Congress, NASA

Congressional reaction to the budget request

Before NASA can “win the future”, they’ll first need to win over members of Congress. And given the reactions from some members of Congress, they’ll have their work cut out for them. Several members of Congress criticized aspects of the budget proposal, primarily because it doesn’t follow the funding levels set forth in the authorization act passed by Congress last fall, particularly for the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), one of authors of the authorization bill, expressed his disappointment in a brief comment:

In this time of necessary budget cuts, NASA does well compared to most other agencies. But the president’s budget does not follow the bi-partisan NASA law Congress passed late last year. The Congress will assert its priorities in the next six month.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), had a similar reaction:

I am extremely disappointed, however, that the president chose to substantially ignore the carefully orchestrated NASA framework we developed last year. By deviating from this hard fought Congressional compromise, the president is subjecting America’s proud heritage of space exploration to another year of gridlock and drift.

Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) criticized the budget’s perceived emphasis on climate change research over human spaceflight and said he had a solution:

I have a plan to preserve the human space flight budget by transferring money from NASA’s unneeded climate research programs, while keeping NASA’s overall budget at 2008 levels. Climate research is not a NASA mission and there are plenty of other agencies already doing this work. My plan is a win for America and a win for the taxpayers. I’m working with NASA allies, the House budget and spending committees and the Republican leadership to enact these priorities.

In the same release Olson also claimed that, “We fought this battle last year and won, and I believe we will do so again.”

Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), who, like Olson, signed a letter last week to House appropriators asking them to transfer climate change funds within NASA to human spaceflight, made a similar call in his own reaction to the budget:

After the Administration let NASA flounder for the past two years, a flawed NASA authorization bill was finally agreed to and signed into law. Now the Administration is proposing to ignore this law, placing a higher priority on global warming research and making cuts to the next generation launch vehicle.

If there’s good news to this reaction, it’s that it’s relatively muted compared to the release of the FY11 budget last February. A number of members who might be expected to respond to the budget proposal haven’t done so formally (at least, not posting a press release.) For example, last year, within a hour of the FY11 budget proposal’s release, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) infamously criticized it as beginning “the death march for the future of US human space flight”. This year, his office didn’t release a statement on the budget, at least as of Monday night.

31 comments to Congressional reaction to the budget request

  • Robert G. Oler

    Poor Pete…he is just slowly becoming irrelevant to the future of NASA and HSF.

    Watch…Obama’s plan will like last year…more or less go through pretty much without a hitch…I predict that the GOP wont even be able to cut the budget all that much…those clowns couldnt even agree on100 billion of cuts…much less something serious.

    2011…the Year SpaceX goes to the Space Station…and the entire world changes.

    Robert G. Oler

  • James T

    I hate to have to say this but…

    Tea partiers, please save NASA from your pork hungry brothers. End the giant money pit that is SLS and support commercial development. It’s OK to be stingy on Earth sciences as long as you do less to demonize it in other agencies. NASA will learn to work with a tight budget. They will learn how to get more bang for their buck as commercial launch services get cheaper and they invest in cost saving technologies like railguns. Please tea partiers, pretty please.

  • Coastal Ron

    I guess time will tell how much more reaction comes out, but Jeff is right, in that what has been said is pretty mild compared to last year.

    But it is funny to hear Congress say that the Administration is not following the law, when Congress has the Constellation program still going (even though they voted to cancel it), they haven’t funded NASA yet, and budget proposals are not preordained to follow what Congress does – they represent what the Administration sees as the priorities as they negotiate what the actual budget law will be.

  • Hey Nelson, the budget cycle happens every 12 months. I know you might be confused because you failed to get a budget passed last year, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to do it again this year.. and next year.. and next year. Or you could just retire if it’s getting too hard..

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    I have to say that I’ve never seen a completely polarised argument conducted with such little shouting from the politicians. It’s looking to me that Obama is telling Congress: You can authorise whatever the hell you like but you can find money to do it. I’m not paying a penny.

    Can the President veto an appropriations bill?

