|
|
 |
|
|
|
register |
bbs |
search |
rss |
faq |
about
|
|
|
meet up |
add to del.icio.us |
digg it
|
|
|
|
Space Activists Digest, Vol.2 #2
27-FEB-1989 17:54:10.84
Subj:V2,#2 of Space Activists Digest
Today's Topics:
Pittsburgh L5 BBS to be NSS 'core' board
Space Development Conference in Chicago, 26-29 May
The Congressional Funding Process
SEND SUBMISSIONS TO: [email protected]
ADMISTRATIVE REQUESTS TO: [email protected]
If you can't reach turing.cs.rpi.edu, try cs.rpi.edu or csv.rpi.edu.
The latter host will only be available for the short term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1989 20:48-EST
>From: Dale.[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Pittsburgh L5 BBS to be NSS 'core' board
The Pittsburgh L5 BBS, the oldest L5/NSS bboard in the country, has
been moved back under Beverly Freed's expert fingers.
The new phone number is: 412-366-5208.
The board will contain current information direct from NSS
headquarters.
Headquarters coordination of BBS's is being carried out by Jordan Katz.
I suggest everyone give him a helping hand. With a little luck he will
get Space Digest, Space Tech and Space Activist out to BBS's. This has
been one of our goals for quite some time, so I'm glad to see that
someone has finally been assigned to choreograph it.
If there is still sufficient interest, I would be willing to set up
another net get-together at the Chicago conference, although I would
like some others to be co-moderators.
I will probably (approaching 90% at this time) be moving to Belfast,
Northern Ireland about a mon<W.Hhe conference, and I am currently
working with some people on the startup plans for a high tech company.
Thus I have almost no time available for any 'serious' preperation for
such a session. But then it can be informal and fun, can't it?
Anyone who is interested in being involved and who has topics we should
discuss, please let me know.
Thanks,
Dale
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 89 19:04 CST
>From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <HIGGINS%[email protected]>
Subject: Space Development Conference in Chicago, 26-29 May
To: [email protected]
The 8th Annual International
1989 SPACE DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Memorial Day Weekend
May 26-29, 1989 in Chicago
Hyatt Regency O'Hare Hotel
The principal gathering of those involved in citizen space advocacy is
the annual Space Development Conference. This year it is co-sponsored
by 23 space-activist organizations, including the National Space
Society, Space Studies Institute, Students for the Exploration and
Development of Space, and the World Space Foundation. The Planetary
Society is cooperating by arranging a Mars Symposium at the
Conference, and 18 local institutions are affiliated as supporters.
Over 400 activists are already registered.
APOLLO: 20 YEARS LATER: A 20th anniversary celebration and review
of the Moon landings. With former NASA Administrator Thomas O.
Paine and astronauts Eugene Cernan and James Lovell.
AN OVERVIEW OF SPACE: A comprehensive update on all aspects of
current space programs.
SPACE TECHNOLOGY: Half-day programs on (1) Building a Lunar Base
and (2) The U.S. Space Station.
BUSINESS AND SPACE: (1)Space and the Non-Space Business and (2)
Space Commercialization. Two days of programs.
MEET SPACE LEADERS: A chance to converse with astronauts, experts,
advocates, and NASA officials. Learn how you can participate in
the Space Movement by attending our Activist Track.
PLUS SPECIAL SYMPOSIA: Law & Space (with American Bar Association),
Medicine & Space (with Aerospace Medical Association and American
Medical Association), Teaching & Space (with U.S. Space Foundation,
Young Astronaut Council, NASA, and a host of others), Exploration of
Mars (in cooperation with the Planetary Society).
* * * *
AN OVERVIEW OF SPACE: (Saturday/Sunday) The U.S. Space Program;
Soviets and Other Nations in Space; Space Colonies (Gregg Maryniak,
Exec. V.P., Space Studies Institute); Apollo: Was It Worth It?
