Congress, White House

More on the appropriations veto threat

While the Senate was approving an amendment to the Commerce/Justice/Science appropriations bill to add $1 billion to NASA’s FY08 budget, the administration was again threatening to veto the bill. In a Statement of Administration Policy document released by OMB on Thursday, the administration accused Congress of including ” an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and… other objectionable provisions” to the funding bill. “[I]f S. 1745 were presented to the President” in its current form, the statement warned, “he would veto the bill.”

The statement says very little about NASA, and makes no reference to Sen. Mikulski’s amendment:

The Administration supports the Senate’s full funding for NASA’s Exploration Systems, Space Shuttle, International Space Station, and Aeronautics, but does not endorse funding in excess of the request for Science. In addition, the micromanaging of funding allocations specified in the Committee report would inhibit program managers’ ability to make effective and efficient decisions in support of ongoing mission activities.

Also, in the Commerce section of the statement, the statement notes the “the Administration is concerned that reductions for core geo-stationary satellite program and bureau-wide management services, as well as limitations on the length of availability of certain funds, would seriously impair the agency’s ability to carry out its missions.”

5 comments to More on the appropriations veto threat

  • anonymous.space

    Well, that was quick…

  • D. Messier

    Well, I can argue with this sort of logic, whatever it might actually be….
    But, let’s try to figure this out….

    With a “Democrat” Congress, Bush has decided to crack down on spending, something he largely failed to do for two-thirds of his presidency.

    Congressional earmarks suddenly seem like a bad idea. I assume that’s what they mean by “micromanaging.”

    Doesn’t support funding “in excess of the request for Science”, hiuh? Is this code for “although I want to look like I’m serious about global warming and science in general, we’ll continue to underfund it while concentrating on almost everything else.”

    I’m not sure what the commerce section means about geo-sats, but I imagine they’re worried about the aging weather satellite systems. Has Congress cut this area or diverted money from it?

    Inquiring minds want to know….

  • Oh…I if feel a soliloquy coming on!

    Poor Americanos essentially have an administration that again is defending a slanted war policy based on the ever present fossil fuel ‘standard energy strategy’. And gaining unpopularity by the minute.
    A president who has painted himself in a corner, reticent and attempting to drag his party down in the polls with him as he leaves office.
    I don’t expect to read pronouncements from a ‘stable sane’ administration till a new administration is installed in the White house.

    It’s tough to be American on the downslides just have to wait till the next wave comes along.

  • [...] have the extra $1 billion the Senate approved earlier this month. The overall appropriations bill still faces a threatened presidential veto. According to a report by the AP, Congress plans this appropriations bill to be one of the first to [...]

  • [...] the SAP does the administration make any threat to veto the bill if approved in its current form, something it has not hesitated to so in the past, particularly with appropriations bills. It is, though, clearly a warning shot across the bow of [...]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>