the legislation last July. I want to thank my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for his tremendous efforts in moving this important legislation forward, as well as the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and the ranking minority members as well; and I look forward to working with them in the future to improve workforce flexibilities available to NASA, as well as to other Federal agencies that work to expand the frontier of science.

One of the difficulties we have in recruiting employees today for NASA and other agencies, is that when they go to a job fair and they talk to a college recruiter, by the time they go back and go through all the rules and regulations in hiring, sometimes background checks, it is months before they can put an offer on the table. In the meantime, the private sector is up there with hiring bonuses, and they are up there with an offer on the table immediately with a job guarantee. We cannot compete in that kind of environment.

I know some of my friends on the Committee on Science on the other side of the aisle are concerned about paying bonuses, but this is commonplace in the private sector with which we are competing. We are talking about some of the brightest people in the world, scientists, engineers, literally rocket scientists that we want running our space program. We do not want to go second tier with people who are salaried and getting bogged down making sometimes one-tenth of what they could make in the private sector. It does not work that way.

So I support this legislation, and I am proud to see it moving forward.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, my question is what are the CBO costs on this?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Again, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I have worked together on so many battles. I respect what the gentleman is trying to do here, but I have to oppose this amendment for several reasons.

First of all, as the chairman of the Committee on Science noted, if we amend this bill today, it goes back to the other body, the black hole. We have been waiting a long time to get these personnel changes into effect so we can go out and retain part of that workforce that is now contemplating retiring, and we can start retaining the best and brightest out of our universities. Every day we delay that, we lose flexibility to do that.

The NASA budget is $15.5 billion. The personnel costs are only $2 billion. If we want to go after NASA's budget or start holding it down, the way to control that is by their section 302(b) allocation through the appropriations process. It is designed that NASA will eat these costs under the current appropriations. They may pay a little more for personnel in some areas and may pay less in some areas, but they have to do it under the budget that we pass. This appropriates no additional money, but it does give them flexibility to pay people at the top, our top rocket scientists, top engineers, and top program managers, the kind of dollars that will keep them in the program and recruit some of our best people into our space program instead of going out into the private sector where they can gain a lot more money.

The costs of failure of not doing this are much greater. A failed launch, cost delays, those costs are literally astronomical, if we are to do that; and that is what we are trying to eliminate here, the downside of not passing this. It is a cost-avoidance issue.

We control this through the budget process, the section 302(b) allocations that we make and budget, and there are no additional monies appropriated. These costs will be eaten up within the NASA budget, and there is plenty of flexibility to do this. There is a $15.5 billion budget, $2 billion for personnel costs, and $80 million can be reallocated without any additional cost to American taxpayers; and we can retain and recruit some of the quality people that are needed to run this space program and keep it going on the right track.

It is for those reasons that I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), my chairman, for his kind remarks; and let me concur in that our committee has a long tradition of working in a bipartisan manner. I cannot think of anyone that I would rather work with than our chairman, and I look forward to continuing that progress for our country.

Mr. Chairman, the NASA workforce is a critical national asset. We need to ensure that its strength is maintained if NASA is to undertake all the challenging activities envisioned for it in the coming decades. NASA's workforce is a highly skilled workforce. They truly are rocket scientists.

Yet the NASA workforce is under stress. Those stresses include infrastructure that is aging and in need of repair and upgrading, diversion of resources from existing tasks to provide money for proposed new initiatives, and outsourcing and privatization agendas that call into question the agency's commitment to careers at NASA. Last year, I would have added another item to that list, namely, a lack of long-term goals for the agency.

However, President Bush has now proposed an initiative to go back to the Moon and then at some point in the future send humans to Mars. I have long supported the idea that the space program needs some clear and compelling long-term goals. So I welcome the President's decision to propose an initiative. Of course, setting goals is an important first step, but we will still need to assess whether or not the President's plan to achieve these goals is viable. We will have a better idea of that once the fiscal year 2005 budget request is released next week and once NASA provides more information on specifics of the initiative.

Clearly, it will not send a good signal to NASA's workforce if the new initiative winds up being paid for by cannibalizing other important NASA activities. It will not be fair to the NASA workforce if they are tasked with a set of challenging and ambitious goals and a budget that is inadequate to achieve those goals.

Turning to S. 610, the NASA Flexibility Act of 2003, I believe that it is an improvement over the legislation considered by the Committee on Science last year. It modifies or eliminates a number of provisions that I and other Members have found objectionable; and at the same time, we should not lull ourselves into believing that this bill will solve all of NASA's workforce problems. For example, S. 610 includes a number of enhanced recruitment and retention bonuses. Yet I have been troubled by the indications from NASA's own data that NASA may not be using its existing authorities to the fullest extent due to competing budgetary pressures at the various centers, pressures that may well be increased.

