Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[psloss]

Newsflash:

The Senate just passed the Compromise bill - with some minor amendments - by unanimous consent 30 minutes ago. It now goes to the House for the final Senate-House compromise.

Great news! Now, that's a sign of intent and the House may align with the Senate. This could really throw out FY2011 for the better plan.

FWIW, I think that a newly-elected House will be unlikely to want to cause too much disruption to a bill that passed by unanimous consent in the upper house.

It would be an interesting parliamentary question if this bill lingered until the new (112th) Congress in January, but there are still multiple opportunities for the current (111th) Congress to pass it.  The House is reconvening next week to consider another bill that the Senate passed, there's a slim chance their authorization bill could be considered then.  This Congress will be in session again after Labor Day and after the election.

[psloss]

Orlando Sentinel story:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/senate-passes-nasa-compromise-bill.html

Interesting note in there:

Administration officials say that the White House is neither supporting nor opposing the bill.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Orlando Sentinel story:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/senate-passes-nasa-compromise-bill.html

Interesting note in there:

Administration officials say that the White House is neither supporting nor opposing the bill.

I think that means that President Obama is washing his hands of this matter.  That doesn't mean that he won't claim credit for any achievements during his term of office, of course.

[psloss]

Orlando Sentinel story:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/senate-passes-nasa-compromise-bill.html

Interesting note in there:

Administration officials say that the White House is neither supporting nor opposing the bill.

I think that means that President Obama is washing his hands of this matter.  That doesn't mean that he won't claim credit for any achievements during his term of office, of course.

It fits with how quiet NASA administration has been in the last several weeks.  It could mean one or more of several things going forward; I have no idea which one(s).

[Chris Bergin]

Also, anyone know what the amendments were?

Just got home...a loooong day!  The amendments were pretty minor, and packaged throughout the day during conversations and negotiations with any Senator wishing to offer amendments, into what is called a "Manager's amendment" which is adopted first as part of the Unanimous Consent request made by the Majority Leader, and then the bill, as this amended, is passed. They include some language that opens up broader competition to eventually get a retired orbiter for display, some pretty tough accountability reporting language (some will consider it micromanaging language) regarding the HLLV and Multi-purpose crew vehicle developments to enable Congress to have a good look under the hood as the HLLV design is solidified and the programs get up and running (or "back up and running" as the case may be); a slight opening of the door for commercial crew development (up to $50m) in FY 2011 IF the required threshold work has been done (Human Rating system clarification, market analysis, procurement process definition, etc.) from within the funding allocated for CCDev in FY 2011. (The bill originally prohibited ANY actual development contracts in FY 2011); a couple of other technical provisions (PayGo language that is pretty much standard for auth bills these days, a word change here or there for clarity, etc.) That's pretty much it.

Hopefully, based on prior discussions between House and Senate committee leadership, this will be the legislative vehicle that the two bodies will use as the basis for "pre-conference" negotiations during the recess and hopefully arrive at a final consensus on language that can simply be inserted by the House as substitute language, passed, sent back to the Senate which can then accept the House amendment, and send it to the White House.  That could be done before the end of September. (After all, NO ONE thought the Senate would pass this bill by UC before the recess, so one could be reasonably comfortable in at least setting that sort of target.)

Bottom line is, this moves the ball a long way down the field towards getting an affirmative and positive policy foundation for NASA's future, especially in the areas of human spaceflight and commercial spaceflight. (and yes, I am biased in that view.)

Can't believe you posted that at 2am your time! As much as we totally appreciate it, we can wait till the next day

However, those amendments really are minor, so that's great!

[kkattula]

Can't believe you posted that at 2am your time! As much as we totally appreciate it, we can wait till the next day

However, those amendments really are minor, so that's great!

Yep, well done 51D Mascot.  You're doing a great job!

