Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) announced this afternoon that he will not seek reelection this fall. The local newspaper, the Utica Observer-Dispatch, has an early story about his announcement, made at 3 pm in Utica, as well as a copy of his remarks.
Regardless of his decision to run or not, Boehlert had to step down from his chairmanship of the House Science Committee at the end of this year because of internal term limits. The Hill newspaper, in an article posted shortly before Boehlert’s official announcement, passed along something interesting I had not heard before:
GOP insiders were not surprised by his announcement given that he had heart bypass surgery after winning reelection in 2004 and that House GOP leaders are considering a plan to abolish the Science Committee, which Boehlert chairs, as part of a plan to reorganize the committee structure. [emphasis added]
The article doesn’t offer any additional details about any potential restructuring, including what committee(s) would get oversight of NASA and other science programs should the Science Committee be disbanded.
I for one would like to see NASA out from under the Science Committee, because putting it there automatically makes people associate it with science, when that’s only a part of its mission.
What will they be replacing it, a bible studies committee?
Rand, I think I agree with you on this one. If scientists really want to have a separate space science agency — I think that unwise of them, but it’s okay with me — that agency can be under whatever replaces the science committee. The rest of NASA should probably be part of a transportation agency or an infrastructure agency or something.
That said, I am very suspicious of anything that deemphasizes science in Congress. I would not support not having some sort of science committee or important subcommittee in Congress.
— Donald
The new committee should be called the “Political Science” committee. It would be a committee devoted first and foremost to politics, and to use and twist science as deemed necesary to meet the political goals. Thus NASA would fit right in.
Rand
I have been talking to a German friend of mine and DLR has been moved from the technology ministry to the ministry of economics. It is interesting to me that in Europe they are much more focusing on the economic aspects of space.
If NASA was to be focused on supporting the development of commercial infrastructure where would it best be located in the committee structure?
Dennis
I have to confess to not being familiar with the current committee structure, for either authorization or appropriations, so I couldn’t say.
In England the BNSC resides under the Department of Trade and Industry. Ever heard of BNSC? Precisely.
Interesting rumor.
Putting NASA in the “Commerce Committee” might (with emphasis on the word “might”) have a beneficial impact on what our nation actually does in space. But there are significant downsides too.
This would make the House structure similar to the Senate. Since there is no observable increase in the interest in “space commerce” in the Senate, as a result of NASA being in the Senate Commerce Committee, nobody should get their hopes up.
The downside is that national space policy gets much less focus in the Senate than it does in the House, partly because of the Committee structure. There have been years in which neither the Senate Commerce Committee, nor any of is subcommittees, hold even one hearing on space policy.
– Nemo2
PS — The most logical alternative would be the “Transportation Committee”, which would not be a good thing. Transportation is even more culturally aligned with doling out large amounts of pork by geographic region. At least commerce is composed of members who triy to think about good commercial policy.
Interesting rumor.
Putting NASA in the “Commerce Committee” might (with emphasis on the word “might”) have a beneficial impact on what our nation actually does in space. But there are significant downsides too.
This would make the House structure similar to the Senate. Since there is no observable increase in the interest in “space commerce” in the Senate, as a result of NASA being in the Senate Commerce Committee, nobody should get their hopes up.
The downside is that national space policy gets much less focus in the Senate than it does in the House, partly because of the Committee structure. There have been years in which neither the Senate Commerce Committee, nor any of is subcommittees, hold even one hearing on space policy.
– Nemo2
PS — The most logical alternative would be the “Transportation Committee”, which would not be a good thing. Transportation is even more culturally aligned with doling out large amounts of pork by geographic region. At least commerce is composed of members who triy to think about good commercial policy.