Congress, NASA

What NASA wants in an authorization bill

With the House considering a draft authorization bill that contains provisions the space agency and the White House are unlikely to agree with, NASA is offering some helpful suggestions to those working on a Senate version of such legislation. Space News reports NASA provided Senate staffers with a 35-page “legislative proposal” that features a number of provisions the agency is hoping the Senate will include in its bill, expected to be introduced later this month.

None of the items in that proposal highlighted in the report is particularly major or surprising. One would put NASA on equal footing with the Defense Department in its ability to accept funds from commercial providers to pay for spaceport infrastructure maintenance and upgrades; the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill included similar language for the Defense Department, a provision backed by Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), whose district includes Cape Canaveral. Other provisions in the NASA proposal would treat as confidential technical details of spaceflight mishap investigations and would make NASA contractors more responsible in ensuring they do not use counterfeit parts.

Whether there will be an authorization bill signed into law, though, is another issue. If the Senate version is significantly different than the draft discussed at last month’s House Science Committee hearing—and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) suggested recently it would be quite different, at least in terms of authorized funding levels—then reconciling the two may be impossible.

21 comments to What NASA wants in an authorization bill

  • Hiram

    I find it a little surprising that the Senate has been offered this “legislative proposal”, but not the House. That’s what is implied here. Has NASA given up on the lower chamber, such that it’s not considered worthwhile giving them “helpful suggestions”?

    • Dark Blue Nine

      The Space News article is poorly worded. NASA and other departments/agencies propose language to the Hill every time their authorizations come up for renewal. This is nothing out of the ordinary.

      It’s possible that NASA has “snubbed” the House Science Committee, for any number of reasons. The House has already drafted its bill. Or the House is Republican-controlled and the Democrat-controlled Senate will be more amenable to the Administration’s proposals. Or the House is so far from the President’s Budget request that it’s not worth pursuing.

      But reading the Space News article, I suspect that NASA has sent the same proposal to both the House and Senate, and that the reporter’s source was just in the Senate. It wouldn’t make sense for NASA to exclude one chamber this early in the game. Even if the authorized budget figures are far off, NASA will still want to get these provisions passed. (Some of them are repeat requests from the last authorization.)

      My impression over the past ~15 years is that NASA and the Administration usually negotiate with the Senate in the endgame because that chamber usually moves after the House and is more competent/reasonable and less chaotic. But we’re far from the endgame (if there will even be one this year), and NASA is probably sending the same initial proposal to both chambers.

      • Hiram

        Yes, that’s exactly what I figured. That the same document must have been sent to both Senate and House, but the source for the reporter was just in the Senate. That’s also exactly right that there is nothing out of the ordinary here. Proposed language is formally invited by the overseeing Congressional committees. Agencies would NEVER dare to submit such suggestions to Congress unless they were specifically invited to do so.

        And, yes, a “snub” of House Science is possible, given that the early draft of their bill doesn’t sound very supportive of Administration priorities, and the majority has no incentive to welcome Administration priorities. But it is a very early draft that was floated. I took that draft as nothing more than a challenge to the Administration to get their house in order before the real process got underway. I think Lori Garver made that point explicitly about ARM, saying that there was a lot of work yet to be done with Congress.

        Interesting point about the Senate being the adults in the room. They may be more competent/reasonable and less chaotic, but in many years they’ve just dropped the ball.

    • amightywind

      I would agree that NASA has given up on the House. Like most of the sprawling federal bureaucracy, HHS, IRS, etc. it has a left-leaning political posture. Long gone are the days when politically disinterested federal agencies worked the will of the people.

      FTA: The authority to keep the technical details of safety-related investigations, such as mishap investigation boards, from public disclosure.

      What purpose would this serve other than to shield vendors from deserved criticism? Our government feels at liberty to keep too many secrets.

    • When the last authorization bill was written three years ago, rather than reconcile the two versions the House in the end simply adopted the Senate’s version. Perhaps the White House is hoping for similar results in 2013.

      • Given what a disaster the last authorization bill was, it might be best if we don’t get another one, that is likely to be worse.