(historian John Logsdon); Has the Space Program Paid for Itself? New
Economic Impact Studies; What Next: An Integrated, Step-by-Step Space
Plan; Building Moon Bases; Space Commercialization: Space and the
Environment; Solar Power Satellites; Refitting the Shuttle between
Missions; Nati|Aerospace Plane (David Webb, University of North
Dakota); Charles Walker (President, National Space Society, and
payload specialist); Informal meetings with NASA officials and
astronauts.
SPACE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY:
-SCIENCE & SPACE: (Friday) Honorary Chairman John Simpson (U. of
Chicago) with Joseph Alexander (NASA Assistant Associate Administrator
for Space Science and Applications); Voyager at Neptune: A Preview
(Norman Haynes, JPL Voyager project director); Future Space Science
Missions; The Orbiting Observatories; Space Science in the Midwest;
Antimatter Propulsion (Robert L. Forward); NASA's Pathfinder and
Future Projects Programs.
-LUNAR BASES: (half-day, Saturday afternoon) Overview (chairman
Wendell Mendell, Chief Scientist, Lunar Base Studies, Johnson Space
Center); Designs (Peter Land, Illinois Institute of Technology);
Architecture (Larry Bell, JSC); Life Support (Farolyn Powell, Life
Systems, Inc.); Surface Operations (Dr. John Alred, JSC); Lunar
Resources (Mark Jacobs, Astronautics Corp.).
-THE U.S. SPACE STATION: (half-day, Sunday afternoon) Technical
Choices in Designing the Station (Thomas L. Moser, NASA Deputy
Associate Administrator for Space Station, and Franklin D. Martin,
Assistant Administrator for Exploration); Making the U.S. and Soviet
Stations Compatible (Gordon Woodcock, Boeing)
BUSINESS & SPACE: Organized by the Illinois Space Institute, KPMG Peat
Marwick, and Aerospace Research Applications Corp.; The Future of Free
Enterprise in Space, with Honorary Chairman: James A. Lovell, Jr.
(Exec. V.P. Centel Corporation, and former astronaut)
-SPACE AND THE NON-SPACE BUSINESS: (Friday) Locating and Using
NASA Technology (Often without Cost); Space-Related Growth Industries;
American Rocket Co.: Getting into the Space Business; Space Spinoffs;
Using NASA R & D Contracts to Develop Commercial Products; Contracting
and Subcontracting with NASA (Getting and Keeping a Piece of the
Pie); Financing
-SPACE COMMERCIALIZATION: (Sunday) The Private Launch Industry;
How Your Business Can Use Space: An Overview; Photos from Orbit
for Business and Farming; Small Satellites; 3M's Space Research
Program; Geostar and SSI: A Case Study; Government Aid to High
Tech: An Illinois Example. Also including: George Koopman (Amroc),
Jeffrey Manber (Exec. Director, The Space Foundation), SPOT Image
Corp., American Microsat, Globesat, Omnisat, John Straus (Director,
Governor's Commission on Science and Technology), NASA.
INTRODUCTION TO SPACEFLIGHT: (Friday) All-day professional seminar on
essentials of space navigation, led by Gregg Maryniak of the Space
Studies Institute and pilot Capt. Edward Daley. Learn to solve NASA's
Shuttle rendezvous workbook problems. Additional fee of $195.
SCIENCE FICTION WRITERS VIEW SPACE: Including Ben Bova, Hal Clement,
Gordon R. Dickson, Roland Green, James P. Hogan, Frederik Pohl,
and Stanley Schmidt.((URIST PROGRAMMING: Experienced space activists will share
their
knowledge in a series of hands-on, how-to workshops and panels,
dealing with such topics as recruiting, staging special events such as
Spaceweek, pro-space political action, outreach to schools, using
computer networks, cooperation among chapters of pro-space groups, and
improving activist communications.
