John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Would the Senator agree that it is in the best interest of the United States and the taxpayer that some form of informal Federal screening by the General Services Administration be conducted--in an expedited fashion, no more than 30 days--to assure us that other Federal agencies cannot make use of this facility?

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I share the concerns of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. The legislation proposes a Federal governance structure that is intended to maximize coordination between the Department of Labor and Education in the oversight of education and training block grant funds, as well as increase the private sector's influence on education and training policy through a national board. Although these are desirable goals, they would be achieved through a governance structure, including proposed staff reductions, that would be virtually unworkable because it violates several basic principles of undertaking such organization reform. First, it would violate the principle of establishing clear lines of authority, by creating a new work force development partnership within the Departments of Labor and Education under the direction of a national board. The work force development partnership, as it stands, is so unwieldy as to be devolving greater responsibilities to the States. You would have confusion, passing the buck, and a failure to solve problems. Second, it would violate the principle of matching functions and structures. Experience shows that boards are good at some things: Venting a broad array of opinion; debating issues; making policy; and ensuring consensus for that policy. Boards are not good, however, at carrying out administrative and management responsibilities, in part because of the need to make quick decisions. This bill assigns various administrative and management responsibilities to the national board that it is least capable of carrying out. The Board's failure to carry out such administrative and management responsibilities effectively could undermine the ability of the States to implement a new work force development system. Third, it would violate the principle of providing resources adequate for carrying out the task, by specifying an arbitrary one-third staffing cut that is likely to undermine the critical Federal role in making the transition to [[Page S 14991]] the new work force development system. The drastic change required by this legislation raises enormous transition problems. It requires considerable imagination, innovation, patience, and investment--of time and money--to put in place. This is very hard to do if one partner is crippled by arbitrary staffing cuts at the beginning. This bill does not envision a hands-off role for the Federal Government. It instead mandates a very important Federal role, particularly in the transition, with respect to assisting the States in establishing new, innovative, performance-based systems, charting new, work force development plans, creating one-stop shopping for individuals and employers, measuring the success of the system, and integrating it with other efforts. A proper Federal role is the key to promoting accountability and efficiency and to ensure that confusion at the Federal level will not undermine the ambitious goals of the work force development system. I would like to illustrate the challenges of transition by focusing on grant closeout. Based on the Department of Labor's most recent major program closeout--the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act [CETA], the closeout effort would be likely to take 2 to 3 years. Planning for the CETA closeout began in early 1982. Although CETA ceased operations on October 13, 1983, most related closeout activity was not completed until the end of 1985. Considerable resources were involved in bringing to an end the 10-year program in 470 localities. The Department's office of the inspector general also was heavily involved, and in its 1994 semiannual report noted ``* * * it was necessary to devote tremendous audit resources to ensure the fiscal integrity of the closeout.'' This is not to say that some Federal staffing cuts in the future may be not appropriate. Before specifying such cuts, however, we need to take heed of a simple lesson from the business world: Successful reforms are goal-oriented and carefully planned. The first step is to ask what you are trying to accomplish. Moving boxes around on an organizational chart looks impressive and satisfies our desire for action. But it does not make for good policy. It would not achieve the desired results and would certainly impose a period of transitional chaos.

