The House Science and Technology Committee unanimously approved HR 6063, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, during a markup session on Wednesday. Space News [subscription required] reported that the committee made only minor changes to the bill, including a new provision that requires the Office of Science and Technology policy to examine “the merits of establishing a commercial launch range in close proximity to a federal launch range”. The committee rejected an amendment proposed by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-CA) that would have exempted NASA from a provision of an energy bill passed last year that prevents NASA from using alternative fuels when those fuels produce more emissions than conventional counterparts.
Also, the bill picked up three new cosponsors, all members of the full committee: Nick Lampson (D-TX), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), and David Wu (D-OR). The bill has to be considered by the full House, and the Senate has yet to take up its version of the legislation.
I’ll get excited it its signed into law, but it looks to be veto bait.
It may be worth noting the number of Democrats co-sponsoring. I could be wrong, but I don’t think Oregon is known for big NASA contractors.
— Donald
There is little danger of a veto- President Bush won’t want to look foolish by vetoing a program he himself initiated. The challenges will come when amendments are offered during the floor debate. Barney Frank and Co. will almost certainly try to remove the $1 billion extra for Constellation.
And remember, this is just the authorization bill. The bigger test will come during the appropriations process.
And remember, this is just the authorization bill. The bigger test will come during the appropriations process.
This is really no big whup. What goes on in the appropriations process will be much more telling. Although even then, it can all come unglued in February of next year.
I would not play down the role of authorization legislation. Although this particular bill is just for one year (as are the approps bills), it sets the stage for a subsequent authorization bill (once the White House is de-Bushed and NASA is probably de-Griffined) that will likely set the tone of congressional space policy for many years.
Mike Griffin is no dummy. That’s why he repeatedly invokes authorization legislation (as in, the 2005 bill) as opposed to appropriations legislation, when called upon to justify his implementation of the Vision.
Remember that authorization legislation is precisely that. It authorizes spending. As long as Constellation, for example, is formally authorized, Congress can shoot money at it. Without such authorization, efforts to appropriate funding are sitting ducks for fiscal raids. Yes, approps is where the bean counters are, and where the money comes from, but authorization is where the big picture comes from.
I’m in rare agreement with Doug. The fact that so many politicians from both parties are signing off on this suggests limits to what either Presidential candidate would be able to cut without a serious fight in Congress. That said, money will be so tight that something has to go, and space remains a relatively politically easy target — it doesn’t directly involve millions of voting elderly people. . . .
— Donald
.
four months ago, I’ve suggested to Yahoo founders to sell their company to Microsoft and use the $4 Bn earned to start a new.space company or just buy NASA…
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/024yahoospace.html
two months ago I’ve suggested the same thing to Apple that has over $18 Bn cash to invest…
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/027applenasa.html
talking about my suggestions on several Space forums and blogs (nearly) everybody said me it was a “crazy idea”…
but, now, the US government space agency “sells” part of a Space center to a private company!
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/google-signs-le.html?cid=117845478
the ONLY difference is that, the “buyer” is NOT Apple or Yahoo or Microsoft, but (again) the (Orwell’s Big Brother) Google!!!
sure, NASA did not (exactly) “sell” part of the Ames center, but just LEASE it to Google for the next 90 years…
in my opinion, lease it to Google for 90 years (!!!!!) it’s only the best way to (really) SELL it, but WITHOUT ask Google to pay the (higher) price to BUY it…
however, I was right again…
.
[…] bill to the science committee because it didn’t contain language on use of alternative fuels (an amendment that was proposed but rejected by the full committee earlier this month), the full bill was passed by the House on a 409-15 vote. All 15 nays came from Republicans, […]