      • DCSCA

        When the last authorization bill was written three years ago, rather than reconcile the two versions the House in the end simply adopted the Senate’s version. Perhaps the White House is hoping for similar results in 2013.
        poses Stephen.

        That’s probably a fair assessment as the House is going to block all things Obama. But if ‘free drift’ follows the flow of current events through the midterms, Obama’s space agenda is done. Hard to see th House changing hands given the gerrymandering situation or the Senate holding Demo seats in the next cycle. Bolden all but concedes he can’t convince Congress to fund Project Lasso for Obama nor grant him ‘a win’ for financing CC. Look to the next administration. One way or the other, HRC will address it– she at least has an interest in space. Obama does not and there’s no political plus to pushing in in the second term. Unless, of course, another ‘Sputnik moment’ materializes in the East.

  • Hiram

    “Long gone are the days when politically disinterested federal agencies worked the will of the people.”

    The “will of the people” in our government is expressed through the political process. That’s always been the case. Because if the will of the people doesn’t want your boss there, you won’t be doing what you’re doing. Last thing I want is a federal agency that is politically uncommitted to doing what the nation elects the President to do. Federal agencies are nothing more than tools for an Administration to exercise policy, as bound by the law. May they use those tools responsibly.

    “I would agree that NASA has given up on the House. Like most of the sprawling federal bureaucracy, HHS, IRS, etc. it has a left-leaning political posture.”

    But yes, it’s hard to pin a commitment to conservative Christian and traditional family values and support for a free-market system label on NASA, isn’t it. That’s what “right-leaning” means to me. In fact, NASA would like to be more “free-market” oriented than Congress has been letting it. I guess they should be painting crosses on the fuselages of rockets, no? We could do countdown holds to say launch prayers, and make sure there is a bible pocket in every space suit.

    • amightywind

      But yes, it’s hard to pin a commitment to conservative Christian and traditional family values and support for a free-market system label on NASA, isn’t it. That’s what “right-leaning” means to me.

      Then other examples of crony capitalism like Solyndra, Tesla, and other government green energy must also appeal to you. You are horribly misguided.

      We could do countdown holds to say launch prayers, and make sure there is a bible pocket in every space suit.

      We can hope. I is a better way to be. But I would settle for an agency that explores space again.

      • Hiram

        “Then other examples of crony capitalism like Solyndra, Tesla, and other government green energy must also appeal to you.”

        On what basis do you say what appeals to me? You accuse an agency of a “left-leaning political posture”, and I just define what the opposite is, with what is really a standard definition. Now, I think it would be just as hard to pin a commitment to social equality, civil rights, and anti-war on NASA, which are really parts of a standard definition of left-leaning. NASA may not be quite standing up straight, but it’s hard to accuse it of leaning one way or the other.

        Again, an agency is just a tool of the party in power. I can have a hammer that leans to the left, or leans to the right, but what it does just depends on who is holding it. Your accusation of the duly elected current administration as “left-leaning” sure won’t raise any eyebrows.

        But OK, we could put a Solyndra logo underneath that cross on the side of the rocket if it makes you feel better …

        • SD

          I’m afraid you have really eluded the topic by your overzealous attacks on partisanship and conservatism. Your comment stating the following is example of narrow minded partisan hypocrisy:

          “it’s hard to pin a commitment to conservative Christian and traditional family values and support for a free-market system label on NASA, isn’t it. That’s what “right-leaning” means to me”

          If this is what “right-leaning” means to you, then you have allowed political pundits and ideologues to warp your sense of reality. Don’t kid yourself into pigeonholing an entire political wing into an entire class of people into unthoughtfully misguided zealots. I think you would find far more common ground with these people you misunderstand, if you too more time to grasp their arguments, rather than jumping to overreaching erroneous conclusions.

          Consider how many conservative districts DO NOT have space related interests within their constituency. For instance, an agricultural district in a southern state (or midwestern for that matter) would very likely have absolutely no direct interest in paying more taxes to support an industry that doesn’t help create jobs in their area. They have to be accountable to their constituents who are suffering from a bad economy, who are needing lower taxes and asking their representatives to scale back government spending and avoid unnecessary spending. This doesn’t undercut the importance of programs like NASA, nor does it display a complete lack of support or interest in the program, but rather faces the political and economic reality that in tough times some program spending is more difficult to justify.