Mr. GLENN. I share the concerns expressed by the senior Senator from [[Page S 14990]] Massachusetts. The legislation before us proposes a Federal governance structure that is intended to maximize coordination between the Departments of Labor and Education in the oversight of education and training block grant funds. And it is intended to increase the private sector's influence on education and training policy through a national board. Although these are desirable goals, they would be achieved through a governance structure, including proposed staff reductions, that would be virtually unworkable because it violates several basic principles of organizational reform. First, it violates the principle of establishing clear lines of authority, by creating a new ``Workforce Development Partnership'' within the Departments of Labor and Education under the direction of a national board. The Workforce Development Partnership, as it stands, is so unwieldy that I fear it may be unworkable, and the resulting disorder would undermine the promise of devolving greater responsibilities to the States. When you have accountability dispersed across two departments and one board, you really don't have accountability. Instead, you have confusion, ``passing the buck'' and a failure to solve problems. Second, it violates the principle of matching functions and structures. Experience shows that boards are good at some things: venting a broad array of opinion; debating issues; formulating policy; and ensuring consensus for that policy. Boards are not good, however, at carrying out administrative and management responsibilities, in part because of the need to make quick decisions. This bill assigns various administrative and management responsibilities to the national board that it is least capable of carrying out. The board's failure to effectively carry out such administrative and management responsibilities could undermine the ability of the States to implement a new work force development system. Third, it violates the principle that adequate resources should be provided to carry out a task, by specifying an arbitrary and significant staffing cut that is likely to undermine the critical Federal role in making the transition to the new work force development system. The drastic change required by this legislation raises enormous transition problems. Putting this into place will require considerable imagination, innovation, patience, and investment--of time and money. This is very hard to do if one partner is crippled by arbitrary staffing cuts at the beginning. This bill does not envision a handsoff role for the Federal Government. It instead mandates a very important Federal role--particularly in the transition--with respect to assisting the States in establishing new innovative, performance-based systems; charting new work force development plans; creating one-stop shopping for individuals and employers; measuring the success of the system and integrating it with other efforts. A proper Federal role is the key to promoting accountability and efficiency and to ensuring that confusion at the Federal level will not undermine the ambitious goals of the work force development system. I would like to illustrate the challenges of transition by focusing on grant closeout. Based on the Department of Labor's most recent major program closeout--the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act [CETA]--the closeout effort would likely take 2 to 3 years. Planning for the CETA closeout began in early 1982. Although CETA ceased operations on October 13, 1983, most related closeout activity was not completed until the end of 1985. Considerable resources were involved in bringing to an end the 10-year program in 470 localities. The Department's Office of Inspector General was also heavily involved, and in its 1984 semiannual report noted ``* * * it was necessary to devote tremendous audit resources to ensure the fiscal integrity of the closeout.'' This is not to say that some staffing cuts in the future may not be appropriate. Before specifying such cuts, however, we need to take heed of a simple lesson from the business world: successful reforms are goal-oriented and carefully planned. The first step is to ask what you are trying to accomplish. Moving boxes around on an organizational chart looks impressive and satisfies our desire for action. But it does not make for good policy. It would not achieve the desired results and would certainly impose a period of transitional chaos. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for raising these important issues.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Not more than 5 minutes for a short eulogy.

Mr. GLENN. That is right.

Mr. GLENN. The difficulty, I believe, is that displaced homemakers have not automatically been considered displaced workers in the past, so they get left out of these programs.

Mr. GLENN. The Senator stated it very, very well. I agree with his statement.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might require. The displaced homemakers are not mentioned in the bill itself, yet at the same time, the bill singles out, as I understand, the veterans, singles out out-of-school youth, youth in correctional facilities, adults in correctional facilities, older workers, at-risk youth and individuals with disabilities. So it is not that the bill does not specify some of these specific difficulties that people have and try to address them. As the Senator from Massachusetts said a moment ago, we estimate there are some 17 million displaced homemakers across this country. These can be men as well as women. The wife has died, a person is having a problem trying to raise the kids and that qualifies as a displaced homemaker as well as the usual definition of the wife who may be divorced or may have lost her husband for whatever reason or another. The figures are outstanding with regard to this program. Approximately 80 percent of women served in the programs are placed in employment and postsecondary education; 80 percent. That is an amazing success story. It is very successful, and that is the reason I brought it up. It does not require the States to put money aside. It does not require that they set up programs. It says that they will be permitted to. On programs that have been successful and are continuing to be successful, they will be permitted to and, obviously, encouraged to because there is a need, and that need can be addressed if we adopt this amendment. I do not want to cut off debate. I will be happy to yield back time and move to a vote at the appropriate time, if no one else wishes to speak.

Mr. GLENN. The States could permit the program. It does not require that the States actually set aside a certain amount of money for this program. In other words, it includes them in the same category as the rest of the ones I read into the Record.