SPECIAL SYMPOSIA
LAW & SPACE (Friday) Organized by Hon. Edward R. Finch, Jr., Chairman,
Aerospace Law Division, American Bar Association. Space Debris:
Legal Aspects; The Law of Space (Treaties and Statutes); Conflicts
of Law: The Law IN Space (Taxation, Imports & Exports, Crimes,
Torts, Contracts, Marriages, Citizenship, Titles, Patents);
Legal Rights to NASA Research & Development; Governing Multi-National
Space Habitats; The UN in Space.
MEDICINE & SPACE (Saturday) Co-sponsored by Aerospace Medical
Association and American Medical Association. Man in Space: A Medical
Overview; Closed Ecology Life-Support Systems (CELSS); Medical Needs
of a Space Station; Surgery in Space; Psychosociological Aspects of
Space Flight; Medical Spinoffs from Space.
TEACHING & SPACE (Sunday and Monday) NASA and Teachers (Dr. Robert
Brown, Director, NASA Office of Educational Affairs); Tips in Teaching
Space (Margaret Lindman, Chairman, Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction,
Northeastern Illinois University), Come Fly with Me: Space Curricula
(David and Doreen Housel); Space Science for Non-Science Students
(Thomas Damon), Museum of Science & Industry: Local NASA Resource
Center; Teaching the History of Space Exploration (U.S. Space Camp);
Science Fiction as a Teaching Tool (Harry "Hal Clement" Stubbs);
Space as a "Hook" for Other Subjects (Georgia Franklin); Mars for
Students (Ralph Winrick, NASA); Air Bears: A Kindergarten Curriculum
(The Ninety-Nines); Horizons Unlimited (Civil Air Patrol); Teaching
Astronomy (Adler Planetarium); Teaching Space (U.S. Space Foundation,
Challenger Center, Young Astronauts). ALSO: NASA program to certify
teachers to handle Moon rocks (Friday evening); Space M+A+X computer
course.
EXPLORATION OF MARS (Monday morning) In cooperation with the Planetary
Society. Overview: A Mars Exploration Program; NASA at Mars; Mars
Rover Sample Return Scenarios; Mars Airplanes; Mars Balloons; Soviet
Mars '94 Mission; Phobos-- The Movie; Psychology & Sociology of
Long-Duration Space Flight; What Next for Advocates? Including Louis
Friedman (Exec. Director, Planetary Society), Thomas Paine, John
Logsdon, Carl Pilcher (Chief Scientist, NASA Office of Exploration).
YOU, TOO, CAN SPEAK! The "Many Roads to Space" track will give you and
other registrants a forum for your own special and diverse ideas on space
policy, science, education, or technology. A fifteen-minute slot
will be alotted for each single speaker and topic.
ENTERTAINMENT: Moebius Theatre, Chicago's improvisational comedy
zB22zW.YX^evening.
HOTEL INFORMATION: Hyatt Regency O'Hare Hotel rooms are $69/night,
single or double. Call (800)228-9000.
DISCOUNT AIR FARES: American Airlines offers 45% off coach fares
or 5% off any special fare (all restrictions apply), whichever
is less. Call (800)433-1790; ask for Star File No. S67088.
TOURS AVAILABLE: Introduction to Chicago (Thursday afternoon),
Fermilab (Friday morning), Chicago's Outdoor Art and the Art Institute
(Friday afternoon), Argonne National Laboratory (Saturday morning), A
Day in Chicago: Museums to Michigan Avenue (All day Saturday), Crown
Space Center at Museum of Science & Industry/Omnimax movie(Sunday
afternoon) [I'm not absolutely sure, but I think *The Dream Is Alive*
will be playing--WSH]
All schedule information is tentative-- we're still shuffling our
program.
Network contact: William S. Higgins
Bitnet: [email protected]
SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS
Internet: HIGGINS%[email protected]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1989 Space Development Conference Registration Form
Name: Age: M__ F__
Address:
Telephone:
Affiliation: NSS____ Other pro-space organization___
Title: Employer:
Were you at the SDC in 1982__ 83__ 84__ 85__ 86__ 87__ 88__?
