Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards (Read 787122 times)

neilh · « **Reply #560 on:** 07/22/2010 05:41 pm »

Rohrabacher peeved at Grayson, dice already loaded in favor of government approach, luke skywalker vs han solo debate (heh), laying foundation so commercial sector can play a role, at beginning of American century (?) there were some who wanted US government to build all the ships, would have different country today if we had decided government would be running all transportation systems, what's going on here is attempt to ease away from total government approach to private sector approach, mentions boeing, lockheed, delta system, atlas system as examples

Rohrabacher: opposes Grayson's amendment

neilh · « **Reply #561 on:** 07/22/2010 05:43 pm »

Giffords opposing Grayson amendment, points out that government system would not be shut down when commercial begins operation, don't want government unfairly competing with private sector once they satisfy NASA's requirements, makes clear that commercial systems can't cost more than government systems, would not be giving unearned and undeserved preference to commercial entities, would have to meet all requirements before they can be considered for federal government contracts, thinks it strikes a fair balance

neilh · « **Reply #562 on:** 07/22/2010 05:43 pm »

Grayson amendment voted down

neilh · « **Reply #563 on:** 07/22/2010 05:44 pm »

proposed amendment by ms. fudge and mr. wilson from Ohio

Fudge: mentions National Academies study (I think), withdraws amendment (?)

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #564 on:** 07/22/2010 05:44 pm »

Good work Neil. They all seem to be throwing amendments into the arena.

neilh · « **Reply #565 on:** 07/22/2010 05:46 pm »

proposed amendment by Mr. Matheson of Utah

Matheson: language requires NASA to come up with spaceflight plan within 180 days of enactment, nothing keeping from NASA from ... (missed this, something about termination) ... during that time,

all voice voted in favor

neilh · « **Reply #566 on:** 07/22/2010 05:47 pm »

ouch, Rohrabacher up next, Chairman Gordon said something like "since Mr. Rohrabacher is up next, this might take a while," so taking (pre-scheduled?) break beforehand

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #567 on:** 07/22/2010 05:47 pm »

Mr Matheson didn't want the continued funding during that time to be held in reserve to pay for termination costs.

marsavian · « **Reply #568 on:** 07/22/2010 05:50 pm »

Quote from: neilh on 07/22/2010 05:46 pm

proposed amendment by Mr. Matheson of Utah

Matheson: language requires NASA to come up with spaceflight plan within 180 days of enactment, nothing keeping from NASA from ... (missed this, something about termination) ... during that time,

all voice voted in favor

... continuing programs already authorized e.g. PoR. Also stated again that NASA should not set aside expenses for termination which hasn't been authorized by Congress. No sign of compromise here, reconciliation should be fun

.

yg1968 · « **Reply #569 on:** 07/22/2010 05:52 pm »

Quote from: neilh on 07/22/2010 05:47 pm

ouch, Rohrabacher up next, Chairman Gordon said something like "since Mr. Rohrabacher is up next, this might take a while," so taking (pre-scheduled?) break beforehand

I like Rohrabacher. It's nice to see a Republican that is consistently pro-business.

Drkskywxlt · « **Reply #570 on:** 07/22/2010 05:52 pm »

The House seems deadset on keeping Constellation alive in all but name. Orion, Ares I and some HLV (*cough*Ares V*cough*). They couldn't care less about closing the spaceflight gap or having an actual spaceflight program. I hope the Senate has a lot of power in the upcoming negotations, because there is NOTHING to like about the House's bill. I don't see how Obama could support a compromise much below what the Senate Appropriations committee agreed to yesterday.

yg1968 · « **Reply #571 on:** 07/22/2010 06:00 pm »

Quote from: marsavian on 07/22/2010 05:50 pm

Quote from: neilh on 07/22/2010 05:46 pm
proposed amendment by Mr. Matheson of Utah

Matheson: language requires NASA to come up with spaceflight plan within 180 days of enactment, nothing keeping from NASA from ... (missed this, something about termination) ... during that time,

all voice voted in favor

... continuing programs already authorized e.g. PoR. Also stated again that NASA should not set aside expenses for termination which hasn't been authorized by Congress. No sign of compromise here, reconciliation should be fun .

I think you mean Conference Committee. Reconciliation is for budget items. Conference committee meetings are mostly held in private (except for the first meeting).

neilh · « **Reply #572 on:** 07/22/2010 06:33 pm »

house committee resuming

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #573 on:** 07/22/2010 06:35 pm »

Mr Rohrabacher is not a fan of the Chinese government!

neilh · « **Reply #574 on:** 07/22/2010 06:40 pm »

Rohrabacher: need report on collaboration with China (?), requirements for new nations joining ISS team, need report on military uses of chinese space program, need report on potential threat to ISS from China asat weapons tests

Gordon: mentions investigation might be better left to CIA, etc., rather than NASA

Hall: supports Rohrabacher's amendment, simply asks for report

Gordon: would take resources from NASA that could be used in a number of other areas, seems like asking DOD about hogs in texas

Rohrabacher: there've been indications of having similar space relationship with china as with russia, but has not made same internal progress (regarding oppression, etc.) as russia

vote: No's have it

neilh · « **Reply #575 on:** 07/22/2010 06:43 pm »

amendment offered by Ms. Johnson from Texas

Johnson: clarifies section 405 of bill, ensures NASA has clear plan to put NASA-owned aeronautical structures... (?), reverse deterioration of aeronautics ground test facilities...

Vote: Aye's have it

neilh · « **Reply #576 on:** 07/22/2010 06:46 pm »

amendment offered by Mr. Wilson from Ohio:

Wilson: evidence-based programs to improve STEM in country, represents rural part of Ohio, many constituents inspired by John Glenn who came from nearby, too many rural students lack adequate STEM education they would need to become NASA astronauts or engineers in future

Gordon: as son of two farmers and representative of largely rural district, agrees

Vote: aye's have it

Robotbeat · « **Reply #577 on:** 07/22/2010 06:47 pm »

Ammendments for R&D for future missions, ammendment for space tech
Ayes have it!
(I'm happy about that)

neilh · « **Reply #578 on:** 07/22/2010 06:48 pm »

amendment offered by Fudge & Wilson from Ohio

Fudge: research and development needed for future missions, if we don't start now R&D needed for Mars mission may never happen

Hall: inclined to support, but wants elaboration on how program will help overall exploration

Vote: aye's have it (anybody know exactly what this amendment covered?)

neilh · « **Reply #579 on:** 07/22/2010 06:53 pm »

amendment offered by Lujan from New Mexico:

Lujan: some STEM activities in Education should specifically be for minorities and under-represented communities,

Garamendi question about if it'd only be for highest-levels, wants to be sure that it doesn't end up devoting only to highest levels, Lujan said that's not the case

Hall: wondering why a particular portion was stricken from the bill regarding Higher Education act of 1965,

(had difficulty following this one)

Vote: Aye's have it