Mr. GLENN. I have concluded. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer this amendment because I am extremely concerned that the current provisions in this bill will neglect and ignore a very important segment of our population, and that is displaced homemakers. Nationwide there are 17 million displaced homemakers. We have close to 700,000 in Ohio. How do you define displaced homemaker? It can be people who are divorced; it can be widows. It does not have to be women. As a matter of fact, it can be widowers, those who have lost their wives and are responsible for taking care of the children in the family. In other words, they are at-risk people which this bill has said it wants to take care of, which is defined in the bill, but I think this particular group has been pretty much left out. And I think that is a shame. I realize that the managers of the bill do not want amendments in the bill and are trying to hold those down, but I do not want to see us hold down amendments and see some 17 million displaced homemakers not be dealt with properly in this legislation, and that is what we are talking about here. The current Perkins vocational programs for displaced homemakers and single parents has been extremely effective. Approximately 80 percent of women served in these programs are placed in employment and/or postsecondary education. Mr. President, I repeat that. Approximately 80 percent of women served in these programs are placed in employment and/or postsecondary education. That is an amazing success story, 80 percent. If that is not considered a success story, I certainly do not know what is. It is a good example in which something that we created many years ago works and works well. Recent statistics show that 85 percent of former program participants across the Nation rated the displaced homemakers programs ``excellent'' or ``very good.'' And over 75 percent said that these programs were better than other Government-funded programs they had participated in. In other words, it gets accolades all over. Mr. President, not long ago a lot of us voted for a welfare reform bill that was heavy on promises but light on the mechanics of how you get people off the welfare rolls. Well, what we are talking about right now is a vital component of moving people from welfare to work. And we can pass all the laws in the world requiring people to get off of welfare and get a job, but it is not going to do the least bit of good if we do not provide them with the job skills. That is where the rubber meets the road. That is what is going to move single parents from welfare to work. Amber McDonald back in Ohio recently sent me a letter about her experiences about such training. I would like to quote this. I'd like to state that I am on public assistance at this time in my life and have one child. I don't take pride in the fact I receive welfare. I am grateful to the State of Ohio for their help. It has allowed me to survive and keep my child. It's a long hard road to getting off assistance. One I believe I'm on now. I am attending Displaced Homemaker classes and these classes have helped me make decisions--good solid decisions. Not the pleases-the-system decisions I've made in the past. The Displaced Homemaker classes educated me about where I could go, what I would need to succeed and how to go about it. We need this program and others like it. A lot of us want off welfare. We are as tired of being on the system as the system is of having us. I think, Mr. President, that really summarizes this whole program. And this is why the success ratio of displaced homemaker programs is so high. It is because of people like Amber. They take their training very seriously. They are not deadbeats. They are taking this very seriously, and they have a lot riding on it. And they have been working very hard with this program. Before 1984 when States were not required to fund displaced homemakers training activities, States, unfortunately, spent less than 1 percent of their funding on specialized services for displaced homemakers. This is unfortunate because programs for single parents and displaced homemakers have been effective in not only helping families move in the welfare system, but also in preventing families from entering the welfare system. And displaced homemakers remain an at-risk population, something this legislation purports to deal with. According to the 1990 census, more than half of the displaced homemakers live in or near poverty. I want to repeat that. According to the 1990 census, more than half of the displaced homemakers live in or near poverty. Some recent statistics show that 47 percent of displaced homemakers lack a high school diploma, and the median annual personal income for displaced homemakers is $6,766. Try living on that with a child in this modern day and age. And I know that my distinguished colleague from Kansas will argue that this amendment, by separately defining and listing displaced homemakers, is somehow giving preferential treatment to one category of people and therefore goes against the philosophy of job training consolidation. Unfortunately, displaced homemakers seem to be singled out for exclusion under this bill. For some unknown reason, the displaced homemakers are the only major program from Perkins not included in this bill. While ignoring displaced homemakers, the bill singles out veterans, out-of-school youth, youth in correctional facilities, adults in correctional facilities, older workers, at-risk youth, and individuals