The 106th Congress enacted an excellent multi-year NASA Authorization Act in 2000. It was the legislative heir of House-passed bills from the 104th and 105th Congresses. The last previous enacted reauthorization occured in the 102nd, i.e. 1992. In general, during most of the Congresses no NASA Authorization was enacted into law because of inaction in the Senate, or because NASA resisted provisions which gave the agency strong direction.
Sadly, the loss of Columbia in 2003, and the CAIB report, and the wait for the President’s Vision, all postponed action on actual legislation until this spring. The Senate has now introduced a bill, but the House has not yet produced one.
All that said, the *cost* of not having an authorization bill is that NASA is not getting some of the support — and the guidance — it needs to succeed in its erstwhile transformation into a “pushing the frontier” exploration agency. The lack of authorization to start a large dollar prize program is just one example.

– Jim

So what is the likely effect of no authorization bill this year?

When this comment is added to today’s NY Times piece about ISS safe haven not being so safe after all, it seems to me that specifics such as “costs and timeframe” are rather important.

A rushed orbiter return to flight could have disastrous consequences for everything.

I support the proposed NASA funding 110% – – heck, I support even more NASA funding than that – – but to deny there are legitimate details to debate doesn’t help the cause IMHO.