Author Topic: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV  (Read 156826 times)

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17773
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 441
  • Likes Given: 3329
Looks like a good roundup.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16914
  • Liked: 997
  • Likes Given: 444
Latest Wayne Hale blog entry:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog.blog/posts/post_1268854451788.html

Interesting reminder that even FY 2012 is in work for some agencies...though maybe not parts of NASA yet this time...

Quote
In a usual year, this would put the NASA financial/business office folks on track to be developing the 2012 budget request at this time.  From shortly after the Presidentís budget request is announced until Memorial Day, each Federal executive agency pulls together their wish list/budget proposal for the fiscal year after next.  So at the same time that each agency is operating under the current fiscal year appropriation and Congress considers the budget proposal for next fiscal year, work is started on the budget for the year after next.  Three different fiscal years are in play at one time.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6982
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 548
  • Likes Given: 622
Interesting reminder that even FY 2012 is in work for some agencies...though maybe not parts of NASA yet this time...

I would imagine that some parts of NASA can't even be sure that they will exist this time next year, so preparing for next FY's budget is probably a bit premature.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16914
  • Liked: 997
  • Likes Given: 444
House Science and Technology Committee, Subcommittee on Space & Aeronautics Hearing next Wednesday: "Proposed Changes to NASAís Exploration Program: Whatís Known, Whatís Not, and What Are The Issues for Congress?"
http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2776

Witness List:
    * Mr. Douglas Cooke

    * Mr. A. Thomas Young

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Interesting reminder that even FY 2012 is in work for some agencies...though maybe not parts of NASA yet this time...

I would imagine that some parts of NASA can't even be sure that they will exist this time next year, so preparing for next FY's budget is probably a bit premature.

Given how long it takes the administration to get anything done, any agency hoping to be around should be starting 2012 budget planning now as a matter of course, whether or not they still exist then is immaterial.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Obama really desperate for Healthcare votes it seems ;).

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36065

Most interesting rumor from the Hill yesterday: Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) who announced his retirement from Congress has been promised the job of NASA administrator in exchange for his vote, and Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), another retiring Democrat, has been promised an appointment as U.S. Ambassador to NATO in exchange for his vote.

« Last Edit: 03/18/2010 08:11 PM by marsavian »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16914
  • Liked: 997
  • Likes Given: 444
Obama really desperate for Healthcare votes it seems ;).
Just a rumor (the cushy jobs part, not so much looking for votes)...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/briefing-white-house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-3182010

Quote
Q    The Republicans put something out saying that Bart Gordon and John Tanner have been promised cushy government positions in exchange for their votes.

MR. GIBBS:  And what were those positions?

Q    Those positions are NASA administrator and U.S. ambassador to NATO.  (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS:  Well, thatís --

Q    At some point.

MR. GIBBS:  I think those are -- I think those jobs are currently filled, but -- and Iím not sure that anybody would think -- certainly the current occupants -- that those are otherwise cushy jobs.  So thatís just not true.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2010 09:12 PM by psloss »

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Obama really desperate for Healthcare votes it seems ;).

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36065

Most interesting rumor from the Hill yesterday: Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) who announced his retirement from Congress has been promised the job of NASA administrator in exchange for his vote, and Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), another retiring Democrat, has been promised an appointment as U.S. Ambassador to NATO in exchange for his vote.


How would Bart Gordon possibly benefit from being NASA Administrator, at this point? How cushy would that job actually be? ??? 

Ambassador to NATO? Okay, that could be a better gig.

EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16914
  • Liked: 997
  • Likes Given: 444
It will be interesting to see what the vote is on this amendment...
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/03/19/defending-constellation-via-the-faa/

Quote
Six senators, all Republicans, have joined LeMieux as cosponsors of the amendment: Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett of Utah. The Senate is currently debating the FAA reauthorization bill (several proposed amendments, dealing with issues like prohibiting earmarks and imposing spending caps, were defeated in votes Thursday), a process that will continue at least through today.
« Last Edit: 03/19/2010 10:18 AM by psloss »

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 37
It will be interesting to see what the vote is on this amendment...
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/03/19/defending-constellation-via-the-faa/

Quote
Six senators, all Republicans, have joined LeMieux as cosponsors of the amendment: Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett of Utah. The Senate is currently debating the FAA reauthorization bill (several proposed amendments, dealing with issues like prohibiting earmarks and imposing spending caps, were defeated in votes Thursday), a process that will continue at least through today.