  • NASA Fan

    A close reading of the earth science budget shows a few missions delayed and a portion of one tossed under the bus for instead a ‘contributing partner’. So, there has been impact to Earth Science here…….and a joint mission with the energy dept was also canceled. JWST, MSL: unscathed.

  • Justin Kugler

    Pete Olson wants to cut NASA to 2008 levels and decimate earth science to keep funding a rocket that the agency has said can’t be built on the cost and schedule specified by Congress, but he expects us to believe that he’s our friend and champion? Has he even read the Space Act?

  • CharlesHouston

    Certainly we could talk about what is in each bill, but we should also look very closely at the budgeting process. Last year in February, the Administration proposed a budget that deleted Ares, deleted Orion, etc.
    That budget was Dead On Arrival in the Senate – when the Congress was far more favorable to the Administration.
    Now, the proposed budget arrived to bi-partisan disappointment. Sen Bill Nelson says that the Congress will assert it’s authority. The Republicans are less enthusiastic!
    When will this Administration learn that Lori Garver’s opinions must be balanced with the Senate’s power to appropriate? How soon until Lori is again lavishing praise on Sen Shelby of Alabama (as she did late last year)?
    We could argue about this program or that program – but the unmistakeable fact is that the country is stuck paying for programs that will eventually go away, commercial companies cannot plan on what funding they might get, government labs have no idea what their workload might be, facilities are rusting, etc etc etc. We are wasting time, allowing hard won expertise to fade away, etc. What happened to that idea of making KSC the launch site of the future, for instance??
    All because this Administration cannot work with Congress to propose a budget that has a chance of being passed. This Administration cannot even work with senior Democratic Senators to send them a proposal that they will vote for. This Administration is dysfunctional.
    When might the country have some idea of what we should be mutually working towards?

  • CharlesHouston

    To answer a few of the likely questions – the Orion was supposedly deleted, and then quickly brought back as a Rescue Vehicle, and in the new budget survives (likely as complex as it was before) but has been cleverly renamed.
    Ares likely will go away – if we one day appropriate a new budget. Until then (largely thanks to the Administration) it staggers around like a zombie. We are still spending money on it.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Justin Kugler,

    Now, now! Since when have politicians let piddling things like laws, legal precedent or reality limit them?

  • The porkers oink and grunt. What else is new.

    More evidence that commercial is the future. Congress will destroy government-funded human space flight by this country.

  • “Until then (largely thanks to the Administration) it staggers around like a zombie.”

    Largely thanks to the rider that Senator Shelby deftly inserted into a bill when no one was looking you mean. Otherwise, it would have been dead long before now.

  • CharlesHouston, by “work with Congress” do you mean collude?

  • CharlesHouston

    RickBoozer said: Largely thanks to the rider that Senator Shelby deftly inserted and NO this cannot be laid at the feet of Sen Shelby – the Administration had LOTS of time to work with Sen Nelson, etc in the Senate to submit an authorization/appropriation that would have some chance of being passed. The statute of limitations on that crummy rider has expired. Why did the Administration submit a budget that was so unacceptable even to it’s supporters in the Senate? They have to grow up and take responsibility now, in spite of the fact that they are still trying to figure out how the US budget process works.

  • Dennis Berube

    One question is, with all this cutting, are the politicians still getting their raises this coming year?

  • Byeman

    “The statute of limitations on that crummy rider has expired. ”

    No, it is still in effect until a new appropriations act is passed.

  • BeancounterFromDownunder

    Off topic but would you Robert, or anyone else for that matter, like to hazard a guess (or better) as to how CCDev Rd 2 is going to pan out? Suppose to be out in March. Not far away now.
    I’m trying to see how other views compare with my own.

    Cheers.

  • BeancounterFromDownunder

    Dennis Berube wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 6:39 am
    ‘One question is, with all this cutting, are the politicians still getting their raises this coming year?’

    Of course. Couldn’t let a little reality intrude on that could they. LOL. On the other hand, I thought there’d been some sort of freeze on salaries by Obama? Anyone?

