Or more specifically they passed “Motion To Concur In House Amdts To Senate Amdt To House Amdt To Senate Amdt To H.R. 2642.” As described previously, this includes funding for the NSF, NASA, and DOE Office of Science.
The money is included in a very broad war supplemental funding bill negotiated between the White House and the House of Representatives.
FYI has an excellent summary of NASA funding in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill in the Senate. You can also read the entire Senate Report.
I’ll try to write more about this later in the week - for now I will, like the FYI newsletter, quote the introduction to the Senate report.
NASA’s vision for space exploration maps out an aggressive role for the United States in manned space exploration. However, the potential costs are substantial and will likely be very difficult to maintain at the current estimated funding levels. In addition, the Committee feels strongly that NASA must show its commitment to those human spaceflight activities already underway. The Shuttle program and the construction of the International Space Station [ISS] continue to be the primary focus of the Nation’s manned space flight activities. Nevertheless, the replacements for the Space Shuttle’s manned and heavy lift capabilities must also be considered as part of any plan for continued human access to space but not to the detriment of existing obligations.
The Committee is concerned that NASA will neglect areas that only tangentially benefit, or do not fit within, the exploration vision. The Committee believes that NASA must work diligently to balance existing programs and priorities with its plans for the future. Counterbalancing future priorities against current programs places existing research and expertise in jeopardy and risks squandering significant Federal investments that may be essential to the exploration vision.
In addition, the Committee is concerned that the strong, balanced science program that has served the Nation so successfully for many years is being left behind rather than being nurtured and sustained. That science program has been based on a set of carefully crafted scientific strategies that are founded on scientific and technical merit, relevance to overall national needs, and broad consultation with the scientific community.”
In the span of a minute, the Senate Commerce, Justice, and Science committee passed the Senate version of the NASA Authorization Bill of 2008. You can read the committee press release here.
When the text of the bill is available online, I’ll update this post.
The compromise supplemental funding bill does indeed include money for science. Specifically:
The bill should be voted on in the House today or Friday, and then will be considered in the Senate.
Updated - You can see the text of the amendments yourself at the Government Printing Office (PDF) view of the Congressional Record.
Also, my favorite part of the Congressional record daily digest for June 20 is this:
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008: The House agreed to the Senate amendments to the House amendments to the Senate amendment with an amendment, made in order by the rule and printed in H. Rept. 110-720…
That is a lot of amending.
The NASA Authorization Bill,HR 6063, passed the House yesterday by a vote of 409-15. The bill authorizes (but does not appropriate) higher funding for NASA, and spells out the agencies mission as the agency prepares for a new administration in 2009.
Noteworthy in the bill:
The Senate has yet to introduce a NASA authorization bill.
The House Science Committee passed HR 6063, the NASA Reauthorization Act, unanimously today.
From the committee’s press release:
H.R. 6063, introduced by Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Mark Udall (D-CO), authorizes appropriations for NASA’s activities – science, aeronautics, exploration, education, space operations, inspector general, cross-agency support programs – for Fiscal Year 2009. FY 2009 funding for NASA is $20.21 billion. This bipartisan legislation was originally cosponsored by the Science and Technology Committee’s Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN), Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX), and Subcommittee Ranking Member Tom Feeney (R-FL).
A NASA Reauthorization bill has yet to be introduced in the Senate.
If you think it’s been a while since I’ve posted, and wonder why that is - the answer is simple. Last week was what Congress calls a “district work week” - i.e. they were in their home states or districts.
Additionally, the AAS of course has our meeting in St. Louis which is ongoing, though I’m back in DC today. So, needless to say things are a bit quiet here at AAS HQ.
A couple of items - the NASA senior review of operating missions is available online (PDF link)
The Washington Post reports that NASA’s Inspector General has found that science on climate change was manipulated by political appointees.
From the fall of 2004 through 2006, the report said, NASA’s public affairs office “managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public.” It noted elsewhere that “news releases in the areas of climate change suffered from inaccuracy, factual insufficiency, and scientific dilution.”
The full report can be read here (PDF file)
The AAS council issued a statement in 2004 concurring with the AGU on the need for peer-reviewed science to inform our decisions on climate change. It reads in part:
… The American Astronomical Society (AAS) joins the AGU in calling for peer-reviewed climate research to inform climate-related policy decisions, and, as well, to provide a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global change and to help communities adapt and become resilient to extreme climatic events. In endorsing the “Human Impacts on Climate” statement, the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.
In about 10 minutes, markup of the NASA Reauthorization bill occurred in the House Space & Aeronautics subcommittee today. No amendments were considered. The bill moves on to the full House Science Committee.
Markup refers to the process by which a bill is amended, altered, etc. The bill text got through markup without any changes, from my quick scanning of the archived webcast.
No NASA reauthorization bill has yet been introduced in the Senate.
The NASA Reauthorization bill has been introduced in the House. The bill will go through markup in the House Space and Aeronautics subcommittee next week, and then before the full House Science and Technology committee in early June. The Senate is working on its own NASA reauthorization bill, which is likely to appear in the next month or so.
In addition to authorizing (but not actually appropriating) money for NASA, the bipartisan bill defines a broad policy goals and the mission of NASA.
So, read the text of the bill, and see what you think. The committee is open to input from the scientific community to improve and clarify the bill text.
The AAS’s own Jack Burns testified in March before the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics at a hearing on NASA’s science programs. While he was speaking as a scientist, not as spokesman for the AAS, his testimony can be read in full at the link below, from the House web site:
Jack Burns’ Testimony before Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics (PDF)
Dr. Burns also replied to several Questions on the Record after his written and oral testimony, which is available here : Response to Questions on the Record - Jack Burns (PDF)
AAS Public Policy Blog
The Steady State of the Union.
There are 26 Posts and 4 Comments so far.