with disabilities, just to name a few. But this was the only major program from Perkins not included in this bill. In fact, language in the House bill, H.R. 1617, the careers bill, includes a requirement for States to provide plans on addressing displaced homemakers. And that bill passed with an overwhelming bipartisan support of 345 to 79 in the House of Representatives. My amendment will not--and I repeat will not--result in a set-aside. This amendment will only make it permissible for States--does not require it--it makes it permissible for States to fund specialized vocational employment and educational activities. It just makes it permissible for States to fund specialized vocational employment and educational activities. States will still have the flexibility in determining the funding amount and the types of programs to institute. There is nothing in this amendment that will require the States to fund employment or educational activities for displaced homemakers. I just want to make sure that States are encouraged and reminded to continue these programs that are working so well. Now, there may be some who will argue that displaced homemakers are included under the dislocated workers definition, but the reality is that this will not--I repeat will not--result in programs or services for these women. Displaced homemakers were included in the definition of a dislocated worker when Congress passed the Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Act in 1988. And in 1994, a survey of 35 States found that virtually no services were provided to displaced homemakers under EDWAA. Another argument that I have heard is theoretically everyone is eligible for services under this act under the discretion of the States. Well, given that we are already reducing the funding by 15 percent under this block grant, it is clear that funding will be inadequate to serve even the populations that are specifically referenced. I have been hearing from many people in Ohio who have benefited from these services. I read one such account a moment ago. And these women are now gainfully employed, and they are providing for their families. Recent data from just my home State of Ohio shows that displaced homemakers in Ohio who have gone through training programs are [[Page S 14864]] now working an average of 32 hours per week. For example, Rebecca Richards, from Fairfield, OH, wrote how she and her child's life changed since she participated in a displaced homemaker program. She said: As a result of the programs available, I was able to become a productive person in society. And she concluded by saying: With the program, I found a friend who counseled me, listened to complaints and successes, gave me useful information and training, and helped me meet with other single parents to form a network of friends. Let us face it. The traditional vocational training programs will not provide this type of training. Another Ohioan, Diane Cook, wrote me saying that: Everyone makes mistakes but they all should be allowed a second chance. Give us that second chance. The bottom line is to employ single parents so they can support their families. And what better way to accomplish this objective than encouraging the States to conduct tailored training programs which will affect over 17 million displaced homemakers all over this country? Mr. President, I would say let us give them a second chance. I would only repeat two major facts. This is the one area that was not picked up out of Perkins and used as examples in this bill. It is included by an overwhelming vote that the House had on it, included in the House vote. I urge adoption of this amendment. At the appropriate time I will move for a record rollcall vote. And I reserve the remainder of our time on this side. Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I offer this amendment because I think it is important we do not overlook displaced homemakers in this bill. What the amendment does is simply incorporate the definition of displaced homemaker in currently found law--the Perkins Act, the Higher Education Act, and the Displaced Homemaker Self-Sufficiency Act. In the bill itself, the current language includes displaced homemakers only as a subcategory of dislocated workers. I do not think that is good enough. My amendment, second, clarifies that employment services for displaced workers are permissible--not required by the States, they are permissible. Governors and States have the flexibility to decide whether displaced homemakers will receive employment services at all. Third, my amendment gives States flexibility in providing work force education programs for displaced homemakers and single parents. I think there was some confusion about that earlier in the debate. The Senator from Kansas pointed out in my amendment there is a requirement that States give some attention to work force education programs for displaced homemakers. However, States do retain total flexibility. Also, the amendment adds displaced homemakers to the list of populations in the bill for which States need to set or need to require performance benchmarks. I think it is very reasonable. Some 17 million Americans are displaced homemakers. I urge support of this amendment, and I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. GLENN. We have no amount required to be set aside in this. It permits the States a lot of flexibility to do what they think is best in each individual case, but we do not set aside a specific amount of money for this program.