Check here if you're a teacher__
I volunteer to help: __before __at the Conference
I am interested in making a "Many Roads to Space" minipresentation__
Is handicap access needed? _____
I enclose __SDC Registrations at $____each;
__students at half price($___)each Total enclosed: $_____
Make checks payable to Space Development Conference, and mail to
P.O. Box 64397
Chicago, IL 60664-0397 USA
Please include name, address, and phone number of each other registrant.
Rates: $60 to 2/28; $70 to 4/1; for teachers $45 to 4/1; $90
thereafter. Full-time students half applicable price. Prices
are subject to change without notice. Full refunds (minus a $5
handling charge) will be available up to 35 days prior to the
Conference.
---------------------------------
To: [email protected]
Subject: Congressional Funding Process
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 89 18:37:03 EST
>From: [email protected] (Christopher A. Welty)
THE CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING PROCESS
A Summary for Space Phone Tree Coordinators
By Kevin Griffin
National Coordinator, Space Phone Tree
272 Beacon Street
Somerville, MA 02143
(617) 868-2566
Copyright 1988, Kevin Griffin
(Approved for distribution on Space Activists Digest)
In my first year as national coordinator for the Space Phone Tree, I have
from time to time noted some confusion concerning distinctions between various
steps in the congressional fund6.kV.$TYW-[ say to me, when I'm
passing on an alert, "didn't I read that the House passed that bill last
month?". Often, upon discussion, it will turn out that they are referring to
(say) an authorization bill, when the current alert concerns an appropriation
bill. This confusion is not surprising; often it seems, even to me, that we
are fighting the same battles over and over again.
This summary of the congressional funding process is designed to provide
general background on the various steps in the process and on the pieces of
legislation involved in funding a federal agency. This will provide a context
for Space Phone Tree alerts when they occur, and will permit you as a Space
Phone Tree coordinator to give intelligent answers when you get questions
such as as that quoted above.
The discussion which follows is directed toward the NASA budget, because
it is the budget on which the Phone Tree is most active. However, the process
(with substitution of the committees and subcommittees having jurisdiction
over the particular agency) is also applicable to the budget for any other
agency (Transportation, Commerce, or Defense, for example). Also, the general
description of the process by which a bill is passed (Part 1) applies to
substantive legislation (such as the recently passed commercial launch
liability legislation) as well as to funding legislation.
In reading what follows please keep several caveats in mind. First, this
is a summary. It omits much detail. For example, although I describe Budget
Committee work on Budget Resolutions as if it were entirely independent of the
authorization process, there are in fact formal and informal processes for
consultation between the Budget Committee and the various committees with
authorization jurisdiction.
Second, the summary is of a nice neat theoretical flow chart. In
practice things become much more confused. Rules can be suspended and steps
skipped. Events may occur in parallel, in a different order or, in some
cases, not at all. For example, it has not been uncommon in recent years for
the Budget Resolution to be passed well after authorization committees, or
even the appropriation committees, have begun their work. Work always
overlaps on authorization and appropriations bills. In 1988 the NASA
Authorization Bill passed in the waning hours of the session, a month or so
after the NASA Appropriation Bill.
Third, this description assumes that authorizations and appropriations
are necessary every year. This is generally so, however Congress sometimes
passes multi-year authorizations and (less frequently) multi-year
appropriations. For example, most of the funding for the replacement Shuttle
orbiter came in a five year appropriation passed in fiscal year 1987.
Fourth, the process does change a bit from time to time. In |?Z]ar,
the Gramm - Rudman process, which is relatively new, has not been quite the
same any two consecutive years. Also the schedule, even in theory (and
especially in practice) varies from year to year.
Fifth, the popular press is often careless or imprecise when it reports
on funding legislation. Thus I have seen newspaper reports use the terms
"funding bill", "money bill" and "budget bill" without specifying whether they
are referring to an appropriation or authorization bill. In order to sort out
of the press reports, one must understand the process and often know
approximately what the status of each bill was.
1. A Quick Summary of the Legislative Process
Legislation begins when a piece of proposed legislation, called a "bill",
is introduced in either the House or the Senate by a member of the body,
usually with one or more cosponsors. Such bills are immediately and almost
automatically referred by the House or Senate to the committee with
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the legislation. Most bills get no
further.
