House Bill Cites "$20 Billion Wasted on Uncompleted Programs"
Reps. Culberson, Wolf, Posey and Olson introduce the Space Leadership Act
“The last 30 years have been marked by canceled programs due to cost-overruns, mismanagement or abrupt program changes at the start of each new administration. In the past 20 years alone, 27 programs have been cancelled resulting in over $20 billion wasted on uncompleted programs. This legislation establishes a new Board of Directors to provide a quadrennial review of space programs and a vision for space exploration that will set a tone for NASA’s endeavors to ensure American preeminence in the space industry.”
Texas Republicans cosponsor bill to reform, depoliticize NASA administration, Houston Chronicle
“Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, said despite his involvement in previous bipartisan successes with NASA legislation, he was not contacted during the drafting of the Space Leadership Preservation Act. “It sounded like they just wanted Republicans on it, they didn’t want it to be bipartisan,” he said. With Congress breaking for election season after this week and loaded schedule of legislation to deal with before the end of the session, Green said he doubts anything will come of the act and suspects it is largely an election ploy.”
Text of “Space Leadership Act” legislation, as introduced
Congress has wasted over $20 billion forcing NASA to duplicate launch capabilities that are already available in the commercial marketplace
And that number will simply continue to grow …
Really? Please provide some details.
Unless you see congress doing a total 180 from what they have been doing for the last 40 years, then it will continue to grow.
So you if you see congress changing next year and quit what they have been doing for decades then …. Please provide details.
Because what NASA really needs is another layer of bureaucracy. I think these guys are missing some fundamental points – namely that in my experience at least half of research projects fail, and so the sunk costs get stranded. An awful lot of the red lines on that plot were experimental HSF programs. I don’t see how NASA can operate like “building a submarine”. We know how to build submarines. I guess one could argue we know how to build manned spacecraft, just really expensive disposable ones. And those are the ones certain congressional districts want us to keep building.
I also don’t see a damned thing in their proposal that fixes the fundamental problem of NASA being a congressional political football. Take the line-item budget power away from congress, and then maybe we would see something.
Never in my life have I seen such a bunch of hypocrites! Every single one of these congressman needs to take a look in the mirror for NASA’s problems. All this bill will do is attach more puppet strings to congress. Also, all of the board members must come from companies not doing business with NASA!?! So unless I am making a very far assumption, that means pretty much every single business and organization in the United States. Because I am pretty sure just about any company or organization that has any dealings in space has business with NASA.
Somebody please explain to me why a congressional board will be more successfull in designing new space vehicle systems and completing them?
The Huntsville Times is reporting that the bill includes a ten year term for the NASA administrator.
God help us all.
Also, we used to have that “board of directors”. It was the National Space Council.
I am for helping NASA to get into the business of making Technical and Budget decisions instead of looking over the shoulder about Politics! Let this Bill progress and allow the other members of Congress & Senate to be refined and give NASA a chance in the ever eroding Science, Technology and most importantly Man Space Flight for future generations. Nothing will be perfect but, at least this Bill starts with correcting the ever Politics involvement.
You do realize that when they are speaking about taking the politics out of NASA, that it only applies to the executive branch politics? All they will do is remove the (not entirely, but almost completely) president from the equation, and place themselves where he/she would be in the process. Unless it introduces a way to eliminate cost plus contracting, and replace it with the milestone payment process that seems to be working so well for COTS and CCDev than I for one will just about give up all hope for NASA doing anything significant in my life time (maybe a bit more pessimistc than I like, but decades of watching NASA mismanagement can do that)
As tinker mentioned earlier, if it wasn’t for private companies like Bigelow, SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada we should all be more worried.
guapoman2000,
Curious; my reaction was that this proposed Bill does exactly the opposite of what you suggest. This Bill would make every aspect of NASA’s existence entirely political, from program selection, through program execution, and on to post-program evaluation. And, of course, the budget and how it’s spent. There are no meaningful elements of either bipartisanship or Executive Branch involvement. It is a proposal to outright confiscate NASA from the country and the American people and turn it into a personal asset of a handful of Senators.
I would say that anybody who sees anything positive, at all, in this proposed robbery hasn’t actually read through the proposed Bill. Of course, they start the Bill out by giving confusing cut and paste instructions to the existing (unquoted) charter, instead of actual sentences. I went carefully through the cut and paste exercise and it took me almost half an hour to be sure I had done it correctly (they didn’t make it easy). I’m betting that very few people went to all that trouble, and therefore don’t actually know what the final version amendments and insertions actually say. Having skipped the first part, people, by human nature, are then going to be likely to skim over the remainder, probably skipping parts, if they read the rest of the Bill at all. So, people are going to be reacting and commenting based on assumptions about the Bill’s content and intent, instead of making an informed decision on what it really says, because it’s just too much work to sort it all out for certain.
I firmly believe that these crooks did this on purpose, especially when you also consider that the title includes the words “and for other purposes.” As far as I can see, there are no “other purposes” discussed in the proposed Bill, which strongly suggests that, in their time-honored fashion, they will get the Bill debated, as is, and then at the last minute, even after some members have left the building, they will add other paragraphs — that almost no one will see — before the vote is taken (riders like this, sometimes even on completely unrelated topics, are a common tactic in the US Congress) and then the vote will actually be for an amended version of the Bill, with amendments not generally know about, when members actually think they’re voting for the non-amended version. I’m no lawyer, but to my mind, this is nothing short of premeditated fraud. Yet it goes on all the time.
Voting for this Bill, or even speaking favorably about it, is equivalent to Jack giving away the family cow for a handful of beans, beans which contain only lies and broken promises. If you haven’t actually read the proposed Bill (in its current form, which is all that’s available), then please do so, and take the time to understand what it’s really proposing. You’ll discover that there’s nothing good in it, and it is not doing anything toward, as you say “helping NASA to get into the business of making Technical and Budget decisions instead of looking over the shoulder about Politics“. It is, in fact, clearly intended to do the exact opposite by taking away those responsibilities from NASA, and it will have NASA looking over its collective shoulder more than ever.
Notice, however, the the proposed Bill claims that it will make NASA “more accountable.” This is outright BS, and is inexcusable. They propose to take away the remnants of NASA’s authority for itself, but still hold it responsible and accountable for results. In ANY situation where an entity’s responsibilities and authority are mismatched, disaster is guaranteed, and trying to hold that entity accountable is absolutely unrealistic. This Bill proposes to take NASA’s authority for itself away but leave NASA with the responsibility for its activities, and accountable for any failures. In other words, NASA is being set up as the scapegoat from day one, pure and simple. On the basis of this factor alone, in my humble opinion, the crooks who drafted and presented this proposed Bill should be immediately and permanently removed from public office and never again be trusted in any position of responsibility.
And please realize that you people who continue to blame NASA for the inappropriate things that are forced upon it by Congress (against NASA’s will) are only making the situation worse and further empowering those in Congress who are abusing NASA, abusing the governmental system, and abusing the people of the United States, for their own personal ends.
Steve
Wow, this is amazing. NASA has not been able to complete many projects due to the change of Presidency. In trying to remedy that you write this long but ill informed and misunderstood reply. Glad its only you and not your Congress.
You do realize that the president only RECOMMENDS the funding and direction of NASA. Congress ultimately funds it. Talking about ILL informed.
James,
I’ve posted some of this before, but let’s go through it again for those posters who can’t be bothered to do a little learning and would rather consider their assumptions to be the facts. Then we’ll see who’s actually “ill informed.”
—— EXCERPTS FROM:
The National Aeronautics and Space Act
Pub. L. No. 111-314; 124 Stat. 3328 (Dec. 18, 2010)
——————
First — The NASA Administrator:
Sec. 20111. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(a) Establishment and Appointment of Administrator. — There is established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Administration shall be headed by an Administrator, who shall be appointed from civilian life by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Under the supervision and direction of the President, the Administrator shall be responsible for the exercise of all powers and the discharge of all duties of the Administration and shall have authority and control over all personnel and activities thereof.
