[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 11 (Tuesday, February 3, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      NASA FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 28, 2004

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (S. 610) to amend 
     the provision 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. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) Workforce Flexibility Act is intended to help 
NASA recruit and retain the skilled workforce needed to perform its 
mission.
  I applaud my colleagues, their staffs, and employee groups for 
working to improve this legislation from the version that was 
introduced. Initially, the bill contained language that would have 
removed the cap on the number of NASA employees permitted to 
participate in workforce demonstration projects. Eliminating the cap 
would have allowed NASA to include its entire workforce in a 
demonstration project before these flexibilities had been tested with 
smaller groups of employees.
  In addition, a provision establishing an exchange program between 
NASA employees and private sector employees was removed from the bill. 
Such public-private exchange programs have the potential to create 
conflicts of interest and lead to the disclosure of corporate trade 
secrets. I am pleased that both of these problematic provisions have 
been removed from the bill.
  Although I support this legislation, I am concerned about the process 
by which the Bush Administration has approached civil service reform in 
recent years. In granting personnel flexibilities to numerous agencies, 
the Administration has failed to ensure that these agencies have the 
infrastructure and safeguards in place to successfully implement these 
new authorities. The Administration also has failed to evaluate the 
effectiveness of these flexibilities before allowing other agencies to 
utilize them.
  Moreover, civil service reform is best undertaken on a governmentwide 
basis, not on the agency-by-agency basis that the Administration seems 
to favor. A piecemeal approach fragments the civil service, making it 
difficult to ensure that Federal employees are treated fairly.
  Indeed, the preference for governmentwide reforms is shared by many 
experts who have studied the workforce challenges facing the civil 
service. In 2001, the Office of Personnel Management stated that ``it 
is important to retain governmentwide approaches, authorities, 
entitlements, and requirements.'' During the consideration of the 
Department of Defense (DoD) authorization bill last year, the 
Comptroller General testified that it would be prudent and appropriate 
for Congress to address the personnel authorities DoD was seeking on a 
``governmentwide basis and in a manner that assures that appropriate 
performance management systems and safeguards are in place before new 
authorities are implemented in any specific agency.
  Even the Senate sponsor of this NASA personnel bill has advocated a 
governmentwide approach. In 2000, Senator Voinovich released a report, 
concluding that ``the Federal government is in dire need of a unified 
strategy to rebuild the civil service'' (emphasis added).
  A significant achievement of the last century was the enactment of 
laws designed to create a professional, competent Federal civil 
service. Recent actions by the Administration to grant broad exemptions 
to these laws, with little forethought and little oversight, have the 
potential to do far more harm than good.

                          ____________________