A bill is typically first considered by a subcommittee of the committee
to which it is referred. The subcommittee may hold hearings on the bill at
which it takes oral testimony and receives written statements. It usually
will hold one or more sessions called "markups" at which the bill is reviewed
and amendments are proposed and voted on. Markups are often closed and can be
quite informal. The bill, as revised by the subcommittee, may then be passed
and sent (or "reported") to the full committee.
A full committee may approve a bill and report it to the full Senate or
House (informally called "sending it to the floor") as passed by the
subcommittee. Or it may hold markups of its own and further amend the bill
before reporting it.
In both the House and the Senate, when and if a reported measure is
actually considered by the full body is largely in the control of the majority
(and to a lesser extent the minority) leadership (and, in the House, the
EHouse Rules CommitteeF). A bill which is considered may be further amended
on the floor, and then will be passed or defeated by the body.
A bill first passed by the House is then sent to the Senate and vice
versa. In the second body, the bill goes through the same process: referral
to committee, consideration by committee and subcommittee, reporting and
consideration by the full body. Often the same, or very similar, legislation
will be introduced by both a Senator and a Representative. Thus relevant
House and Senate Committees will be considering their respective bills in
parallel. Then, when the bill is passed by, for example, the House and
referred to a Senate Committee, that committee may just amend it to substitute
the version it had been working on and report the House bill to the Senate in
thajRH$H When different versions of legislation are passed by both houses (which
is often the case), either body may request a conference. The House and the
Senate will then each appoint some of their number (typically key sponsors or
members of the committees which worked on the bill) to serve on a House -
Senate conference committee on the particular bill. The conference committee
will then meet and seek to work out a final version of the bill.
If the conference committee reaches agreement, it reports to both the
House and the Senate identical versions of the bill. Each body must then
approve the compromise. While rejection or further amendment by either body
is possible in theory at this point, conference reports are almost always
accepted by both bodies.
Bills passed by both the House and the Senate are then sent to the
President. He may either sign the bill into law, allow it to become law
without his signature (by failing to veto it within 10 days, Sundays
excluded), or veto it. A bill will become law over the president's veto if
two thirds of each house vote to override the veto.
2. The President's Budget
The first step in the funding process, so far as Congress is concerned,
is submission of the president's budget for the fiscal year. A fiscal year,
the period for which agencies are funded, runs from October to September.
Thus FY 1990 run's from October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1990. The
president's budget is submitted early in the February preceeding the beginning
of the fiscal year.
It should be noted that submission of the budget is preceded by a long
and complex process within the federal bureaucracy in which the agencies
prepare budget requests and submit them to the Office of Management and the
Budget (OMB). Describing that process would require another article, but the
Space Phone Tree has on occasion had alerts directed at trying to influence
it.
The president's budget contains spending requests for all federal
agencies, including detailed breakdowns and backup information. It tends to
be the starting point for the work of the various congressional committees
involved in the funding process. For example, Congress might ultimately
appropriate less for NASA than the president requests; it will rarely
appropriate more (this is not true for all agencies; some programs to which
President Reagan was particularly hostile have consistently received
appropriations larger than the president's request).
3. The Budget Resolution
After the budget is submitted, the Congress adopts a Budget Resolution.
This document establishes the overall budget totals which Congress is not
supposed to exceed in the funding process. It also establishes subtotals by
broad categoriess. Budget Resolution subtotals are not broken down by agency,
but rather by function. ForRk$*P.Hudget is included in
Function 250, a science and technology function with includes National Science
Foundation and various other science related programs. However, some of its
funding for aeronautical programs is included in a different function.
The Budget Resolution is in the jurisdiction of the EHouse Budget
CommitteeF and the ESenate Budget CommitteeF. Neither of these committees has
subcommittees, which shortens the process described in Part 1 by one step.