——————
Second — The President:
REPORTS TO CONGRESS
Sec. 20116. Reports to Congress
(a) Presidential Report. — The President shall transmit to Congress in May of each year a report, which shall include —
(1) a comprehensive description of the programmed activities and the accomplishments of all agencies of the United States in the field of aeronautics and space activities during the preceding fiscal year; and
(2) an evaluation of such activities and accomplishments in terms of the attainment of, or the failure to attain, the objectives described in section 20102(d) of this title.
(b) Recommendations for Additional Legislation. — Any report made under this section shall contain such recommendations for additional legislation as the Administrator or the President may consider necessary or desirable for the attainment of the objectives described in section 20102(d) of this title.
(c) Classified Information. — No information that has been classified for reasons of national security shall be included in any report made under this section, unless the information has been declassified by, or pursuant to authorization given by, the President.
——————
Third — NASA ‘s Responsibilities and Duties:
Sec. 20112. Functions of the Administration
(a) Planning, Directing, and Conducting Aeronautical and Space Activities. — The Administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this chapter, shall —
(1) plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;
(2) arrange for participation by the scientific community in planning scientific measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space vehicles, and conduct or arrange for the conduct of such measurements and observations;
(3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof;
(4) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space; and
(5) encourage and provide for Federal Government use of commercially provided space services and hardware, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Government.
(b) Research and Development in Certain Technologies. —
(1) Ground propulsion technologies. — The Administration shall, to the extent of appropriated funds, initiate, support, and carry out such research, development, demonstration, and other related activities in ground propulsion technologies as are provided for in sections 4 to 10 of the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 2503 to 2509).
(2) Solar heating and cooling technologies. — The Administration shall initiate, support, and carry out such research, development, demonstrations, and other related activities in solar heating and cooling technologies (to the extent that funds are appropriated therefor) as are provided for in sections 5, 6, and 9 of the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5503, 5504, 5507).
——————
NOTES:
If you actually read “THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT” (The Space Act), which can be found at:
( http://www.nasa.gov/offices… ),
you will find that Congress created The Space Act, but nowhere in The Space Act, if you read it from start to finish, does it say, or even imply, that Congress itself is to exercise any control over either the programs that NASA undertakes or the management or implementation of those programs.
It clearly says that the NASA Administrator reports to and takes direction from The President, not Congress. And it clearly says that the President is to “report to” Congress once a year on NASA’s activities and progress. It does not anywhere allow for Congress to interfere with or micromanage NASA, nor does it make any allowance for Congress to decide what programs NASA will undertake. NASA is restricted to programs which comply with Section 20112 (excerpted above), and programs are to be decided by the NASA Administrator, with Presidential oversight. The Space Act allows/requires Congress to be involved in the operation of NASA only in matters of certain specifically stated money issues that exceed allowed amounts. Congress controls NASA’s budget allocation, of course, but there is nothing in The Space Act concerning this.
——————
Fourth — While we’re at it, let’s include this for the Russian and Chinese bashers:
Sec. 20115. International Cooperation
The Administration, under the foreign policy guidance of the President, may engage in a program of international cooperation in work done pursuant to this chapter, and in the peaceful application of the results thereof, pursuant to agreements made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
——————
Fifth — And let’s include this for the ISS bashers:
Sec. 20102. Congressional declaration of policy and purpose
(c) Commercial Use of Space. — Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the Administration seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.
——————
end of excerpts ——
Perhaps by this point you’ve realized that when Congress mandated SLS on NASA they disregarded their own legislation, which happens to be illegal if anybody else does it. And also, just maybe, by this point you’ve realized that a “change of Presidency” has nothing to do with the NASA problems, except when it involves a change in party. It has been the inappropriate interference of Congress in NASA’s affairs that has created so many problems, and disallowed so many new programs, and been (directly or indirectly) responsible for most of the unfinished program cancellations. NASA is guilty, in part, for it’s constant overruns. I say in part because of the amount of work and cost that gets added after program starts by Congressional interference, requests for additional reports, and budget cuts. There is also the fact that Congress people seem to believe (or at least claim they do) that science and engineering should be accurately predictable in terms of budget and schedule (even R&D programs) just like manufacturing contracts are, which is nuts.
