"We need revolutionary change, a complete restructuring," Culberson told the Houston Chronicle. "NASA needs complete freedom to hire and fire based on performance, it needs to be driven by the scientists and the engineers, and it needs to be free of politics as much as possible."
The fourth-term lawmaker said he was "kicking around" a proposal designed to make NASA more like the National Science Foundation, an independent federal agency led by a director and a 24-member board appointed by the president.
Culberson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, said that despite spending $156.5 billion over the past decade, NASA had surrendered "a 40-year advantage" in space exploration. He said the agency continues to rely on liquid-fueled rockets with technology dating back to "Robert Goddard-era rockets" in the 1920s.
"I have always been a zealous advocate for the space program," said Culberson, who dates his interest in the subject to a childhood telescope. "But the setbacks are inexcusable and maddening — all because the magnificent men and women scientists and engineers have been frustrated by the bureaucracy, waste and duplication at headquarters."
Nick Lampson, whose district contains NASA, came to its defense, as did a supporter who pointed back at Congress:John M. Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, challenged Culberson's claim that the nation had little to show for NASA's efforts over the past 50 years, adding that NASA had fulfilled what the White House and Congress requested and financed for decades.
"It's easy to beat up on them because they're at the end of the shuttle program and they've been given inadequate funding by the administration and Congress to move forward with the new program for manned space flight," Logsdon said.
Culberson's comments apparently were inspired by previous statements by Newt Gingrich such as the following:
I am for a dramatic increase in our efforts to reach out into space, but I am for doing virtually all of it outside of NASA through prizes and tax incentives. NASA is an aging, unimaginative, bureaucracy committed to over-engineering and risk-avoidance which is actually diverting resources from the achievements we need and stifling the entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit necessary to lead in space exploration.
My hunch is that both Culberson and Lampson are buttering up separate constituencies. Lampson's is the existing bureaucratic constituency across I-45 in Clear Lake (and a total of 20,000 related workers in the Houston area), Culberson's is a potential private sector constituency who could take advantage of funding that would be redirected to the private sector. Typical ideological politics, nothing new to see.
The Chron story concludes with a statement that attests to NASA's ability to broaden its appeal across Congress:
Culberson emphasized that his proposal to revamp NASA's structure had not been drafted into legislation and that he had not yet solicited co-sponsors.
But prospects for passage of such a measure would difficult, given wide bipartisan support in Congress for NASA and a jam-packed election year congressional calendar.