Also, the Budget Resolution is not legislation; it is for the internal
guidance of Congress. Thus after the differences between the House and the
Senate Budget Resolutions are ironed out in conference and the result is
passed by both bodies, it is not sent to the president for signature or veto.
After a Budget Resolution is passed, it theoretically binds the
authorization and appropriations committees preparing funding legislation. It
is thus very important that the Budget Resolution contain sufficient funding
for Function 250 to permit an adequate NASA budget. We cannot win a funding
fight in the Budget Committees (see Parts 4 and 5), but we sure can lose one.
House and Senate rules also provide that if either the House or the
Senate have passed a Budget Resolution but the differences have not yet been
worked out with the other body, the funding committees will be governed by the
version passed by their own body. If (as has happened in the recent past) the
House - Senate conference on the Budget Resolution deadlocks, the House and
the Senate may end up following very different versions of the Budget
Resolution. This can greatly complicate the process of passing appropriation
legislation.
4. The Authorization Bills
After the Budget Resolution, the next step in the funding process is
enactment of an authorization bill for each agency. Authorization bills
authorize expenditure of money for particular programs. A program may not be
initiated, and money may not be spent on it, unless the program and the
funding are authorized by Congress. This is the purpose of an authorization
bill.
However, in the world of federal budgeting, having authority to spend
money is not the same as having money to spend. An agency does not have money
to spend unless it is appropriated by Congress, as described in Part 5. Thus
in theory, both an authorization bill and an appropriation bill are
required before an agency can actually spend money.
In practice, in recent years, power has shifted to the appropriations
committees. The authorization bills usually authorize more than the
appropriation bill appropriates. Thus, it is the appropriation bill which
usually sets the limit on an agency's expendituress. Also, on occasion, an
agency has not had an authorization bill. For example, the FY 1987 NASA
Authorization Bil.Hetoed by President Reagan because it would have
reestablished the National Space Council.
Nevertheless, the authorization process is important for two reasons.
First, although the overall authorization for an agency may be ample, the
authorization for a particular program may not be. Thus, for example, Freedom
Station could as easily be killed by inadequate authorizations as by
inadequate appropriations. Also authorization bills are where the first key
decision is made on a new program start. Second, the authorization bill often
becomes a vehicle for substantive legislation. For example, the FY 1989 NASA
Authorization Bill, as it was enacted, contained the Space Settlement Act of
1988, an important piece of legislation for which the Space Phone Tree fought.
Authorization legislation is under the jurisdiction of the committee
which has substantive jurisdiction over the agency concerned. In the case of
NASA authorization legislation is considered in the House by the ECommittee on
Science, Space and TechnologyF and by its ESubcommittee on Space Science and
ApplicationsF. On the Senate side NASA authorization bills go to the
ECommittee on Commerce, Science and TransportationF and its ESubcommittee on
Science, Technology and SpaceF.
Authorization bills are legislation, and as such require presidential
approval.
5. The Appropriation Bills
The final step in the process is an appropriation bill. Agencies may not
spend money unless it is appropriated to them. Thus appropriation bills are
where the final and most crucial battles over funding take place.
All appropriation bills are in the jurisdiction of the EHouseF and
ESenate Appropriation CommitteesF. The real work of preparing an
appropriation bill for a particular agency is done by the subcommittee of the
Appropriations Committee which is responsible for that agency. In NASA's
case, the relevant subcommittee (on both the House and the Senate side) is the
EHUD - Independent Agencies SubcommitteeF. NASA is one of the independent
agencies
Before the subcommittees can go to work on an appropriation bill,
however, the full EAppropriations CommitteeF must go through the process of
allocating funds to its various subcommittees. The total of the allocations
must not exceed the ceiling established by the Budget Resolution, and in
principle should be consistent with the subtotals assigned to the various
functions in the Budget Resolution. However, these constraints leave
considerable room for maneuvering, and the allocations can be a protracted
process of negotiation among the chairpersons of the subcommittees.
