Legislation introduced last fall to reorganize how NASA is managed appears to be getting a second shot in the new Congress. The House Science Committee’s space subcommittee has scheduled a hearing titled “A Review of The Space Leadership Preservation Act” for Wednesday, February 27, at 10 am. No witnesses or other information about the hearing have been released by the committee so far.
Last September, several members of Congress introduced the Space Leadership Preservation Act to correct issues they perceived with how NASA is run. The original legislation, HR 6491 in the 112th Congress, created a board of directors for NASA, eight of whose 11 members would be appointed by the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate. A key task for that board would be to nominate candidates to serve as NASA administrator; the president would appoint one of the nominees to serve a ten-year term. The board would also draft budgets submitted simultaneously to the White House and Congress. The legislation would also give NASA authority to perform multi-year procurements.
Despite optimistic statements by the bill’s sponsors at the time of its introduction, the legislation went nowhere in the last Congress, not even getting a formal hearing. The new version of the bill has not been formally introduced yet (as of early Friday morning), so it’s uncertain if it will be a copy of last year’s bill or incorporate any changes. While the original bill had a bit of bipartisan support (one co-sponsor was Houston-area Rep. Gene Green, a Democrat), there was little overt interest in the bill in the Senate. In addition, the White House would likely be opposed to legislation that would appear to shift power, in terms of freedom to nominate administrators and control of the budget process, from the administration to Congress.
Another power grab to protect their pork.
It’s not even clear that this bill would shift any actual power to Congress.
The White House would still appoint the largest number of board members (three, vice two each for the House/Senate majority/minority). Those three board members would presumably be in contact with White House staff to ensure that the board’s slate of NASA Administrator candidates includes some candidates that the White House approves of. And the President would then pick one of those pre-approved candidates when the slate comes to him. There’s nothing here that constrains the President; the bill is toothless. It’s just an extra, bureaucratic, do-loop in the nomination process for NASA Administrator. (As if that process wasn’t long enough already.)
On budgets, the White House is just going to ignore whatever imaginary fairy dust comes out of the board, ask NASA for its budget submission, put it through the OMB wringer, and follow the usual passback and settlement process used to produce the President’s annual budget request. And the appropriators are going to use that as their baseline, not a budget from a random board that’s produced without input from the executing agency (NASA) and without review by and endorsement from the White House. Again, the bill does nothing to constrain the President or appropriators; it’s toothless. It just creates a parallel, duplicative, and useless budget process that the taxpayer is going to have to shell out a couple hundred thousand dollars for secretarial support and board travel.
As for “multi-year procurements”, NASA has been doing those the entire life of the agency. The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 17.1 (NASA FAR Part 1817.1) provides authority and guidance on “Multiyear Contracting”.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/1817.doc
https://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%2017_1.html
The latest authority derives from Section 1022 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1993:
http://www.commerce.gov/general/commercialpurchase/commitments.shtml
And NASA is using this authority today. Here’s a nine-year contract with a near two-year base period that was awarded just this past December:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/dec/HQ_C12-062_TOSC_KSC.html
The multi-year contraacting part of the bill is completely duplicative, useless legislation. It’s more likely to screw up NASA’s multi-year contracting authority than defend it.
If this bill is a power grab, it’s a really pathetic one.
More likely, it’s not a serious bill. Like so much of what comes out of NASA’s authorization committees (especially on the House side), it’s just theater to make the NASA workers back home think that their congressman is fighting for them, when in fact the legislation is toothless, duplicative, and irrelevant.
The House Science Committee’s space subcommittee has scheduled a hearing titled “A Review of The Space Leadership Preservation Actâ€
more free drift. We’ve seen this before- in Three Stooges shorts when the boys try to read a map.
The reason America has “lost” its leadership in space is because of commitments to long term projects that end up being cancelled due to bad budgeting by Congress. The Space Leadership Preservation Act makes it easier for NASA to be commited to long term projects but does nothing to make Congress accountable to fund them properly. Is that irony?
SpaceColonizer said:
“The reason America has “lost†its leadership in space is because of commitments to long term projects that end up being cancelled due to bad budgeting by Congress.”
I think you are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective. If more affordable and sustainable projects had been chosen, then there wouldn’t have been a need to cancel them.
For instance, even though the Constellation program was very unenthusiastic (an Apollo redux), it likely would have had the political inertia to keep going as a goal if the program costs hadn’t spiraled so far out of control. And if you look at what Congress focuses on most is program that are out of control – that are exceeding their budgets.
Congress rarely cancels programs that are on-time, on-budget, and have the full support of their community or interest group.
Also, I disagree with your characterization that we have “lost” our leadership in space. Who owns the largest portion of the largest space station ever built? Who now has a domestic cargo resupply capability that can also return cargo to Earth? Who has the most vibrant commercial aerospace industry on the planet? Our space budget far outstrips everyone else’s.
In order to lose the leadership of something, someone else has to have taken it away from you. So who have we lost it to? Russia? China? I don’t think so.
Great summation of the situation. I’ll add that our current leadership in aerospace is despite the work of NASA management, not because of it.
Bennett In Vermont said:
“I’ll add that our current leadership in aerospace is despite the work of NASA management, not because of it.”
I’m glad you pointed that out. What NASA has accomplished has inspired many, but what NASA hasn’t accomplished, or is not doing in a very good way, is currently inspiring today’s generation of aerospace pioneers.
How ironic is it that the date and time for this hearing into how the U.S. can “preserve” it’s space leadership, is exactly when Dennis Tito will be giving a press conference on how a U.S. citizen is going to be showing the real future of space leadership?
Congress wants to preserve space leadership through a political power grab, whereas Dennie Tito wants to do it by using American ingenuity. I wonder which one is more likely to result in preserving our space leadership?
Here’s the blog post I wrote last September on this legislation:
http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2012/09/poseys-power-grab.html
My conclusion back then:
In my opinion, this is just another attempt at a power grab by Congress to solve a problem they have created themselves.
@Coastal Ron
“Also I disagree with your characterization that we have ‘lost’ our leadsership in space.”
I put “lost” in quotations for a reason.
SpaceColonizer said:
“I put “lost†in quotations for a reason.”
Then what do you mean? What is the reason?