Those are just the harsh realities of where we are in the process right now; early next year, however, there will be more of an opportunity to work on focused legislation, where needed, to help NASA move forward.
If NASA presses for that in the next Congress I wonder if they could get something.
So just to clarify, 51 is it currently the case that constellation is being funded and not the new HLV and commercial and "the new direction" for NASA?Or is it simply that the amount of money NASA has to spend is maintained at 2010 levels but they can still change direction internally?
Quote from: telomerase99 on 12/18/2010 01:33 amSo just to clarify, 51 is it currently the case that constellation is being funded and not the new HLV and commercial and "the new direction" for NASA?Or is it simply that the amount of money NASA has to spend is maintained at 2010 levels but they can still change direction internally?51D can clarify better, but the current law restricts NASA from terminating any PPAs relating to Constellation or creating any new ones until a "subsequent appropriations act" changes their guidance.So they cannot proceed with any meaningful development effort on SLS until that restriction is lifted.
As an attorney noted in a luncheon meeting I attended this week, in the final analysis, "the law is what everybody agrees it is." The fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law. There I go with another one of my long, involved sentences, hehe, but I think the meaning is clear.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 12/18/2010 04:05 amAs an attorney noted in a luncheon meeting I attended this week, in the final analysis, "the law is what everybody agrees it is." The fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law. There I go with another one of my long, involved sentences, hehe, but I think the meaning is clear.Well, that would be great news. It seemed like this restriction was a huge deal at the commerce committee hearing. But I guess if it's a situation where everyone agrees that they can just disregard that provision since we know it will be changed anyway, maybe that can work. I wonder if NASA will have reservations about doing that though, given that GAO just investigated them for possibly failing to follow that exact provision in the law (though ultimately found them compliant for now).Thinking about it a little bit more though, I get the sense that the GAO investigation was motivated by Congress being a little irked that NASA seemed to be taking steps to fulfill the president's budget request without waiting for direction from them (since there was still question as to whether Constellation would be cancelled). Now that Congress has spoken with the authorization act and they want to see it implemented, they would probably not be motivated to initiate any further action of that sort.
"the law is what everybody agrees it is."
There I go with another one of my long, involved sentences ...
The fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 12/18/2010 04:05 am"the law is what everybody agrees it is."With the important, always active proviso that, some "somebodies" are more equal than other "somebodies". Sometimes this is fair and appropriate. Sometimes it is not.As an aside, what is the current status of the results of that "termination clause" brouhaha that erupted this last summer?QuoteThere I go with another one of my long, involved sentences ...Hey. Your sentences are great. The length does require a careful read. I'm gonna paraphrase this one, because I wasn't quite clear on my understanding:QuoteThe fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law.The appropriators, who are also the law's authors, placed legislative restrictions on NASA forbidding terminating certain aspects of the Constellation program. Even at that time, there was a large outcry from many of the stakeholders, which include taxpayers as well, that the Constellation program was fatally flawed and should be terminated. Therefore, there was not really any surprise in the idea of termination. Even so, within NASA, the already extant termination clauses were read again with greater attention. It was found, it seems to me, that some types of termination actions were within the law already, and these were enacted, causing a number of layoffs along the way.In a way, these "overt actions" may be what the more savvy appropriators intended all along. In the CR and Omnibus, the restrictions are more forcibly and directly worded. (I haven't read them personally, and am trusting in 51D's summarization.) Rather than create a huge list of the specific restrictions, it seems more that they're going to allow NASA management to continue this process as they see fit.Is that an accurate paraphrase?
http://spacenews.com/policy/101217-house-readies-short-cr.htmlQuoteWASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives was expected to take action on a short-term spending measure to continue funding the federal government at 2010 levels through Dec. 21, giving the U.S. Senate time to complete work on a longer-term spending package for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Dec. 17.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives was expected to take action on a short-term spending measure to continue funding the federal government at 2010 levels through Dec. 21, giving the U.S. Senate time to complete work on a longer-term spending package for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Dec. 17.
Thinking about it, this CR is a Senate Amendment to HR 3082 which was the Omnibus House Bill which contained references to NASA so this may be already covered. 51D will clarify one way or the other in due course I'm sure.
Quote from: marsavian on 12/20/2010 05:46 pmThinking about it, this CR is a Senate Amendment to HR 3082 which was the Omnibus House Bill which contained references to NASA so this may be already covered. 51D will clarify one way or the other in due course I'm sure.It's unlikely. They are more likely to replace the entire bill from the House through an amendment.
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/20/2010 05:56 pmQuote from: marsavian on 12/20/2010 05:46 pmThinking about it, this CR is a Senate Amendment to HR 3082 which was the Omnibus House Bill which contained references to NASA so this may be already covered. 51D will clarify one way or the other in due course I'm sure.It's unlikely. They are more likely to replace the entire bill from the House through an amendment. Yes, and the full-year CR bill passed by the House was an amendment to a Senate amendment to HR 3082.The proposed CR was offered in a series of amendments by Senator Reid to the first CR (PL 111-242); the text is available in the Congressional Record and can be found on Thomas's FY11 appropriations page:http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app11.html(The bulk of the proposed CR is in SA 4885.)
(including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law.
The continuing resolution by design mandates that programs are to be held at the amounts provided last year regardless of merit or need.
My colleagues should be advised that since 2006, the Congress has reduced spending on earmarks by nearly 75%.
Mr. President, this election was about gridlock and partisan gamesmanship. And what we saw in the past 24 hours was more of the same. Endless delaying tactics followed by decision making by partisan point scoring rather than what is good for our nation.
The Omnibus bill included $142 million in vital program increases for the Indian Health Service ... and thereby provide more and better medical care for Native Americans and Alaska Natives. A CR brings this progress to a halt.
Mr. President, I wish there were a better way, but the decisions by our colleagues on the other side who helped craft this bill have left us with no choice.