Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[psloss]

Audio of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of a few appropriations bills (including CJS, which includes NASA):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002

Any changes from yesterday?

Haven't had a chance to go through it yet...

[psloss]

Missed this amendment; in Rep. Kosmas's press release "Kosmas Successful in Fight for Additional Shuttle Mission":
http://www.kosmas.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=331&Itemid=65

Not sure if it includes changes to the ops budget...guess we'll have to wait to see the updated bill.

Edit, the last line in the press release makes it sound like we'll need to continue to have patience:  "The NASA reauthorization process is expected to continue into the fall."

Edit 2: Florida Today reports that the ops budget was increased to be in line with the Senate bill:
http://space.flatoday.net/2010/07/house-panel-backs-additional-shuttle.html

[moose103]

Audio of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of a few appropriations bills (including CJS, which includes NASA):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002

Compare that to: http://vimeo.com/channels/hsf

The politicians sound like they're ordering expensive pizzas rather than deciding the future of humanity!

[mr_magoo]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-compromise-policy-20100722,0,3975954.story

Bolden told Nelson that the HLV couldnt be completed before 2020 (before the HLV funding bump).   Might explain the bump in the Senate version and the House's desire to kill CC for more HLV money.

edit: It seems Bolden may have been referring to an even lower amount that was floated pre-compromise.

[marsavian]

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).

http://robbishop.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=199378

“It is extremely encouraging that both the House and Senate, in a bipartisan manner, have recognized the importance of maintaining solid rocket motor technologies, such as the Ares 1 rocket.  The draft House version of this bill is a strong repudiation of the President’s flawed proposal – stronger even than the good developments we saw last week out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

“Building on the momentum generated by the recent Senate proposal, the House version takes a further step toward preserving the Ares 1 rocket and the future of manned space flight, but we still have a ways to go and legislative hurdles to cross.  I will continue to work with my House colleagues to ensure that the final version reconciled in the conference committee includes all components necessary to maintain superior national defense capabilities and the future of manned space flight,” said Congressman Bishop.

[Robotbeat]

And they said I was paranoid for saying Ares I still wasn't quite dead...

[gladiator1332]

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).

http://robbishop.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=199378

“It is extremely encouraging that both the House and Senate, in a bipartisan manner, have recognized the importance of maintaining solid rocket motor technologies, such as the Ares 1 rocket.  The draft House version of this bill is a strong repudiation of the President’s flawed proposal – stronger even than the good developments we saw last week out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

“Building on the momentum generated by the recent Senate proposal, the House version takes a further step toward preserving the Ares 1 rocket and the future of manned space flight, but we still have a ways to go and legislative hurdles to cross.  I will continue to work with my House colleagues to ensure that the final version reconciled in the conference committee includes all components necessary to maintain superior national defense capabilities and the future of manned space flight,” said Congressman Bishop.

[kkattula]

How much of this sub-committee stuf is posturing, so some congressman can go back to his district/state and say: "Look, I offered/passed an ammendment protecting your jobs." ?

It later gets quietly dropped in conference, but he can say he put up the good fight, and the conference bill won't get huge publicity.

[simonbp]

If all he cares about is SRBs, someones should point out to him that Shuttle-Derived SLS has two of them, and is thus twice as good for Utah...

[gladiator1332]

If all he cares about is SRBs, someones should point out to him that Shuttle-Derived SLS has two of them, and is thus twice as good for Utah...

Good point. But I think he wants the development $$$ necessary to make Ares I possible. Still don't have a solution for TO...I see that taking some more cash to solve.

When the various Cx Supporters thought they were going to lose it all, they started to come to their senses it seemed, and began to support a true SD-HLV. Now that it is clear that FY2011 has zero support in congress, they now feel it is safe to once again support the wasteful programs that got us where we are today.

[DaveJSC]

{Edited, and I'm sorry - I do know things are getting very bad over there, but that post was a lawyer's dream, and rather than deleting it, I'll class this edit as your way of saying you're protesting what's going on - Chris.}

[DaveJSC]

Understood Chris, just so angry we have a leadership that isn't fighting for us, again.

[Jeff Bingham]

Audio of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of a few appropriations bills (including CJS, which includes NASA):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002

Any changes from yesterday?

Haven't had a chance to go through it yet...

No...still very close to the numbers provided in the Commerce compromise bill--and nothing that threatens the coalition of support developed through the drafting of the Commerce bill...a fact that will have considerable impact in coming weeks. The Senate has a consolidated policy position, supported by appropriations levels endorsed by the full Appropriations Committee, so two separate bills will be reported to the floor, one from each primary committee of jurisdiction, which are as much in synch as never before seen in recent history...and with the expressed support of the White House behind the underlying principles of the compromise plan. You really can't go into a bargaining position with the House from a much stronger position than that.

[nooneofconsequence]

Understood Chris, just so angry we have a leadership that isn't fighting for us, again.