If the allocation to a particular subcommittee is adequate for all the
agencies covered by that subcommittee, the process of preparing appropriation
legislation is relatively painless. That is rarely the case, howev.\YZXly with
ongoing deficit problems. When the allocation is not
sufficient, the subcommittee must decide how to divide the available funds up
among its agencies. It is in this context that NASA finds itself competing
with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Veteran's
Administration and EPA, all which also fall under the EHUD - Independent
Agencies SubcommitteesF.
6. Continuing Resolutions
Ideally, the funding process ends with passage of an appropriation bill
and its approval by the president. However, as I pointed out above, this
process does not work as smoothly in practice as it does on paper.
If an appropriation bill is not passed and signed into law for a
particular agency by the beginning of the fiscal year (October 1), that agency
then lacks the authority to spend money, and must shut down. To prevent this,
Congress may pass what is called a "Continuing Resolution" or "CR".
A Temporary Continuing Resolution authorizes the agencies for which
appropriations bills have not yet been passed to continue to spend money for
some period of time (a week or a month for example) while Congress finishes up
the appropriations bills. Prior to the 1980's such CRs normally authorized
spending at the previous fiscal year's rate for a relatively short period of
time.
However, more recently there has been a tendency for the appropriations
process to drag out to the point where Congress was ready to quit for the year
with many major appropriation bills still pending. The practice grew up of
adopting, shortly before the session ended, a "Permanent Continuing
Resolution" which authorized spending by the agencies lacking appropriations
for the entire fiscal year. The CR replaced the appropriation bills, allowing
Congress to adjourn without passing the appropriation bills.
Unlike Temporary CRs, Permanent Continuing Resolutions tend to be based
on the appropriation bills in progress, at whatever stage they are. Thus the
CR is in essence a "paste together" of all the pending but unpassed
appropriation bills.
For the last several years (but not including FY 1989) much of the
government was funded in the Permanent CR; few appropriation bill made it
through prior to adjournment. In FY 1989 there was no CR; appropriation bills
were passed for all agencies.
It remains to be seen how big a role Continuing Resolutions will play in
years to come. However, even in years when no NASA Appropriation Bill is
passed, our efforts on the appropriation bill are important, since the
decisions made in committee on the appropriations bill tend end up being
included in the Permanent Continuing Resolution.
7. Gramm - Rudman
The final wrinkle in the process is the Gramm - Rudman sequestration
procedure. The Gramm - Rudman - Hollings legislation was enacted several
ye?XR.HXdeficit control measure. It has been revised somewhat from its
original form, particularly after the Supreme Court struck down parts of it.
Gramm - Rudman requires the Office of Management and Budget to report, on
August 15 and again on October 15 of each year, whether the federal government
will run a deficit for the year, and if so how large a deficit. If the
deficit projected exceeds a ceiling set by the statute (which declines each
year until the budget is balanced) then an automatic sequestration (blocking
of spending) occurs, according to a formula set forth in the statute.
The sequestration after the August 15 report, which goes into effect on
October 1, is temporary. The president and Congress get an opportunity,
before the second report makes the sequestration final and permanent, to
negotiate an agreement as to how the cuts should be allocated among the
federal agencies. If they reach agreement, Congress can pass and the
president sign, a Joint Resolution modifying the sequestration. If there is
no agreement, the cuts are made under a formula set forth in the statute.
Roughly speaking, cuts are to be allocated 50% to non-military and 50% to
defense, except for some protected programs, and are made across the board
(pro rata by agency and subdivision within each agency).
There was no Gramm - Rudman sequestration triggered by OMB reports for
fiscal year 1989, which began October 1, 1988.
Clearly, a future Gramm - Rudman sequestration could be devastating to
the space program, even if the funding fights go well and the appropriation is
adequate. Clearly, also, just how devastating a sequestration is might well
depend on how much attention is paid to NASA during negotiations over Gramm -
Rudman cuts between the president and Congress.
---------------------------------
End of Space Activists Digest
*****************************
-------
|
|
|
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.
totse.com certificate signatures
|
|
|
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