[psloss]

The bill number for the Senate authorization is S. 3729.  The full text for the bill is not online yet, but it will be available in multiple places, including here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.+3729:

The Senate daily digest is up, now:
Link on Thomas/Library of Congress

(Busy day -- and the Senate adjourned until September.)

Pages specific to yesterday's action on S. 3729:
Link to pages.

There, click on the NASA line item.

[Robotbeat]

Well, looks good so far. Good job, everyone involved in selling this idea to the Senate!

Next step is getting the house to pass it. If it's like the Senate bill, I'm sure the WH will sign it. The nice thing is that it's probably enough of a compromise that it will likely survive if Obama is reelected or not... assuming we don't go into a deeper recession. Hopefully the oversight language does more to keep this plan from "going Griffin," though I'm not convinced the oversight would prevent that sort of thing. Also, it's good something like commercial crew has a chance to get started in FY2011.

Good job, everyone involved in DIRECT! Though, it's not over until the Prez signs it.

[psloss]

I believe this is the "accountability reporting" section that 51D Mascot is referring to:

On page 36, after line 25, insert the following:

SEC. 309. Report Requirement.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, or upon completion of reference designs for the Space Launch System and multi-purpose crew vehicle authorized by this Act, whichever occurs first, the Administrator shall provide a detailed report to the appropriate committees of Congress that provides an overall description of the reference vehicle design, the assumptions, description, data, and analysis of the systems trades and resolution process, justification of trade decisions, the design factors which implement the essential system and vehicle capability requirements established by this Act, the explanation and justification of any deviations from those requirements, the plan for utilization of existing contracts, civil service and contract workforce, supporting infrastructure utilization and modifications, and procurement strategy to expedite development activities through modification of existing contract vehicles, and the schedule of design and development milestones and related schedules leading to the accomplishment of operational goals established by this Act. The Administrator shall provide an update of this report as part of the President's annual Budget Request.

[zerm]

I believe this is the "accountability reporting" section that 51D Mascot is referring to:

On page 36, after line 25, insert the following:

SEC. 309. Report Requirement.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, or upon completion of reference designs for the Space Launch System and multi-purpose crew vehicle authorized by this Act, whichever occurs first, the Administrator shall provide a detailed report to the appropriate committees of Congress that provides an overall description of the reference vehicle design, the assumptions, description, data, and analysis of the systems trades and resolution process, justification of trade decisions, the design factors which implement the essential system and vehicle capability requirements established by this Act, the explanation and justification of any deviations from those requirements, the plan for utilization of existing contracts, civil service and contract workforce, supporting infrastructure utilization and modifications, and procurement strategy to expedite development activities through modification of existing contract vehicles, and the schedule of design and development milestones and related schedules leading to the accomplishment of operational goals established by this Act. The Administrator shall provide an update of this report as part of the President's annual Budget Request.

I'm wondering if that is 90 calender days, 90 federal business days or 90 Congressional session days?

Not joking here- it's important. Perhaps the actual deffinition is in the Senate prublications.

[Jeff Bingham]

The bill number for the Senate authorization is S. 3729.  The full text for the bill is not online yet, but it will be available in multiple places, including here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.+3729:

The Senate daily digest is up, now:
Link on Thomas/Library of Congress

(Busy day -- and the Senate adjourned until September.)

Pages specific to yesterday's action on S. 3729:
Link to pages.

There, click on the NASA line item.

There is a slight correction that will appear in the enrolled version of the bill; the reference to inserting a table of contents reference to Sec 505 will be deleted, because that new section had to be deleted from the manager's amendment due to some concerns with Congressional Budget Office scoring that could not be resolved before the amendment had to be addressed, so that section was pulled, but the reference to the section was not. That was corrected by the Clerk, and should not appear in the enrolled version of the bill that goes to the House. There will also be a new reference in the contents to the new Section 309 on Reporting requirements, since making that a separate Section instead of a sub-paragraph of the Title was a hand-written change made in "real time" to the amendment just prior to consideration (based on hold-related negotiations), so was not reflected in the original version. Minor technical details that often have to be taken care of by the Clerks when pulling together all the various bits and pieces of "moving target amendments" like a Manager's amendment is when working through a UC process. A definite "sausage-making" kind of activity, hehe, and too much "inside baseball" here.