Likely not to come to a vote; several Senators have been objecting to "extraneous" amendments to FAA Reauthorization, on the general principle of keeping the bill relatively "clean" of "riders", so an objection to consideration--or a vote against--would not necessarily be a rejection of the substance of the amendment, but a matter of procedural preference.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16914
  • Liked: 997
  • Likes Given: 444
It will be interesting to see what the vote is on this amendment...
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/03/19/defending-constellation-via-the-faa/

Quote
Six senators, all Republicans, have joined LeMieux as cosponsors of the amendment: Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett of Utah. The Senate is currently debating the FAA reauthorization bill (several proposed amendments, dealing with issues like prohibiting earmarks and imposing spending caps, were defeated in votes Thursday), a process that will continue at least through today.


Likely not to come to a vote; several Senators have been objecting to "extraneous" amendments to FAA Reauthorization, on the general principle of keeping the bill relatively "clean" of "riders", so an objection to consideration--or a vote against--would not necessarily be a rejection of the substance of the amendment, but a matter of procedural preference.
Ah, public gestures all around, got it.  I'll probably have a look at the floor this morning, anyway...at least until the tournament resumes at lunch time...

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16914
  • Liked: 997
  • Likes Given: 444
FWIW, given the meeting between Rep. Kosmas and Obama last week noted/discussed earlier in the thread, she has decided to vote with the Administration on health care:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-suzanne-kosmas-health-care-vote-20100319,0,6447618.story
« Last Edit: 03/19/2010 08:54 PM by psloss »

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/87961-rep-gordon-deflects-criticism-he-traded-healthcare-vote-for-nasa-job

"If it was offered to me, I would not accept," Gordon told the chamber, praising current NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and stressing his decision to support Democrats' healthcare bill, which he announced Thursday, was his own.


Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16914
  • Liked: 997
  • Likes Given: 444
It will be interesting to see what the vote is on this amendment...
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/03/19/defending-constellation-via-the-faa/

Quote
Six senators, all Republicans, have joined LeMieux as cosponsors of the amendment: Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett of Utah. The Senate is currently debating the FAA reauthorization bill (several proposed amendments, dealing with issues like prohibiting earmarks and imposing spending caps, were defeated in votes Thursday), a process that will continue at least through today.


Likely not to come to a vote; several Senators have been objecting to "extraneous" amendments to FAA Reauthorization, on the general principle of keeping the bill relatively "clean" of "riders", so an objection to consideration--or a vote against--would not necessarily be a rejection of the substance of the amendment, but a matter of procedural preference.
As you predicted, the amendment was one of the ones never "considered," and the FAA Reauthorization bill was passed by the Senate yesterday without that language.  (That will be headed to conference.)

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 37
It will be interesting to see what the vote is on this amendment...
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/03/19/defending-constellation-via-the-faa/

Quote
Six senators, all Republicans, have joined LeMieux as cosponsors of the amendment: Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett of Utah. The Senate is currently debating the FAA reauthorization bill (several proposed amendments, dealing with issues like prohibiting earmarks and imposing spending caps, were defeated in votes Thursday), a process that will continue at least through today.


Likely not to come to a vote; several Senators have been objecting to "extraneous" amendments to FAA Reauthorization, on the general principle of keeping the bill relatively "clean" of "riders", so an objection to consideration--or a vote against--would not necessarily be a rejection of the substance of the amendment, but a matter of procedural preference.
As you predicted, the amendment was one of the ones never "considered," and the FAA Reauthorization bill was passed by the Senate yesterday without that language.  (That will be headed to conference.)