          Now before you go into a tirade into spending such a district might approve (ie defense spending), consider how many of the members of our armed forces come from these districts, and how many defense jobs might be located within these districts. This of course is not an all inclusive list of spending they might find support for, but is simply an example of how politics really works.

          My point is that political landscapes aren’t as divisive and mindlessly destructive as your comment suggests. Take political commentary with a grain of salt and realize both sides have an interest in shaping your political views and impressions of “the other side”. Don’t be so careless as to believe all the propaganda and political undermining that goes on in our news outlets and media. Careful research shows that republicans and democrats share similar goals, just different approaches to reaching those goals. I suggest avoided belittling comments and overreaching generalizations, as they are rarely productive and serve no political/national interest in the long run. We need more collaboration and mutual understanding, and less unneeded divisions and assaults on each other’s views and beliefs.

          • Guest

            I suggest avoided belittling comments and overreaching generalizations, as they are rarely productive and serve no political/national interest in the long run. We need more collaboration and mutual understanding, and less unneeded divisions and assaults on each other’s views and beliefs.

            Politics in this country is not rational, and so I take issue with you comparing it to ‘collaboration and mutual understanding’, since that demonstrably does not exist anymore with regards to politics in the United States, and is more in the realm of science and rational approaches to understanding of the type that produces technically feasible results.

          • Hiram

            “If this is what ‘right-leaning’ means to you, then you have allowed political pundits and ideologues to warp your sense of reality.”

            No attacks intended at all, much less “overzealous ones”. You can take your argument about definitions for right- and left-leaning up with Wikipedia, for one. Political pundits and ideologues have warped many senses of reality, I guess, including the contributors to that resource.

            “My point is that political landscapes aren’t as divisive and mindlessly destructive as your comment suggests.”

            Sorry, what comment was that? I made no such comment. I agree with your assessment of political landscapes completely. Talk about warped senses of reality …

            I’d go back and reread the exchange if I were you. I was just being skeptical about a characterization of NASA as “leaning” one way or the other politically. The “belittling comments and overreaching generalizations” may have been there, but weren’t coming from me. I tried to make my statement politically neutral.

            You make good points, but using them to argue with what I said is a little silly.

            • You can take your argument about definitions for right- and left-leaning up with Wikipedia, for one.

              Yes, now there’s a useful source on politics and ideology.

              • Hiram

                I take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, but you’re welcome to suggest another source for a definition for “left-leaning” and “right-leaning”. I doubt if the OP had one. One that has the same level of consensus-driven editorialism that Wikipedia offers. (As in, if you don’t like it, get in there and fix it!)

                Of course, Wikipedia can always use more editors. Why don’t you volunteer your services? That would actually serve a useful purpose.

              • Guest

                The OP is more concerned about his or her ‘beliefs’ being offended than they are of getting a particularly difficult engineering job done, for instance, creating a reusable heavy lift launch vehicle system and industry for national and commercial space endeavors. That would require ‘collaboration and mutual understanding’, which would be and indeed is demonstrably impossible to do without offending his or her beliefs. That may sound harsh to some, but I can assure you it does not offend the OP beliefs because they are completely unable to understand the concept.

  • Jeff Foust wrote:

    … a provision backed by Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), whose district includes Cape Canaveral.

    During the latest round of gerrymandering redistricting by the Florida legislature, Posey’s district now includes all of Brevard County. No more dividing line between CCAFS and KSC. Click here for a map.

  • DCSCA

    ‘What NASA “wants”…’ is irrelevent. The agency is an instrument of national policy. It does what it is told. NASA doesn’t decide U.S. space policy; it carries it out. Apologies for typos.

    • Which still comes down to:

      “If you want ‘X’ goal achieved,then we will need ‘Y’ in order to do it.” Just as, say, the DoD would. With Apollo, Congress did not try to specify the mission architecture.

      The problem with SLS is Congress going on to say; “Oh, and this is exactly how you’re going to do it.”

      Whatever ‘it’ happens to be, in that particular case where the means is more important to Congress than the unspecified applications, policies and goals…

Leave a Reply to Hiram Cancel 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>