[Jeff Bingham]

I believe this is the "accountability reporting" section that 51D Mascot is referring to:

On page 36, after line 25, insert the following:

SEC. 309. Report Requirement.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, or upon completion of reference designs for the Space Launch System and multi-purpose crew vehicle authorized by this Act, whichever occurs first, the Administrator shall provide a detailed report to the appropriate committees of Congress that provides an overall description of the reference vehicle design, the assumptions, description, data, and analysis of the systems trades and resolution process, justification of trade decisions, the design factors which implement the essential system and vehicle capability requirements established by this Act, the explanation and justification of any deviations from those requirements, the plan for utilization of existing contracts, civil service and contract workforce, supporting infrastructure utilization and modifications, and procurement strategy to expedite development activities through modification of existing contract vehicles, and the schedule of design and development milestones and related schedules leading to the accomplishment of operational goals established by this Act. The Administrator shall provide an update of this report as part of the President's annual Budget Request.

I'm wondering if that is 90 calender days, 90 federal business days or 90 Congressional session days?

Not joking here- it's important. Perhaps the actual deffinition is in the Senate prublications.

They are considered calendar days as a matter of practice, but the speed with which NASA usually provides them, you'd think it was assumed to be something far greater than a series of 24-hour periods. On the other hand, it's more important to have the report contain useful information rather than something done in a hurry-up to meet a deadline, so these are generally taken to be "preferred dates" and there is often subsequent communication and agreement that a bit more time is needed to ensure the best data can be provided.

[zerm]

Thanks 51D. In looking ahead to the fall (in a general time-frame where this bill might be signed) there are huge differances between those three forms of "90 days."

In seeing how the current NASA management responds to the Congress, perhaps they should come up with a new term, such as "NASA days" or perhaps "Bolden Days."

[robertross]

I believe this is the "accountability reporting" section that 51D Mascot is referring to:

On page 36, after line 25, insert the following:

SEC. 309. Report Requirement.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, or upon completion of reference designs for the Space Launch System and multi-purpose crew vehicle authorized by this Act, whichever occurs first, the Administrator shall provide a detailed report to the appropriate committees of Congress that provides an overall description of the reference vehicle design, the assumptions, description, data, and analysis of the systems trades and resolution process, justification of trade decisions, the design factors which implement the essential system and vehicle capability requirements established by this Act, the explanation and justification of any deviations from those requirements, the plan for utilization of existing contracts, civil service and contract workforce, supporting infrastructure utilization and modifications, and procurement strategy to expedite development activities through modification of existing contract vehicles, and the schedule of design and development milestones and related schedules leading to the accomplishment of operational goals established by this Act. The Administrator shall provide an update of this report as part of the President's annual Budget Request.

I'm wondering if that is 90 calender days, 90 federal business days or 90 Congressional session days?

Not joking here- it's important. Perhaps the actual deffinition is in the Senate prublications.

They are considered calendar days as a matter of practice, but the speed with which NASA usually provides them, you'd think it was assumed to be something far greater than a series of 24-hour periods. On the other hand, it's more important to have the report contain useful information rather than something done in a hurry-up to meet a deadline, so these are generally taken to be "preferred dates" and there is often subsequent communication and agreement that a bit more time is needed to ensure the best data can be provided.

Thanks for all the great updates. It's so very much appreciated.

[TrueBlueWitt]

Thanks 51D. In looking ahead to the fall (in a general time-frame where this bill might be signed) there are huge differances between those three forms of "90 days."

In seeing how the current NASA management responds to the Congress, perhaps they should come up with a new term, such as "NASA days" or perhaps "Bolden Days."