  • Major Tom

    “NO this cannot be laid at the feet of Sen Shelby – the Administration had LOTS of time to work….”

    Shelby inserted the earmark at into the final, giant, FY 2010 Omnibus Appropriations Act. It was a last-minute add that the White House had no opportunity to respond to short of vetoing the bill for funding the entire government.

    “with Sen Nelson, etc in the Senate to submit an authorization/appropriation that would have some chance of being passed”

    The White House does not “submit an authorization/appropriation”. The White House submits a budget request for the fiscal year in question and the relevant congressional subcommittees and committees draft the authorization and appropriations bills.

    C’mon, this is middle school civics. Learn how our government works before you comment on it.

    Moreover, Congress pass and the President signed an FY 2011 NASA Authorization Act. But until an FY 2011 appropriations act (or continuing resolution anomaly) for NASA is passed, the Constellation earmark in the FY 2010 Omnibus Appropriations Act stands.

    “The statute of limitations on that crummy rider has expired.”

    No, it hasn’t. See directly above.

    “Why did the Administration submit a budget that was so unacceptable even to it’s supporters in the Senate?”

    This sentence makes no sense. If someone is a “supporter” of something, then by definition they find it “acceptable”.

    Think before you post.

    “They have to grow up and take responsibility now, in spite of the fact that they are still trying to figure out how the US budget process works.”

    You’re the one who doesn’t know “how the US budget process works” or how federal legislation in general works. Not the White House.

    Pot, kettle, black, and all that.

    Sigh…

  • “The statute of limitations on that crummy rider has expired.”
    B.S. It’s still in effect, which is why work on Ares I continues even now.

  • common sense

    @ CharlesHouston wrote @ February 15th, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    “They have to grow up and take responsibility now,”

    Very funny. Yeah they must build a big really big rocket to show they grew up…

    Oh well…

  • VirgilSamms

    “We are still spending money on it.”

    Orion will be seating 10 passengers a flight in ten years and taking over a hundred people a year into space. My prediction.

  • byeman

    Huh? You have nothing (knowledge or experience) to base such an prediction on. Also
    a. Orion can’t hold 10 people, it was sized for 6 and that was even a tight fit.
    b. So if the the Orion capsule were enlarged, it would no longer be an Orion.
    c. Orion is NASA’s vehicle and not a commercial carrier. There is no gov’t need for Orion to fly 100 people per year into space.

    Samms, you keep discredit yourself with these inane posts.

  • CharlesHouston

    Well, is this thread dead yet?

    As often happens, some of our more opinionated colleagues interpret things the way they want to understand them :-( and stare obsessively at leaves without realizing that there is a forest.

    Case in point: RickBoozer who replied to my note about the Shelby rider that is keeping the Ares rocket alive (is this complicated enough?) I said: “The statute of limitations on that crummy rider has expired.” and he, not understanding what I meant, said “B.S. It’s still in effect, which [snip]”. To use simpler words – that rider would have been long in the grave had the Administration worked with Sen Nelson, etc to pass an appropriations bill. But we started, a year ago, with a budget that was DOA and the Administration never got behind the authorization bill which was later passed. That Shelby rider should have long ago been overcome by events.

    MajorTom, who does not understand the role of the Senate, apparently, also misunderstood my comment. Can someone explain to him that Sen Nelson is certainly a supporter of the Administration – in fact appearing with the President on AF1, but still did not accept the budget submitted in Feb 2010 or Feb 2011. I certainly hope that my supporters can accept my suggestions far better than the Obama/Nelson relationship indicates that they work together. Perhaps the Major was confused by my using authorization and appropriation together – often, with more experienced Presidents, the two bills are very similar. Apparently that is not going to be the case with this Administration. Major, hopefully you figure out that leaves often suggest the presence of a nearby forest.

    Yes that rider is still in effect – but my point is that it should have long since been superceded by an appropriations bill. Which is signed by the President by the way. The Congress has failed in it’s responsibility to fund the Federal government. The President has failed in his responsibility to work with the Congress to get some mutually agreeable bill signed.

