| 
|
| | | |
Soundbites and Oversight
By BRIAN BERGER
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 02:25 pm ET, 24 March 2003
| | |
bartproarch_032403
U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), Ranking Member, House Science Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee
U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon’s adamant insistence that the panel investigating the Space Shuttle Columbia accident be independent from NASA has put him in the national media spotlight in a way he has not seen for some 13 years, when the Tennessee Democrat went undercover to investigate an educational loan scam.
In that episode, Gordon targeted fly-by-night trade schools that were bilking students out of their U.S.
government-backed loans, handing out sham degrees and pocketing the money. When the students discovered their degrees were not the ticket to the better-paying jobs recruiters had promised, they defaulted on their loans, leaving the government holding the bag.
Gordon grew a three-day beard and traded his coat and tie for a pair of old blue jeans to get a closer look at these schools. The result, ultimately, was a new law that tightened the eligibility standards for schools seeking to admit students in federally funded educational loan programs.
In the wake of the Feb. 1 loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia, Gordon has once again become the go-to guy for journalists seeking a good quote.
A mild-mannered, small town lawyer whose state hosts no major NASA facility, Gordon is one of just three House Science Committee members whose tenure dates back to before the 1986 Challenger disaster. He thinks the current White House should take a cue from then-President Ronald Reagan and appoint a Columbia investigation board that is completely independent from NASA.
The grounding of the space shuttle fleet also has raised doubts in Gordon’s mind about the wisdom of the Iran Non-Proliferation Act of 2000, which makes it difficult for NASA to buy the Russian hardware that now may be needed to keep the international space station occupied. He recently joined two Texas Democrats in proposing an amendment that would soften the existing legislation.
Gordon, 54, was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1984, filling the seat left vacant when Al Gore moved on to the Senate. Gordon said he sought a spot on the Science Committee on Gore’s recommendation.
Gordon spoke recently with Space News staff writer Brian Berger.
Q. NASA has made three rounds of changes to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board charter. Are you satisfied?
A. It’s still a commission that was mostly appointed by NASA. That’s a fundamental flaw that cannot be overcome. What I would suggest now for the sake of continuity is that President George W. Bush establish a new commission and appoint any or all the current members and an equal number of new members, including Nobel laureates and journalists.
The commission should be given its own budget and report to Congress and the White House. The end result would be a report that carries more credibility with the general public. That’s critical if, at the end of the day, NASA needs more money to get back on track.
Q. After Challenger, President Reagan barred commercial and military satellites from launching on the shuttle. What policy changes should the White House make now?
A. If you want to move something in this town you need the White House behind it. So I am more interested right now in getting the White House focused on space than I am in exactly what they might recommend.
Q. NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe says it won’t need to buy Russian vehicles to keep the space station occupied. Why are you pushing legislation NASA says it doesn’t need?
A. I don’t want to be an alarmist, but we are just one Soyuz or Progress failure away from having to abandon the space station. If we find ourselves having to move quickly, this bill is important.
Q. Is NASA’s posture with regard to the need for additional Russian hardware realistic in your view?
A. Not at all. NASA’s entire plan seems to be to get the shuttle flying again as soon as possible and hope that in the meantime the partners will foot the bill for keeping the station occupied. I appreciate NASA’s optimism — and I hope they’re right — but I don’t think its prudent planning. We can’t count on the rest of the world to indemnify us.
Q. Can Russia provide extra Progress or Soyuz vehicles without outside financing?
A. We’ve seen that Russia plans to cover this year’s expenses using, in essence, next year’s money. So what happens next year? It’s overly optimistic to think the shuttle will be flying again before the end of the year. NASA’s been working on a 12-month and 18-month scenario, but they need to look a little further out, remembering that Challenger led to a 32-month stand down. I hope that won’t be the case with Columbia, but NASA certainly needs to be prepared if it is.
Q. Do you believe inadequate funding contributed to the Columbia accident?
A. We have to wait before passing judgement. I would, however, like to see NASA resume its review of its infrastructure and work force needs. We need to identify any pressing needs and get them funded before NASA embarks on expensive new initiatives.
Q. Are you in favor of NASA’s nuclear power and propulsion initiative?
A. It’s an interesting proposal and very well could have merit. But here’s an example of where NASA canceled one effort — the Europa Orbiter — because it was too expensive only to replace it with a similar effort that is much more expensive. I am not opposed to the new initiative but I want to make sure NASA’s meeting its basic responsibilities before it takes on big new projects.
Q. What are your legislative and oversight priorities?
A. We have to first and foremost learn why we lost Columbia. We also need a better understanding of how we are going to support the space station with three orbiters, all of which are grounded for the time being. I would also like to make the most of this period of heightened interest in NASA to have hearings on the agency’s vision, what it wants to do, what we are going to get for it and how much it is going to cost. As part of all that, we need to resurrect the Strategic Resources review to inventory NASA infrastructure needs.
Q. NASA wants to field an Orbital Space Plane by 2010 as a backup to the space shuttle. Can NASA meet that schedule?
A. History suggests NASA normally takes longer and it’s not always NASA’s fault because so much depends on funding. That’s why I am so adamant that the Columbia Accident Investigation Board’s independence be beyond reproach. We shouldn’t give other lawmakers any excuse not to support proper funding for NASA.
Q. Are you sold on the Orbital Space Plane?
A. No. Congress funded it last year before we could have a hearing. But NASA should not take our continued support for granted.
|
|
|
|