By the way, it’s not my Congress; I’m Canadian. I just do my homework because of my belief in space activities. If you truly believe that this proposed Bill is to “change business as usual at NASA and result in a more stable and accountable space program” as it claims, then these Reps have managed to fool you good. Their sole purpose is to take NASA away from the Presidency and to render the NASA Administrator powerless by putting in their Board of Directors (look at who gets to do Board member nominations if you actually read the proposed Bill). Their goal is to take NASA for themselves so they can keep the pork flowing, period.
It’s amazing what you can learn, if you can be bothered to do a little reading.
Steve
That said, I’ve come around on the Board of Directors. (Stupid name.) Three members appointed by the President, three by House majority, one by House minority, three by Senate majority, one by Senate minority. [Cue Lord of the Rings reference.] Must be qualified in some related field, can’t be directly appointed from industry. Must produce a “vision for space” every four years. Must produce a budget recommendation. IMO, that’s all something that could be sensibly negotiated into a positive change (if sensible negotiation were possible any more.)
If Obama got reelected, and if the members were chosen well, this “Board of Directors” (stupid stupid name) could end up producing precisely the budget and “Vision” recommendation that would horrify people like Wolf. (Eg, recommending the death of SLS/Orion.) And there’s something to be said about using your opponent’s own strength against them.
Geesh, Steve I hope your assertions are wrong. I do hope they do get NASA to finish projects (Long Term ones) with the help of this Bill. As I posted, it is still in the beginning stages so, again, I would say it has a long way to go. Thanks for spending the time in reading all aspects of it. 😉
Folks:
Cost ‘overruns’ = cost plus contracts. Canceled programs due to budget restraints = too much oversight and pork from the very committee introducing this bill. 10 year term for NASA Administrator = our guy in there even if our party loses the next election.
Isn’t dialectic logic wonderful!
I’d be far more worried if there weren’t great innovators out there like SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace and Sierra Nevada delivering America a space program to on a silver platter in spite of those committee members.
“A committee is a creature with six or more legs and no brain.”
– Robert Anson Heinlein
tinker
One big cost from a canceled program was Obama canceling the Constellation program.
Would you please stop repeating that same line. It’s been explained to you over and over. Constellation was not even close to being doable under the stupid budget that Bush allowed for it, Bush, not Obama, and there is no way in hell that the amount that would be required to do Constellation was ever going to be allocated by Congress. Quite aside from its technical shortcomings, IT WAS NEVER GOING TO GET DONE and would have been the biggest waste due to canceled programs in NASA history. It should have been canceled a lot sooner to save some of the money it wasted. Why is it so hard for you to understand that it was a dead duck before it even began?
Steve, please stick to facts. It was canceled. That’s what the article refers to are among other things, canceled programs. Could you point out where programs that were undoable are excluded from this article?
John,
Sticking to facts is the point. Whenever you repeat his same line you write it in such a way that it is clearly a criticism of Obama for something that wasn’t his fault. He FIXED the problem that Bush created; he did what anyone who understood the facts would have done. Yet you keep implying that he did something bad by canceling Constellation. So, how about you stick to the facts — without false implications added on.
The article is about waste that was accrued because VALID programs were canceled before being allowed to run to completion and hopefully return value for the money spent on them. Constellation was never in that category; it could never be completed for the money allocated and no more money was going to be allocated, therefore it was not a valid program, ever, at all, from the very start. Those are the facts, so let’s stick to them, shall we?
Steve
John:
That one deserved to be cancelled! Obama’s admin saw ‘failure’ written on the wall and folded while the folding was possible. Constellation money didn’t ‘disappear’, it lined the nests of aerospace companies who never intended on delivering. Less control, more results: eg. SpaceX.
tinker
[edit] Steve: Didn’t see your post there. But, yeah John, it does look like we’re ganging up on you! Oh well, Steve, reasonably functional minds think alike! 🙂
Obama’s admin saw ‘failure’ written on the wall and folded while the folding was possible.
And hopefully, with Obama’s second term, he’ll have the political clout to cancel that flying pork bucket called SLS.
The sooner it’s gone, the better for NASA over all.