51D.. A better question is.. is 90 days(however you count it) enough time for NASA to optimize their projections and plan for In-line design to anywhere near the extent they have already done so for Side-mount?  I hope this ends up being a "fair" fight where in-line gets it's own full optimized plan prior to trade decision.. and In-line is not stuck with the last "quicky" plan that was piggy backed using suboptimal(for in-line) parts pulled from the side-mount plan! 

Also, will congress have the perogative to change NASA "mind" as to which option is chosen if they are close in the trades?

[yg1968]

The bill number for the Senate authorization is S. 3729.  The full text for the bill is not online yet, but it will be available in multiple places, including here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.+3729:

The Senate daily digest is up, now:
Link on Thomas/Library of Congress

(Busy day -- and the Senate adjourned until September.)

Pages specific to yesterday's action on S. 3729:
Link to pages.

There, click on the NASA line item.

There is a slight correction that will appear in the enrolled version of the bill; the reference to inserting a table of contents reference to Sec 505 will be deleted, because that new section had to be deleted from the manager's amendment due to some concerns with Congressional Budget Office scoring that could not be resolved before the amendment had to be addressed, so that section was pulled, but the reference to the section was not. That was corrected by the Clerk, and should not appear in the enrolled version of the bill that goes to the House. There will also be a new reference in the contents to the new Section 309 on Reporting requirements, since making that a separate Section instead of a sub-paragraph of the Title was a hand-written change made in "real time" to the amendment just prior to consideration (based on hold-related negotiations), so was not reflected in the original version. Minor technical details that often have to be taken care of by the Clerks when pulling together all the various bits and pieces of "moving target amendments" like a Manager's amendment is when working through a UC process. A definite "sausage-making" kind of activity, hehe, and too much "inside baseball" here.

One thing that I am still confused about is whether the numbers will be adjusted in the Authorization bill to reflect the numbers as they were proposed during the appropriation process. More specifically, will the Senate authorization bill reflect the numbers that were recommended in this document (starting at page 115):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:sr229.111.pdf

I am guessing that what ever numbers end up being in the Senate appropriation bill will trump the ones in the NASA authorization bill.

P.S. I found these documents which explain the authorization-appropriations process:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20371.pdf
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/97-684_20081202.pdf

[mr. mark]

well i'm glad the senate has passed their version of the bill. Looks good but what happens if when combining their bill with the House version Ares 1 is put into the mix? Are we back to looking at an unsustainable product and possibly if continued a 2030 target date again?

[neilh]

Everybody's favorite former administrator Mike Griffin is in the process of giving (or just finished) a talk at the Mars Society convention. Courtesy of Jeff Foust, some interesting notes on his remarks on the Senate and House bills (not necessarily verbatim transcriptions):

http://twitter.com/jeff_foust

Griffin offers his summary of White House NASA plan: we're not going anywhere and spending a lot of money doing it.

Griffin: both House and Senate NASA auth bills "radically better" than WH plan, but not as good as program of record.

Griffin: if a comm'l ISS access provider has an accident, how do they stay in the business?

Griffin makes the case for having a gov't system for ISS as backup to comm'l and also prevent monopoly pricing by comm'l provider.

Griffin: a real program must have a goal, a date, and a budget, all of which must match up. Cannot rely on technical miracles.

Griffin: what is the role of a gov't-funded space program in a democratic society? Augustine Cmte's answer to this was right .

Griffin: Saturn V had the lowest useful payload capability for exploration beyond LEO, critiquing the 70-ton HLV in Senate bill.

Griffin said he guesses that NASA commercial crew funding will end up closer to Senate bill than House version or WH request.

[Chris Bergin]

Here's the Bill. Will go on the public sites later, so a nice little heads up

[neilh]

Here's the Bill. Will go on the public sites later, so a nice little heads up

Thanks! One of these days I really need to write a tool to easily generate diffs between different versions of congressional bills...