Apparently my concerns are shared by NASA's inspector general. He has initiated an investigation into the extent to which NASA is making use of its existing workforce authorities. I look forward to hearing the results of that investigation.

With respect to the space shuttle, under the President's plan, the civil servants and contract personnel supporting the shuttle program will see their jobs disappear over the next 6 years. The best of those employees are not going to wait around for the inevitable. That fact puts the onus on NASA's management to ensure that the critical skills needed to fly the shuttle safely will be retained over the entire period. I certainly hope that NASA has a credible shuttle workforce retention plan ready to go. If not, NASA's management needs to put one in place as soon as possible if we are to avoid a hemorrhaging of critical skills from the shuttle program.

Finally, I remain concerned that S. 610 is a bill focused solely on the NASA workforce. However, the leadership of NASA has argued strongly that they need this legislation to maintain a strong workforce. As a result of that and as a result of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) graciously accepting some improvements to the bill, I will support passage of S. 610 today; and I will be watching over the coming years to make sure that NASA's performance on workforce issues matches its stated intentions.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), the new ranking member of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In conclusion, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for bringing forth a better bill, and also thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) for improving the bill and for the gentleman's accession as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics and let the gentleman know he could not possibly find a better partner than the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) as the chairman of their subcommittee.

Again, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) for helping us make this a better bill. I want to say to our Members that I intend to support this bill and recommend that they support it in final passage.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, we were not given notice of this amendment; but on quick and brief review, it seems to be a well-intentioned amendment that does not improve the bill. It seeks to solve a problem that does not exist, so I want to concur with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) in opposing this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is with mild apprehension that I rise today in support of S. 610, the NASA Flexibility Act. My vote today is not really an endorsement of this bill. Instead it is a vote of confidence for the people at NASA, and a demonstration of my heart-felt desire to work together in a bipartisan fashion here in Congress, with the Administrator at NASA, and with the administration, to help NASA achieve the greatness of which it is capable.

NASA is at a turning point. The past two decades have seen drastic cuts in the NASA budgets and the NASA workforce. Its mission has been unambitious, and its programs have seemed to drift. We have lost two space shuttles and 14 brave astronauts. But today, there is unprecedented hope for the future. Two rovers on the surface of Mars are beaming back

data that could help us unlock some of the greatest mysteries of our universe. They have captured the imaginations of the American people, with over 30 million people logging on to the NASA website in the last weeks. The President has launched a dialog that could lead to a bold new mission for NASA, to go back to the Moon, then on to Mars, and beyond. The excitement in my district of Houston is palpable.

If we start this new phase on the right foot, there is nothing that NASA, driven by the American spirit, cannot accomplish. But if we stumble, we could set back human space exploration for generations. That would be tragic for our scientists, our society, and our economy.

When the Workforce Flexibility bill first came to us in the Science Committee, I was absolutely against it. It gave too much latitude to the Administrator to tinker with the loyal NASA workforce through huge demonstration projects. It allowed big bonuses for political appointees--and I don't hear anyone arguing that there is a critical need for more political appointees in this town. After some intense bipartisan work in the Science Committee, and with help from the unions, and with some strong leadership from Senator Hollings, the most egregious parts of the bill have been removed.

But the most important reason I was against the bill before us in Fall, is that I felt it was irresponsible to give the Administrator of NASA the flexibility to move faster--when we had no idea where he was going. We were hearing that they needed the ability to bring in key personnel, but they couldn't tell us what project those people were going to work on, because NASA was severely lacking in vision and mission. This is why I and many other of our colleagues supported Congressman Nick Lampson's Space Exploration Act of 2003, which would have set a series of bold, yet attainable goals for NASA. I am pleased that the President has heard our call, and has put forth his plan for the future of the manned-space mission of NASA.

We are far from finalizing that plan, but there has been a surge of momentum and enthusiasm, and I hope we capitalize on it. The bold new mission will take creativity at every level of NASA. That is why I am lending my voice in support of this workforce bill. But I am still concerned. I hope this and future NASA administrators are judicious in their use of this new ``flexibility.'' My district is a stone's-throw from Johnson Space Center, and I consider the people there my friends and neighbors. They come to Houston out of a noble sense of purpose, to do something extraordinary and be a part of something unlike anything else in the history of this planet.