Gonzo,
It would be good all around, for sure. It would also be an epic battle — one man against an entrenched Congress which has, to date, roadblocked almost everything Obama has tried to do, simply because he proposed it. Off hand, I would say his only chance of killing off SLS is if we suddenly got a more balanced (and therefore theoretically more bipartisan) Congress, both Senate and House. Then maybe the endless obstructionism will fade away and they can return to evaluation the issues, instead of just who proposed them.
Steve
In another forum, I suggested that sequestration could be used as an excuse (an “emergency”) by Obama to cancel SLS as a traditional program, and have NASA instead create a COTS/Commercial Crew style program for the development of two heavy lift launch services sufficient to meet the letter of the law. (Ie, a man-rated 70 ton to LEO launcher, and a 130 ton to LEO cargo launcher.) But where a bidding vendor is responsible for their entire vehicle development, and NASA just buys the capacity. Initially under SAA’s in the early development phases, with multiple vendors under fixed-cost contracts. Once full launch capability is demonstrated by at least one vendor in each category, down-selecting to a maximum of two providers, under formal FAR contracts, for actual launch services.
[It’s not gonna happen, but the thought amused me. Imagine the surge of launcher development it would trigger. And the hysteria in Congress.]
I’m just stating facts. You all may not like Constellation and you may think I liked it (although I’ve never said that), a fact is a fact. I never said whether it deserved to be canceled or not, but it was. And that’s what the article was talking about.
What the headline SHOULD Have said:
House Bill Fails to Cite “$300 Billion Wasted on Completed But Useless Programs” — wants opportunity to make it $320 Billion
This Board will be useless. NASA programs are funded by Congress, which controls all appropriations of the federal government. No opinion or action by any Board will have any sway over what gets funded by Congress or not. And mandating the Administrator’s term to 10 years will never fly, it’s simply too long. It is a presidential appointment approved by the Senate. I can’t imagine a prior presidential appointee being forced by tenure on a subsequent administration, but that would appear to be allowed by Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution.
“To preserve American space leadership, and for other purposes.“
What “other purposes”? Does this perhaps indicate that they’re planning to add more to it?
When you read this proposed Bill from start to finish, it basically says that a group picked by Congress, specifically the Senate, will dictate what NASA will do and will also evaluate NASA’s performance. Of course, they will also be holding the tiller with respect to the NASA budget. The President, who under the current Charter is who NASA reports to, gets a token three nominations for the Board and is basically otherwise completely out of the picture except for budget proposal process (how kind!). Who would have thought that a band of crooks would actually plot to steal a government agency? From the President no less! I guess they’re just proposing to formalize what they’ve been doing for so long, anyhow.
Off hand, I’d say that if this Bill passes, we’re screwed.
Steve
Steve:
President Kennedy also used the term “and for other purposes.”in another speech about space way back when. It must have been a strange statement then too. Are they mimicking Kennedy or is there really another purpose? Or, is it just a ‘catch all’ loophole they always use when they don’t know what they are going to spend their money on but decide to spend it anyway?
tinker
“and for other purposes.”
It’s standard language in nearly every bill introduced. Google site:uscode.house.gov “An act” “and for other purposes”…
“An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes”
“An Act to repeal timber-culture laws, and for other purposes”
“An Act to establish a program for the preservation of additional historic properties throughout the Nation, and for other purposes”
“An Act to provide certain administrative authorities for the. National Security Agency, and for other purposes”
“An Act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1944, and for other purposes”
… from the first page of over 7300 results.
[1811, “A Bill to Encourage the Manufacture of Woolen Cloth, also Cotton, Hemp and Flax, and for other Purposes,” which introduced the modern corporation. Previous corporations had to be individually approved by the government, this bill allowed any corporation that met minimum standards to register.]
Paul:
Thank you for the clarification. But, do we know what “and for other purposes.” means? Do we know why it’s there?
tinker
Pork.
Sven:
Thanks. I was afraid that was the answer.
tinker
Tinker,
I figure it’s there so they can append or amend other stuff at the last minute, after the proxy votes are decided, so that the extras are part of the Bill if it passes, but the proxy voters didn’t even know it was there. Like a rider, but stuck in covertly. They do it all the time, even including legislation completely unrelated to the purpose of the Bill, and some members find out only afterward that they voted for something they’ve never seen.