Mr. GLENN. If they had been on welfare, yes.

Mr. GLENN. If they had been previously.

Mr. GLENN. Permissible job training activity, correct. Permissible, not required. That is an important point.

Mr. GLENN. Would you repeat the question, please?

Mr. GLENN. Was the question whether they are required to participate in educational activity?

Mr. GLENN. No, they are not required to; they would be permitted to.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, the United States lost a wonderful woman and we lost a good friend today. Rachel Schlesinger died today in Arlington, VA, after a long-time struggle against cancer. She was the wife, the partner, indeed a wonderful supporter of James Schlesinger, who served in Cabinet positions in three separate administrations for this country. In all the agencies in which her husband served, she was universally loved. I do not think I ever heard a hint of criticism about Rachel Schlesinger in all the years in Washington. She was born in Springfield, OH, in 1930 and grew up on the family farm, which she still owned with her sisters up to the time of her passing. Her father's family had come to southwestern Ohio from Pennsylvania Dutch country. Her mother's family had migrated from the German Palatinate and settled in rural Missouri. Her father was a livestock raiser and so called himself a dirt farmer who managed to survive the Depression, which was tough back in those days, of course. Rachel was an outstanding student at Springfield High School. She won a scholarship to Radcliffe College, which was then a woman's college at Harvard University, in 1948. She won honors in American history and literature. She graduated with honors in American history and literature. After college, Rachel moved to New York and became a college editor at Mademoiselle magazine, and in 1954, she married Jim Schlesinger, whom she had known since her college years. She became a freelance writer but devoted her time mainly to family life. Over time, they lived in Arlington, MA, Charlottesville, VA, Newport, RI, Santa Monica, CA, and Arlington, VA. Jim and Rachel had eight children: Cora, Charles, Ann, William, Emily, Thomas, Clara, and Jim, Jr. They all reside in Arlington, save for Charles, who is an engineer in Texas, and Ann, who lives with her husband and children in Prague. Rachel had mixed feelings about her husband's Government service, but only rarely did she involve herself in public issues. One such occasion did occur in 1971 when her husband was Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. The Commission was about to test the warhead for the Spartan missile in the Aleutian Islands. There were widespread protests developed in this country and overseas primarily associated with the peace movement and the environmental movement. It was said that the underground detonation would probably initiate an earthquake and maybe even a Sunami wave that would inflict widespread damages throughout the Pacific. Well, Rachel simply packed up two of her daughters and headed with her husband to Amchitka Island, where the test was to take place. The action of the family in going to the island quieted much of the alarm that the prospective test had generated. In 1975, she accompanied her husband on an extended trip to Asia. It was the first trip to Japan by a United States Secretary of Defense since World War II. Needless to say, the trip, again, generated very widespread protests, but also an outpouring of support along with it. The trip occurred after the fall of Saigon. Kim Il-Song was uttering threats to overrun South Korea, just as South Vietnam had been overrun. And in Korea, there was great concern regarding the strength of the American commitment. The visit of Mrs. Schlesinger and her husband did much to reassure the Korean Government and public that American support was steadfast and that North Korea would be given no latitude for aggressive action. In the 1980's, with her children departing from home, Mrs. Schlesinger again became active in local and charitable affairs. She was a very dedicated and accomplished musician. She served as a violinist with the Arlington Symphony Orchestra since 1983 and served on the board of directors with the symphony since 1987 and on the executive committee since 1990. She was founder and first chairman of the Ballston Pops, which she originally organized and continued to organize each May, and which will soon celebrate its 10th anniversary. Mrs. Schlesinger served on the overseas committee to visit the Memorial Church at Harvard. She was deacon of [[Page S 14877]] Georgetown Presbyterian Church. She also taught and began to raise Christmas trees as a business, and even delivered most of these trees herself. Despite the glamour of much official life in Washington, Rachel always referred to herself as a country girl. In her later years, she became more involved in the preservation of historic sites and increasingly the preservation of rural land. So, in addition to her civic and charitable work and her small business, she was very devoted to music, to gardening and, of course, her biggest devotion of all was to her family. She is survived by Jim, who is a good friend of ours, of course, and many people here, as she was also. She is survived by her eight children, six grandchildren, and three sisters, Mrs. Ann Kirkwood of Prescott, AZ; Janice Lynn of Croton-on-the-Hudson, NY; and Rebecca Mellinger (Mrs. Jane Engelthanier) of Chicago, IL. She had one sister who preceded her in death, Mrs. Judith Peterson of Upper Arlington, OH. Madam President, I just wanted to get that in today on the same day on which we lost this very good friend and dedicated American and wonderful supporter. I know her family is missing her, and our thoughts and prayers go out to them this evening. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I would like to commend my colleague from Missouri and the Chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee for continued funding of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry study on minority health. I believe this is important work. I would also like to speak to a complementary research effort that will help to protect minority populations, women, infants, and other populations from the adverse health effects of consuming chemically contaminated fish. In particular, this study identifies specific populations residing in the Great Lakes basin that may be at higher risk of exposure to chemical contaminants present in one or more of the Great Lakes. To date, ATSDR has learned about the trends in Great Lakes fish consumption. For example, fish is an essential component of diets of minority populations such as Native Americans and sport-anglers. The preliminary findings from this ATSDR study are helping to clarify the actual impacts of chemical exposure through fish consumption to these specific populations. In some cases, certain effects are not as prominent as feared, but the study corroborates that there are human health effects and helps to pinpoint the trends. However, continued research is needed to identify other susceptible populations, exposure pathways and correlation of exposure levels to health effects. Most importantly, we need to mobilize a public education effort to help members of at-risk populations and the medical community learn about the adverse human health effects of contaminated fish consumption and identify ways to minimize these harmful effects. Without continued funding the money and time invested in this research will be wasted and we will not have critical information to prevent risks to human health from contaminated fish consumption.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, when Dan Goldin became NASA Administrator in early 1992, the agency's annual budget was about $17.5 billion and headed to about $22 billion by the end of the decade. Now, however, the annual budget is declining from $14.5 billion and will likely be below $13 billion by the end of the decade. In terms of FTE's NASA's work force has been cut too--from about 24,000 in January 1993 to less than 21,000 today, and headed to about 17,500 by the year 2000. In order to manage these drastic cuts, over the last 9 or 10 months Mr. Goldin has conducted a so-called zero-base review. The purpose of this often painful process was to solicit ideas and develop plans on how the agency could function more efficiently. The review was conducted assuming that all existing missions will continue, but functions and missions would be streamlined or downsized. Mr. Goldin has made clear that any further budget cuts will result in elimination of core missions. Now Mr. President, let me be clear that I think Dan Goldin has done an outstanding job in a very difficult situation. There are very few people I know who have the vision, energy, and knowledge of the NASA Administrator. He has been criticized for making the tough decisions, but these decisions have to be made. Many of the recommendations resulting from the zero-base review are now beginning to be implemented, and I believe it is imperative that Congress carefully monitor the changes taking place at NASA so that we may be sure that we are getting the most from the taxpayers' dollar. Change for change's sake alone is not always the best policy. One recommendation of the zero-base review has been brought to my attention, and that of my colleagues, in particular the distinguished Senator from California, Senator Feinstein. This proposal regards consolidating flight operations management of all aircraft, except those in support of the space shuttle, at Dryden Flight Research Center. The review concluded that after an initial investment of $23 million, about $9 million could be saved annually if this recommendation is implemented. Currently NASA owns 65 research aircraft that support a wide range of NASA programs. Eighteen of these aircraft are scheduled to be retired by the end of fiscal year 1996 as a result of the programs they support being completed. The proposed consolidation would result in an additional 11 aircraft being retired, leaving just 36 aircraft in NASA's inventory. The proposal would also result in a reduction of 80 contractor and Federal FTE's, from 400 to 320. Mr. President. It seems to me that the first ``A'' in ``NASA'' is at risk. As a result of budget cuts, it appears that we are nearly halving a vital component in our Nation's aeronautic research base. These cuts hit particularly hard at a NASA facility which has made substantial, significant contributions over the past 50 years to our Nation's aeronautics industry. I am speaking about NASA's Lewis Research Center in Brookpark, OH. Currently seven research aircraft are based out of Lewis, including a newly refurbished DC-9 which is a centerpiece of Lewis' microgravity research program. It is my understanding that at least 5 of the 7 aircraft stationed at Lewis may be transferred to Dryden under the proposed consolidation. Now I understand that it may be possible to achieve some savings through consolidation of flight operations. However, if this action adversely impacts the ability of NASA scientists and engineers to perform their mission--and to do their research--then I think we are being penny wise and pound foolish. It is my understanding that the managers of this legislation have agreed with the Senator from California, that a closer look needs to be taken at this aspect of the zero-base review before it is finally implemented. I believe that such a review is appropriate and I look forward to studying its results, as well as other ongoing studies and audits of components of the zero-base review. oversight