Sure, bonuses and travel expenses like those authorized in this bill can make it a bit more comfortable for those in government jobs--but that is not what will keep the best people at NASA. They want a sense of purpose--and that will come from a bold mission. They want a sense of community--and that will come from stability and fairness in the workplace. They want to feel that they are making a difference--and that will come from changing the culture at NASA so that bright thoughtful people are heard and respected. And they want to feel safe-- and that will come from making safety a priority and not an afterthought as it has been in the past.

To make NASA all it should be, we will all need to work together. I will do my part, and by supporting this bill I am giving the Administrator the tools he says he needs to do his. But, I will be following closely as the future of NASA unfolds. Today we are hearing a new level of interest and commitment from the administration. However, as we have seen with education, and homeland security, and HIV/AIDS-- often the words are not backed up by adequate funding and political capital. I hope that will not be the case with NASA.

This act creates scholarship for work programs that will help get the best young people to choose NASA for their careers. I hope various retention bonuses will enable the Administrator to encourage top people to stay through the transition that will occur over the next decade as we move from the space shuttle and the space station, into the work beyond. For example, we must harvest the talents of the fabulous space shuttle team in Houston, and not risk letting them run to private industry while Congress or the administration sits on its hands.

It should be an exciting year for NASA, and space enthusiasts around the world. I hope this act will help drive NASA to greatness. I support it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member, and want to commend him on his ascension to being ranking member on the Committee on Science and thank him not only for what he is going to be doing as ranking member but for the great work the gentleman has done on the committee along the way.

It is a pleasure also to work with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, as well; and I look forward to that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of S. 610; and even though it does not address all of the important issues facing the NASA workforce, including those outlined by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) earlier, it is the only NASA workforce bill that we are likely to get out of this Congress this year, and as such, I intend to support it.

When a House version of this workforce legislation was marked up by the Committee on Science last year, I objected to the lack of any challenging goals for NASA's human space flight program. I offered an amendment to establish some specific goals. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. I thought that was a mistake, and now it appears that President Bush agrees with me; and he has announced this ambitious, long-term exploration initiative that mirrors my amendment in earlier legislation that I had introduced; and I am very pleased to see that happen.

The challenge, however, will be in turning those goals into a reality in a manner that does not damage NASA's other important programs or take away from our commitments to those members of society who do indeed need our help.

Mr. Chairman, NASA's management has said that they need this workforce legislation. I am prepared to support it because I deeply care about the hardworking, dedicated men and women who work at NASA and especially at the Johnson Space Center, and I want to do whatever might help them achieve their full potential. Yet simply increasing the size of the bonuses available to NASA employees is not a cure-all, especially if NASA is not making full use of its existing bonus authority, a possibility that is being investigated, as we speak, by NASA's inspector general.

I do not believe that NASA's best and brightest are motivated primarily by money anyway. Rather, I think it is the chance to work on cutting-edge research and development and to attempt the near impossible that attracts them to NASA, and that is what is going to keep them there.

I remember a year or so ago getting up and leaving our table at the committee hearing and going out into the audience and sitting with about 20 or 25 college students and asking them, when we were talking about financial benefits that would supposedly motivate them to go to work for NASA, what it was that they wanted to see, and the response was destination goals: it will give me an opportunity to live my dream, give me an opportunity to go work on something that will make a difference to society.

That is also why I was so upset a few years ago when the NASA leadership decided to cancel the X-38 crew return vehicle project. The X-38/CRV was an exciting example of NASA employees coming up with an innovative, low-cost way of meeting an important space station requirement, and they were working hard to turn it into a reality. Yet it was cancelled just as it was nearing completion, and I might add, at a greater cost than it would have taken to complete it. The dedicated NASA team that had worked on that project was broken up and dispersed.

So where are we now? It appears that after several years of false starts on a more expensive project for the X-38/CRV, NASA leadership has now decided to pay the Russians to provide the same capability, create jobs in Russia.

I sponsored legislation to allow the United States to use the Soyuz after the Columbia tragedy, to give more flexibility to the administration.

The Congress is going to have to revisit the Iran Nonproliferation Act if we are going to rely on Soyuz, as the administration wants, to get us to and from the Space Station after the Shuttle is retired in 2010.

So whatever we may think of the wisdom of sending U.S. taxpayer dollars to Russia, it certainly does not strike me as being the way to reward innovation by the NASA workforce. Quite the contrary.

I intend to take a close look at NASA's plans for the Space Station and the Space Shuttle as we review the fiscal 2005 budget request over the coming months. We owe it to the NASA workforce to ask the tough questions. We need to ensure that they are being given sensible plans to implement, as well as the tools to carry them out. In the meantime, I think that S. 610 represents an improvement over legislation that we considered earlier, and I am prepared to support it.