Steve
I don’t know. I do see that it’s an old practice. Non-cynical speculation is that it’s a legal thing, there may have been some legal or procedural precedent which said the name of the bill must reasonably reflect the contents of the bill. So by using a meaningless catch-all, you bypass that.
posting this twice to make sure a few of you read it and think about it if not answer it.
Mr. Whitfield
I need your help.
A few minutes ago I heard Elon Musk interviewed on, television on CBS this morning by Charlie Rose.
I have no way to re-watch the video clip here and I don’t recall Charlie’s questions. But in general Elon was asked why, do you want to go to Mars.
Steve
If you would, please re-watch the interview and tell me given the time restraints what Elon should have said to each of Charlie’s questions.
I do not feel Elon made a good case.
HE HAD THE FLOOR the bully pulpit !!!
yet not a compelling clear short message.
His natural stutter didn’t help.
Keith
To me, the message why, then how we should go to space is a large part of what NASA Watch is all about.
What is
THE CASE FOR SPACE message?
And how can it be best communicated to the world?
Lolol how many characters is a twitter message again?? 140 ??
Mr. C
What if I gave you a homework assignment and asked you to write a short article about three pages to convince me JOE Q that we must develop Space. Could you do it??? Could you write and argument so SIMPLE, so clear, so compelling that it would reach other simple minds like mine?
Tinker
While reading The Survival Imperative the pages about Gerard K. O’Neill’s islands in the sky made me think of you. I challenge you to answer the same question. Convince me/us!!!
I have been hanging around NASA watch a couple of years playing my nature role of Joe Q Public, asking my dumb questions, hoping to help some of you find a way to formulate that compelling message and tell me/us what we can do to make it happen.
In William E. Burrows book the survival Imperative using space to protect earth,
is written a line that asks if man is even capable of taking steps today, to protect him/herself in the future.
Watching all the noise on the news, all the foolishness, wars, religious fights, a candidate saying he is not interested in saving the planet, I just want to scream!!!
I know how important space development is to us/Human kind, but not sure how to say it.
HELP!!!!!
Lolol
Again the 4 th grader raised his hand and said teacher
WHAT CAN WE DO??
They saved an earth Species!!!!!
Lolol
Maybe I’m that 4 th grader
PS
Burrows library book was like new, I may be the first one to have turned its pages.
The Earthling
How about this!
If you care anything at all for the future of your children, grandchildren, descendants, mankind and whether they will live within a strong technological society (vice the stone age) with the resources to continue forward than it is imperative that we use the resources on Earth now (before we use the readily accessible reserves)to gather the UNLIMITED resources in space before we have exhausted all our options here on Earth to acquire said UNLIMITED resources.
In all actuality I can flip the argument around in anyway depending on the person and the values that individual holds and still be speaking the truth (in exception to some die-hard religious types). It really comes down to presenting the information that appeals to them. Especially when space development can solve many (not all) of the crisis that we have here on Earth now.
Michael:
Amen! (and I’m not particularly religious.)
tinker
Most of the programs cancelled because of a “change of direction” seem to have been under Mr. Bush. The ones cancelled under Clinton and Obama generally had pretty good reasons. Also, most of the other organizations with directors appointed for extended terms (FBI, Coast Guard) are under executive departments with secretaries appointed by the President.
The Conservatives had control of NASA with Bush.Obama puts in a Conservative(Bolden,self confessed). Privatization increased under Obama with Commercial Crew.A Republican puts in a Republican.Finally a Democrat wins but does not put in a Democrat.Maybe he should have put a left winger in and see what he could do.NASA is not our NASA,it belongs to the Right.
Ok I thought is this how these work? I didn’t realize that. So I looked it up.
Wikipedia NFS – “The NSF’s director, deputy director, and the 24 members of the National Science Board (NSB) are appointed by the President of the United States, and confirmed by the United States Senate.”
Wikipedia FBI – “FBI Directors are appointed by the President of the United States. They must be confirmed by the United States Senate and serve a term of office of five years, with a maximum of ten years, if reappointed, unless they resign or are fired by the President before their term ends.”
What the hell!! Looks like Rep. Culberson’s modeling was to make it more unlike the NFS and FBI. What a bunch of crap.