  • common sense

    Sen. Nelson may very well work with President Obama, yet it does not mean he supports Obama. There is a difference. Support is not equal, and conversely, to work with.

    I, myself, do not see Sen. Nelson as a supporter of this WH. Only some one who thinks he needs a big SLS to be re-elected. Hang-on tight is all I have to say to him.

  • VirgilSamms

    “Samms, you keep discredit yourself with these inane posts.”

    It’s a good thing you are here to tell me these things. If they can pack that many in Dragon then 10 can fit in Orion. It is just ridiculous to think of those poor souls crammed into dragon for a couple days chasing down the ISS. At least in Soyuz there is room to float around. In Dragon you will be in a state of misery that makes a redeye seem like a dream come true.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    VirgilSamms wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
    “Samms, you keep discredit yourself with these inane posts.”

    ‘It’s a good thing you are here to tell me these things. If they can pack that many in Dragon then 10 can fit in Orion. It is just ridiculous to think of those poor souls crammed into dragon for a couple days chasing down the ISS. At least in Soyuz there is room to float around. In Dragon you will be in a state of misery that makes a redeye seem like a dream come true.”

    Your prediction is simply that. There’s no factual basis for it. There’s so much wrong here – where to start. Well try spacecraft specs for starters. Dragon Crew is spec’d for 7 as is CST-100 and Orion is spec’d for 4-6. I think it was up to 6 for LEO and max 4 for BEO but won’t swear to that. Soyuz is spec’d for 3 and quite frankly, when you check out that sardine can, I don’t know how you squeeze 3 people into it.
    For heavens sake, Virgil, check your facts before posting. You could even try Wikipedia with a simple search.

  • VirgilSamms

    Soyuz has an airlock you can float around in. And I did see a mock up of ten seats for orion several years ago. Can’t find the info though.
    For heaven’s sake, lighten up.

  • Byeman

    “It’s a good thing you are here to tell me these things. If they can pack that many in Dragon then 10 ”

    Do I need more proof?
    Spacex never said anything about a crew of 10, it is only 7. Again you show that you don’t know what you are talking about. Just stop posting unless you want to continue to make a fool of yourself

  • common sense

    @ VirgilSamms wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 9:11 pm

    “And I did see a mock up of ten seats for orion several years ago. Can’t find the info though.”

    You cannot find the info since it never, ever existed. From the beginning the crew requirement was for 6 people max. Well at least after ESAS and Griffin. Before ESAS and Griffin there was no mock up of “Orion” whatsoever. The name Orion came with Griffin.

  • Major Tom

    “Can someone explain to him that Sen Nelson is certainly a supporter of the Administration”

    If you meant Senator Nelson, then you should have written “Senator Nelson”, instead of vague references to anonymous “supporters”.

    Be specific. Don’t be a lazy writer and expect other posters to read your mind.

    “Perhaps the Major was confused by my using authorization and appropriation together – often, with more experienced Presidents”

    Presidents (or the White House) don’t write legislation, whether it’s an authorization bill, an appropriations bill, or any other kind of bill.

    Again, this is middle school civics. If you don’t grasp the basics of how the U.S. federal government works, then you shouldn’t be commenting on it.

    “… the two bills are very similar.”

    They’re almost never similar. The authorizers practically always set spending ceilings that are hundreds of millions of dollars, and usually billions of dollars, more than what the appropriators actually provide funds for.

    “Apparently that is not going to be the case with this Administration.”

    Aside from vetos, the White House has no control over what the authorizers and appropriators write into their bills. The Administration has no way to force the appropriators to meet the authorizers’ spending ceilings.

    “Major, hopefully you figure out that leaves often suggest the presence of a nearby forest.”

    And I hope you read a 7th grade civics textbook and stop being such a lazy writer.

    Please…

    “Yes that rider is still in effect – but my point is that it should have long since been superceded by an appropriations bill. Which is signed by the President by the way.”

    The President can’t sign a bill that Congress hasn’t written or voted on, genius.

    Are you really this dense?

    Oy vey…

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>