Obama Threatens to Veto House Spending Bill Over Commercial Crew Provisions


President Barack Obama has said he would veto the House Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2013¬†because it cuts far too much, including $330 million from the Administration’s request for NASA’s commercial crew program. The President also opposes restrictive language that would force NASA to immediately down select from four providers to one and move immediately to Federal Acquisition Regulation contracting.

In a Statement of Administration Policy, the White House wrote:

The Administration strongly opposes the level of funding provided for the commercial crew program, which is $330 million below the FY 2013 Budget request, as well as restrictive report language that would eliminate competition in the program. This would increase the time the United States will be required to rely solely on foreign providers to transport American astronauts to and from the space station. While the Administration appreciates the overall funding level provided to NASA, the bill provides some NASA programs with unnecessary increases at the expense of other important initiatives.

The Administration requested $830 million for the commercial crew program. The House spending plan provides $500 million while the Senate wants to spend $525 million on the progra

Read the full statement.

  • Well I’ll be. I didn’t think the President would consider this important enough to stand up and burn a degree of political capital on. Good!

  • warshawski

    At least Obama is standing up for the future of Amercian space flight. It would be good if he would veto SLS/Orion and use the money for something usefull.

  • Michael Turner

    I doubt he had to burn political capital. It’s not like the GOP is in any mood to cooperate with him in the first place, and I’m sure the smell of burning capital is more on their side than elsewhere: does your average Republican voter *not* believe in competition? Most voters favor spending more money if it creates jobs, so the argument from austerity doesn’t work either.