Depends on who you mean by "leadership", what you mean by "fighting", and who you mean by "us". 

If you mean rational HSF  - yes. But you'd be surprised how hostile and embattled / bitter this is.

[Mark S]

Understood Chris, just so angry we have a leadership that isn't fighting for us, again.

I missed whatever it was you posted earlier, but regardless, please note that we are behind you and fighting for you in every way that we can.  Even if we're just anonymous Internet bloggers, we believe in NASA and HSF.  And even many in Congress are fighting for you, and not just those with NASA facilities in their districts.

America still wants to be proud of their space program, even if many of them won't admit it.

Hang in there!

Mark S.

[mr. mark]

If I were the president I would veto any legislation that does not promote commercial spaceflight to his satisfaction. Why? simple, he holds the program in his hands and holds all the cards. A veto would give both Spacex and Orbital time to prove themselves at cargo by pushing a new bill into 2011 just about the time when spacex and orbital would start cargo operations, in theory. A relook at the legislation might force congress into a compromise to allow more human spaceflight commercial funding. 

[Jorge]

If I were the president I would veto any legislation that does not promote commercial spaceflight to his satisfaction. Why? simple, he holds the program in his hands and holds all the cards. 

He does hold the cards with respect to authorization legislation, which is typically passed as a standalone bill. He can veto a NASA authorization bill with no repercussions to the rest of his agenda.

However, he holds few cards with respect to Appropriation legislation, and that is what really matters. It is possible for an agency to operate without an Authorization bill. NASA is doing so at this very moment, since the most recent Authorization bill only covered FY2009. But it is not possible for an agency to operate without Appropriation legislation.

At a minimum, such legislation covers the entire relevant appropriations subcommittee, which in NASA's case includes Commerce, Justice, and several others. So the president cannot veto NASA appropriations without shutting down at least those agencies as well.

And over the last several years, it has been typical for Congress to consolidate several (or all) appropriations bills into an Omnibus bill. The president could not veto that bill without shutting down most of the government.

Mind you, it is not unprecedented for that to happen, but the one time in recent memory that it did (1995), the issue at stake was Medicare, which was much bigger than NASA.

Mark my words, the president will *not* veto an Omnibus appropriations bill (or even a Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill) just because of a dispute over NASA. Won't happen. Would bet my house on that. (In a sense, I already am).

[Jeff Bingham]

If I were the president I would veto any legislation that does not promote commercial spaceflight to his satisfaction. Why? simple, he holds the program in his hands and holds all the cards. A veto would give both Spacex and Orbital time to prove themselves at cargo by pushing a new bill into 2011 just about the time when spacex and orbital would start cargo operations, in theory. A relook at the legislation might force congress into a compromise to allow more human spaceflight commercial funding. 

Obviously, it depends on what form the final authorization legislation takes. At the present, don't forget that he has communicated his support for the Senate Commerce compromise bill. There are a number of legislative and procedural options available, working in concert with the White House, that could lead to the passage of a bill he can continue to support. The process is not as "cut and dried" as many may think.

[psloss]

Audio of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of a few appropriations bills (including CJS, which includes NASA):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002

Any changes from yesterday?

Haven't had a chance to go through it yet...

No...still very close to the numbers provided in the Commerce compromise bill--and nothing that threatens the coalition of support developed through the drafting of the Commerce bill...a fact that will have considerable impact in coming weeks. The Senate has a consolidated policy position, supported by appropriations levels endorsed by the full Appropriations Committee, so two separate bills will be reported to the floor, one from each primary committee of jurisdiction, which are as much in synch as never before seen in recent history...and with the expressed support of the White House behind the underlying principles of the compromise plan. You really can't go into a bargaining position with the House from a much stronger position than that.

Agree -- the commercial number(s) in the House press release for their authorization bill weren't the same as what was in the bill.  I guess now we mostly wait until the bills are considered again on the floor.

[robertross]

Understood Chris, just so angry we have a leadership that isn't fighting for us, again.

Depends on who you mean by "leadership", what you mean by "fighting", and who you mean by "us". 

If you mean rational HSF  - yes. But you'd be surprised how hostile and embattled / bitter this is.

One thing coming out of all this that was reflected in my 'up close and personal tour' at KSC: politics.

We have all seen what can go on at NASA, and how something (that we thought was straightforward) like shuttle-derived can be twisted into something like Ares I/V.

Now we are seeing the other side of things, for many of us, in this day and age (of the internet). We should take note of these proceedings, and how they affect the space program (and anything else wrt/policy). It's never just as easy as doing what we believe to be the 'right thing' or the 'best way forward'. Quite eye opening.

We are seeing politics in action, for better or for worse, and unfortunately we have to accept the outcome and work within it. SO what we can hope for is the best position to work within, and then hope NASA can also do the best it can with what has been handed to them.