You may see the amendment language introduced as a separate bill, rather than as an amendment to another bill; of course, that would likely mean it would get referred to the Commerce Committee and would possible end up being considered as part of the development of a full NASA authorization bill, in the same way the Hutchison bill will likely be considered. It might be possible to have it held at the desk or placed directly on the calendar, but that would take unanimous consent, and might be a problem. On the other hand, the critical and timely nature of the subject matter could lend support to it being given some special handling. That will all remain to be seen. This could then be a case where, in fact, cosponsorships could be an important factor, in it getting leadership attention for special treatment.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Tim S

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
  • MSFC
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 10
What is the status of this bill?

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 37
What is the status of this bill?

The bill which was the initial subject of this discussion, S. 3068, was introduced, as explained at the time, to "lay down a marker" for what Senator Hutchison, in the Senate and Representative Kosmas, in the House, who introduced an identical "companion bill", saw as the kind of eventual "compromise" solution that could result after the push and pull of the "Constellation or Bust" versus "Bold New Obama plan" "camps" finally recognized that neither extreme was likely to succeed.

It was drafted, and intended, as the proposed language to form the Human Spaceflight/Exploration portions of the broader 2010 NASA Authorization bill that it has been the plan of the Subcommittee on Science and Space of the Senate Commerce Committee to produce, and when the Subcommittee reached a point of readiness to sit down and hammer out the final language. That meant waiting for the requisite hearings on the subject matter, which have now been pretty much completed on the Senate side.

Within the next several days and weeks, those bill-drafting discussions will begin in earnest, and the language of S. 3068, if not the "bill" itself, will be on the table for discussion, negotiations, modifications, etc., into (ideally) a "bipartisan consensus" set of language for HSF portions of the broader comprehensive NASA authorization bill, as a part of the whole bill. Similar language dealing the Space Science, Earth Science, Aeronautical Research and Education account areas will be presented as well, and a similar bi-partisan consensus-building process will take place dealing with that language. (The Senate side has typically been able the past five years to do these on a fairly cooperative, bi-partisan basis. In the meantime, since introduction of S. 3068, many many conversations have had about various provisions, and their basis, and justification, and all of that activity will now find its way into the final drafting process. By the end of June, it is hoped to have hammered out the content of a comprehensive NASA Authorization bill, covering the underlying proposed congressional policy pronouncements in response to the Obama proposals. Then a final hearing will likely be held to address the content of the proposed new bill, which would then be refined and prepared for "mark-up" by the full Commerce Committee within a week or so of that hearing.

The markup will be a final opportunity to resolve remaining points of conflict through the adoption (or rejection) of amendments proposed by any Member of the full Committee, after which a vote will be taken on whether to report the bill, as amended, to the Senate for action.

At that stage, if reported and placed on the calendar, it then would await the scheduling of either floor time to debate it, or--more likely--the Senate leadership would "hotline" it (circulate it) for review by all 100 Members of the Senate.

Any objections raised to any content by any senator during the course of that "hotline" process (usually a one or two day period of time) would constitute a "hold" on the bill, and those holds would then be subject to negotiations to address those concerns and, hopefully, find additional compromise language that all can agree to.

At that point the bill would be called up under a unanimous consent agreement which would incorporate any language changes resulting from the hold negotiations in the form of a substitute to the reported language, and, if no one objects, it is passed and sent to the House.

Then the process of a "conference" begins, in which the House and Senate negotiate differences between their respective bills (if they have one) or issues within the Senate-passed version, which the House could "pre-conference" with the Senate to iron out differences before the Senate bill is presented, and adopt that in lieu of passage of a separate bill (that's the way the 2008 bill was done).

The Senate and House conferees would then reflect their agreement to any changes made in the conference report back to both Houses. The action would then be on whether to agree to the conference report, and if both Houses agree, the conference report is adopted, and serves as the set of "instructions" to the enrolling and engrossing clerks to prepare the final bill and send it to the President. Then the issue of whether the President vetoes the bill or not is the issue, and if he does, the Congress would then have to over-ride the veto in order to force it into law.

So...that, in a "relatively" few words, is the status and the potential process leading to enactment. Hope it answers your question.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Is there any strategy that you might suggest, such that an individual's voice would be heard by these legislators?  Heck, I'd testify about my thoughts on the matter, if asked.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Tim S

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
  • MSFC
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 10
Thanks you 51D, I appreciate your time in writing what was anything but a few words!

Tags: