[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 79 (Thursday, May 21, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H3511-H3534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SPURRING PRIVATE AEROSPACE COMPETITIVENESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACT OF 
                                  2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2262.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 273 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2262.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1018


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2262) to facilitate a pro-growth environment for the developing 
commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment and 
creating more stable and predictable regulatory conditions, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Graves of Louisiana in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) and the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Ms. Edwards) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, when I was a child, I learned that there was more to 
our universe than just my home and my town. There were people in great 
cities. There were buildings that stretched to the clouds. There were 
machines that could explore the character of atoms and telescopes that 
saw into distant galaxies. There is so much in the world.
  And in recent decades, we have grown accustomed to seeing it all. 
Entire continents and countries are a plane ride away. The Internet is 
a window to the world from the comfort of our homes. In this time of 
innovation, what was once unimaginable is now common, and what was once 
distant now feels so close.
  But we all know there is still so much left to learn. In my heart, I 
believe man's journey of exploration and discovery has barely begun.
  For generations, dating back to the dawn of humankind, every man, 
woman, and child has looked up to the stars in wonder. We imagined that 
the dots of light could reveal a glimpse of the future. And we thought 
that each night, we saw the whole heavens stretching above us.
  But as technology has given us new eyes to see the universe, we 
discovered that even on the clearest of nights, we can only see a 
fraction of the stars in one small section of our galaxy.
  I still look up at the stars with wonder. And I know that we are only 
at the start of our mission into this great frontier.
  You see, I spent time in school, just like every kid in America, 
learning about our first voyages into space and the Moon landing. I 
remember how much pride I felt, knowing that America did it first and 
that our flag still flies up there today.
  But that is not where we were meant to stop.
  America has always led because it is in our nature to lead. We 
crossed over the mountains of Appalachia and into the Great Plains. We 
climbed the Rockies to the golden coast of California and beyond, 
creating a Nation in

[[Page H3512]]

this land that has far surpassed all others in truth, hope, and 
liberty.
  We are a beacon of freedom and human dignity to every person that 
longs for the right to choose their own future, and we are a force for 
good unlike anything this world has ever known.
  And yet in space, we are losing our ability to lead. We once stood up 
to the challenge of the Soviet's Sputnik and made it to the Moon. But 
today our astronauts use Russian rockets, and other nations are working 
to put people on Mars and beyond.
  But we must go beyond. We must face the great unknown with that 
American spirit of adventure and hope.
  To paraphrase President Kennedy, we must lead mankind into space--not 
because it is easy, but because it is hard and because that goal brings 
out the very best of our Nation.
  There are people--scientists, engineers, astronauts, and 
entrepreneurs--out in the deserts of California who have a goal, the 
same goal so many Americans have had before them. It was our 
forefathers' goal at the founding of this Nation conceived in 
liberty. It was our goal when two young bicycle repairmen rose above 
the sand and waves of a North Carolina beach to fly. It was our goal 
when Chuck Yeager raced through the skies over California and broke the 
sound barrier.

  That goal is to make our dreams a reality.
  Today these 21st century explorers in California and across the 
Nation want to bring man above the clouds, above the Earth, and above 
the Moon, itself. And we should let them.
  Government has great power; that is true. But in America, we believe 
that power is limited. It cannot, should not, and will not be used to 
diminish our dreams.
  I stand here before you today, Mr. Chairman, presenting a bill. This 
bill asks us to make a decision: Do we concede our future to one of 
managed decline where others lead? Or do we make a future where America 
and her people guide us in our journey to the stars?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act of 2015. And I am 
actually quite saddened by that. It is not the outcome I had hoped for. 
Like the gentleman from California, I share in the enthusiasm and the 
wonder of space.
  I would note that the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee has just cut $230 million from the 
President's request for these activities.
  It was my sincere belief that the Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee could have reached bipartisan agreement on a commercial space 
bill. Indeed, during the past few weeks, there was a concerted attempt 
on both sides of the committee to reach common ground on tackling these 
issues and developing a bipartisan bill.
  However, with the backdrop of meeting the majority's floor schedule 
as the top priority, there was insufficient time given to negotiate a 
compromise before last week's full committee markup.
  Mr. Chairman, I think most of us on both sides of the aisle share in 
the excitement and enthusiasm about the commercial space industry, and 
we want it to succeed. Indeed, hundreds of millions of dollars have 
been paid by taxpayers into this industry to get it off the ground. 
American taxpayers have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the 
success of commercial space.
  Since the very beginning, the Federal Government has supported the 
private space industry, at both the State and Federal level, with 
funding, data, and guidance with best practices.
  Since the Commercial Space Launch Act was passed in 1984, followed by 
the Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments of 1988 and 2004, it is 
clear that the commercial space industry has made significant strides.
  Even in 2004, few would have predicted that NASA would be relying 
today on commercial space transportation to deliver critical supplies, 
spare parts, and research material to the International Space Station.
  Who knows what developments will occur in the commercial space arena 
in the coming years. What we do know is that it won't just be 
commercial cargo transported into space; in fact, it will also be 
people. That is why it is up to Congress to develop responsible 
commercial space policies that both encourage the commercial space 
industry and protect those who participate as the users of the 
industry's services and activities.
  Sadly, this bill just doesn't measure up to that responsibility. 
Instead, it takes a fundamentally unbalanced approach to the issues 
facing the commercial space launch industry.
  Two key areas should concern all Members, Republicans and Democrats 
alike.
  The first area pertains to safety. A moratorium on the FAA's 
authority to regulate the safety of crew and spaceflight participants 
was initially included in the Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments of 
2004 in order to allow the commercial space industry the time to 
acquire experience and data that would inform the development of safety 
regulations.
  However, initial expectations of industry progress simply were not 
realized. So in 2012, Congress extended the moratorium for 3 more years 
as part of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The end of 
that learning period is set to expire on September 30, 2015.
  H.R. 2262, the bill in front of us, would extend the learning period 
to December 31, 2025, a decade-long moratorium on FAA's ability to even 
start proposing a safety framework.
  This is very dangerous. This unprecedented regulation-free period for 
a decade for the commercial and human spaceflight industry puts no 
pressure on the industry to establish industry consensus standards, 
standards that could potentially be used as self-regulation measures 
for the industry.
  In addition to providing the industry with 10 years of no safety 
regulations, H.R. 2262 negatively affects the rights of individuals on 
important safety matters by requiring spaceflight passengers to waive 
liability against launch providers and other parties.
  What that means is that spaceflight participants have to waive their 
rights to sue the launch provider and related parties for claims, even 
if there is negligence involved.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 2262 puts policy in place that favors industry over 
policy that ensures balanced consideration for those people the 
industry will serve. That is a position that I and all of my Democratic 
colleagues on the committee oppose.
  Another area of concern pertains to space resource utilization, such 
as asteroid mining.
  Mr. Chair, there is merit to positioning ourselves to answer 
questions associated with space mining, the property rights that accrue 
from such activities, and the harmonization with our treaty 
obligations.
  However, establishing prescriptive policies, as H.R. 2262 would do, 
is simply premature.
  To preclude the proverbial placement of the cart before the horse, it 
would be prudent to establish an interagency review to help identify 
appropriate roles and responsibilities and a proposed organizational 
structure for the Federal Government's oversight and licensing of 
commercial space resource exploration and utilization.
  And it would also be prudent, Mr. Chair, to hold hearings on these 
issues and on this legislation, as well as to have a subcommittee 
markup, what we sometimes refer to as regular order. H.R. 2262 skips 
these steps.
  Proponents of the space resources utilization provisions in H.R. 2262 
argue that the range of issues has been adequately vetted and reviewed 
by the executive branch.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that while several individuals 
in the executive branch have offered technical drafting comments in 
response to queries about the bill, no Federal agency has taken a 
position on the bill.
  Indeed, the administration says: ``While the administration strongly 
supports the bill's efforts to facilitate innovative new space 
activities by U.S. companies, such as the commercial exploration and 
utilization of space resources to meet national needs, the 
administration is concerned about the ability of U.S. companies to move 
forward with these initiatives absent additional authority to ensure 
continuing supervision of these initiatives by the

[[Page H3513]]

U.S. Government as required by the Outer Space Treaty.''
  In addition to these concerns, we have received a number of letters 
from legal scholars, consumer interest groups, and attorneys who have 
raised concerns or are opposed to H.R. 2262 as written. I am submitting 
for the Record letters from Professor Joanne Gabrynowicz, Director of 
the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air and Space Law; the American 
Association for Justice; the Center for Justice & Democracy; Consumer 
Watchdog; the National Consumers League; the Network for Environmental 
and Economic Responsibility of United Church of Christ; Protect All 
Children's Environment; and Public Citizen.

                                         520 Deer Creek Drive,

                                         Oxford, MS, May 12, 2015.
     Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
     Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Johnson: At the request of 
     Congressional Staff I am submitting this letter as a citizen 
     expert for your consideration. I was requested to review H.R. 
     1508 and provide a comment. I am currently Professor Emerita 
     at the University of Mississippi School of Law where I taught 
     United States National Space Law, International Space Law, 
     and Remote Sensing Law from 2001 to 2013. Prior to that I 
     taught similar courses in the Space Studies Department at the 
     University of North Dakota Odegard School of Aerospace 
     Sciences from 1987 to 2001. I was the Editor-in-Chief of the 
     Journal of Space Law from 2001-2013. My complete curriculum 
     vitae is attached for your reference.
       1. Outer Space Treaty Art. II prohibition of national 
     appropriation by ``any other means''.
       This comment addresses the most important issue raised by 
     the Bill on its face. The Bill provides, ``[a]ny asteroid 
     resources obtained in outer space are the property of the 
     entity that obtained such resources, which shall be entitled 
     to all property rights thereto, consistent with applicable 
     provisions of Federal law.'' The Bill defines a ``space 
     resource'' as a ``natural resource of any kind found in situ 
     in outer space.'' It further defines an ``asteroid resource'' 
     as ``found on or within an asteroid.'' The bill is addressing 
     unextracted resources.
       The United States is a State-Party to the Treaty on 
     Principles Governing the Activities of States in the 
     Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and 
     Other Celestial Bodies. It prohibits ``national appropriation 
     by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by 
     any other means.'' The Bill attempts to grant U.S. 
     jurisdiction over ``any asteroid resource'' in situ in order 
     to authorize and require the ``President . . . to facilitate 
     the commercial exploration and utilization of space resources 
     to meet national needs''. Making unextracted, in situ 
     ``asteroid resources'' subject to U.S. Federal law and 
     requiring the President ``to meet national needs'' is a form 
     of national appropriation by ``other means''.
       2. The Bill does not provide for any specific licensing 
     regime.
       Unlicensed U.S. commercial space activities are 
     unprecedented in United States space law. All commercial 
     space activities to date require appropriate licensing by an 
     authorized agency. Specific statutes delegate licensing 
     authority to specific agencies. For example, the Commercial 
     Space Launch Act authorizes the FAA to license commercial 
     launch activities. The 1992 Land Remote Sensing Policy Act 
     authorizes the Department of Commerce to license commercial 
     remote sensing systems. Licensing is how the U.S. meets its 
     obligations to authorize and continually supervise the space 
     activities of non-government entities under the Outer Space 
     Treaty.
       In particular, it is important to note that the license 
     requirement imposed on the licensee that it maintain 
     `operational control,' as the term is defined in Section 
     960.3, is an implementation of U.S. obligations under the 
     United Nations Outer Space Treaty of 1967. That treaty 
     provides that the U.S. Government, as a State party, will be 
     held strictly liable for any U.S. private or governmental 
     entity's actions in outer-space. Consequently, NOAA requires 
     that licensees under this part to maintain ultimate control 
     of their systems, in order to minimize the risk of such 
     liability and assure that the national security concerns, 
     foreign policy and international obligations of the United 
     States are protected.
       The lack of a specific licensing regime also fails to meet 
     the State Department's concern raised in a letter to Bigelow 
     Aerospace from the FAA: the lack of a national regulatory 
     framework with respect to private sector activities on 
     celestial bodies.
       3. The Bill only provides for a report.
       The Bill requires the President to submit a report to 
     recommend which Federal agencies will be necessary to meet 
     U.S. international obligations. This may be sufficient. It is 
     worth noting that reports are not the equivalent of licensing 
     regulations that go through the Administrative Procedure Act 
     process. However, this is a Federalism question, not a space 
     law question so I will only point out the issue and note it 
     is worth questioning and seeking the view of a relevant 
     expert.
           Sincerely,
                                         Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz,
     Prof. Emerita.
                                  ____



                             American Association for Justice,

                                                     May 20, 2015.
     Re Support the Edwards Amendment to the SPACE Act of 2015 
         (H.R. 2262)

     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: The American 
     Association for Justice (AAJ) supports the Edwards substitute 
     amendment which substitutes the text of S. 1297, a bipartisan 
     Senate companion for the SPACE Act of 2015 the ``Spurring 
     Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 
     2015'' or SPACE Act of 2015. The American Association for 
     Justice (AAJ), formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of 
     America (ATLA) with members in United States, Canada and 
     abroad, is the world's largest trial bar. It was established 
     in 1946 to safeguard victims' rights, strengthen the civil 
     justice system, promote injury prevention and foster public 
     health and safety. AAJ is an advocate for a strong civil 
     justice system in order to protect the health and wellbeing 
     of all Americans.
       Commercial space travel is an emerging industry that will 
     allow for members of the general public to visit space for 
     recreational or business purposes and AAJ recognizes the 
     challenges of trying to give a new industry the flexibility 
     to grow and innovate. However, Section 8 of the SPACE Act of 
     2015 requires passengers on commercial spacecraft to waive 
     any right to damages for personal injury, property damage or 
     death resulting from commercial space travel. While it may be 
     acceptable for businesses with equal footing and negotiating 
     power to execute cross waivers limiting their responsibility 
     to each other, this waiver language should not extend to 
     passengers. This provision is unfair and harmful to 
     individuals. As a result, AAJ is supporting the Edwards 
     substitute amendment, which does not contain the harmful 
     cross waiver provision.
       The SPACE Act of 2015 as introduced contains a provision 
     which would provide the commercial space industry total 
     immunity. This provision will be eliminated by the Manager's 
     Amendment to the bill. We applaud Chairman Smith for 
     protecting the American public. As the commercial space 
     travel industry grows, safety should be put first and 
     foremost. Industry interests should not be valued over that 
     of the passengers.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Linda Lipsen,
     C.E.O.
                                  ____

                                                     May 20, 2015.
     Re Opposition to H.R. 2262 the ``Spurring Private Aerospace 
         Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015'' or 
         SPACE Act.

     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: The undersigned 
     organizations are writing to express opposition to HR. 2262, 
     the ``Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and 
     Entrepreneurship Act of 2015'' or SPACE Act. While some of 
     our organizations may have concerns about various parts of 
     this legislation, this letter addresses two sections in 
     particular: Sections 7 and 8.
       The sweeping immunity proposed by these provisions is 
     alarming. The commercial space industry's safety record has 
     been shoddy with normal rules in place. The last thing 
     Congress should be doing is passing legislation that removes 
     this industry's financial incentive to conduct safe 
     commercial space operations. And it is particularly troubling 
     that this legislation was passed out of the House Committee 
     on Science, Space, and Technology without a single hearing 
     held.
       Section 7 of the bill states: ``Any action or tort arising 
     from a licensed launch or reentry shall be the sole 
     jurisdiction of the Federal courts and shall be decided under 
     federal law.'' Given that no federal tort law exists in such 
     cases, this provision will immunize the private space 
     industry for any harm it causes. It wipes out any tort remedy 
     for death, injuries or property damage suffered as a result 
     of a negligent or reckless launch or reentry. And space 
     passengers are not the only individuals covered by this 
     language. Anyone, from innocent bystanders watching a rocket 
     launch, to people who happen to be at the wrong place at the 
     wrong time, suffering any harm, whether that be losing a 
     house, limb, or life, will be left without recourse. Imagine 
     the vast radioactive carnage that could result from an 
     exploding nuclear rocket, which the industry is discussing 
     for future rocket propulsion.
       Section 8 of the SPACE Act requires both companies and 
     passengers on commercial space flights to cross-waive 
     liability claims. It is one thing for companies with equal 
     bargaining power to establish liability agreements between 
     them. However, it is unfair to force passengers into such 
     agreements. This provision does not protect passengers--it 
     strips away their rights.
       Supporters of the bill say immunity is needed to spur 
     innovation and save jobs. This is nonsense. If the civil 
     justice system

[[Page H3514]]

     were harming the industry in some way, this would already be 
     evident. But according to the most recent Space Foundation 
     report, ``The global space economy grew to $314.17 billion in 
     commercial revenue and government budgets in 2013, reflecting 
     growth of 4 percent from the 2012 total of $302.22 billion. 
     Commercial activity--space products and services and 
     commercial infrastructure--drove much of this increase. From 
     2008 through 2013, the total has grown by 27 percent.''
       This industry should be subject to the same civil justice 
     system that applies to every other dangerous industry in 
     America. If a private space company is grossly negligent and 
     harms people, it should be accountable for the harm it 
     causes. For these reasons, we strongly oppose H.R. 2262 the 
     ``Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and 
     Entrepreneurship Act of 2015'' or SPACE Act.
           Very sincerely,
         Alliance for Justice; Center for Justice & Democracy; 
           Consumer Watchdog; National Consumers League; Network 
           for Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United 
           Church of Christ; Protect All Children's Environment; 
           Public Citizen.

  Ms. EDWARDS. In closing, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2262 is an unbalanced 
bill that simply doesn't adequately protect the public's interest, 
whether in matters pertaining to the safety of the general public or in 
matters pertaining to the safety of the future consumers and customers 
of the industry, and incorporates prescriptive provisions on space 
resource utilization that are indeed premature.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow Members to oppose H.R. 2262, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill that comes before us today took some time in 
drafting. In over four hearings in a bipartisan manner, this committee 
reached out to the minority in October of last year and gave them a 
draft of the bill. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the minority party did 
not come back for 5 months. But we want to make clear that everybody 
understood the bill.
  We also want to make clear that people didn't make misstatements 
because, in this bill, the section provides FAA's ability to regulate 
commercial human spaceflight in order to protect the uninvolved public, 
national security, public health and safety, safety of property, and 
foreign policy. It also preserves FAA's ability to regulate spaceflight 
participant and crew safety as a result of an accident or unplanned 
event.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman 
Smith, the man who has led this committee in a bipartisan manner.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding, and our thanks go to Majority Leader Kevin 
McCarthy for introducing such an important piece of legislation. In 
fact, we have made him an honorary member of the Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, space commercialization, this bill, is the future of 
space. This bill will encourage the private sector to build rockets, to 
take risks, and to shoot for the heavens. H.R. 2262, the Spurring 
Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, or 
SPACE Act, facilitates a progrowth environment for the developing 
commercial space sector. It creates more stable regulatory conditions 
and improves safety, which, in turn, attracts private investment.
  Members of Congress should know that earlier this week the 
administration officially stated--and this is the most important thing 
in my view that the administration said, and it was, unfortunately, 
omitted from the statement awhile ago that the ranking member quoted. 
Here is what the administration said:

       It does not oppose House passage of this bill.

  The SPACE Act secures American leadership in space and fosters the 
development of advanced space technologies. The SPACE Act preserves the 
Federal Aviation Administration's ability to regulate commercial human 
spaceflight in order to protect national security and public health and 
safety. The act preserves FAA's ability to regulate spaceflight 
participation and crew safety in the event of an accident.
  The bill calls for a progress report on the knowledge the industry 
and FAA have gained about the operation and licensing of commercial 
human spaceflight. This allows the commercial space industry to develop 
standards and coordinate with the FAA so the industry can grow in a 
stable regulatory environment without the threat of arbitrary 
regulations that would adversely impact their ability to innovate.
  Mr. Chairman, international law places liability for damages that 
result from space accidents on the launching nation. All spacefaring 
nations require some form of third-party liability insurance for 
launching entities.
  The current U.S. risk-sharing structure expires in 2016. This act 
extends indemnification to the year 2025 and requires an update on how 
the FAA calculates the maximum probable loss associated with launches. 
Indemnification has never been utilized and is subject to future 
appropriations. This provision will prevent U.S. space companies from 
going overseas where other nations have more favorable liability 
protection.
  The SPACE Act also closes a statutory loophole that negates an 
experimental permit once a launch license is issued for the same 
vehicle design. This fosters greater innovation and allows an 
experimental permit holder to continue testing while a license holder 
conducts operations. Current law only allows for two categories of 
individuals carried within a spacecraft: crew and spaceflight 
participants. Now that NASA is allowing other astronauts access to the 
International Space Station, a new category is necessary to outline the 
roles, responsibilities, and protections for astronauts on a commercial 
human spaceflight launch.
  This bill also closes a loophole that carved out an exception for 
spaceflight participants from indemnification coverage. By including 
these individuals in the indemnification provision, spaceflight 
participants who may participate in a launch as a result of a contest 
or for other reasons are not burdened with financial exposure above the 
limits. This bill also ensures that Federal courts review lawsuits that 
result from accidents since the Federal Government is ultimately the 
responsible party, not the States.
  Current law requires that all parties involved in a launch waive 
claims against each other. This bill adds spaceflight participants to 
the cross-waiver requirement to ensure consistency and reinforce the 
informed consent requirements.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. All space community stakeholders have expressed 
support for this bill. They include Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, 
Mojave Air and Space Port, SpaceX, the National Space Society, and the 
Commercial Spaceflight Federation, which represents more than 50 
commercial space companies across the United States. The bill also 
includes many bipartisan provisions recently considered by the Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee.
  The bill is the product of over 3 years of work, numerous committee 
hearings, and input from industry, education groups, and grassroots 
citizen advocacy groups. Virtually every stakeholder group, again, has 
supported this bill.

  H.R. 2262 will keep America at the forefront of aerospace technology, 
promote American jobs, reduce red tape, promote safety, and inspire the 
next generation of explorers. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill, and once again thank the majority leader for introducing it.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would note, before yielding to the ranking member, 
that it should be no surprise that the entire commercial space industry 
is supporting the majority bill because it is incredibly generous to 
the industry without due consideration to the safety of the public and 
to spaceflight passengers who also might travel on their vehicle. So it 
is not a surprise.
  I think all of us here want to see the support of the commercial 
space industry. We want a regulatory environment that respects their 
innovation but also protects United States taxpayers' interest. As I 
have said, taxpayers have, to the tune of hundreds of millions of

[[Page H3515]]

dollars, our skin in the game. It is up to us to act responsibly.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act of 2015.
  This bill amends the Commercial Space Launch Act, which is one of the 
seminal achievements on this committee. That act opened the doors to 
establishment on the commercial space industry, which is poised to 
become a major part of the 21st century economy.
  I agree that both our committee and the Congress as a whole need to 
address the Commercial Space Launch Act. We haven't comprehensively 
addressed these issues since 2004. I also want to be clear that I am a 
strong supporter of the commercial space industry. I think Members on 
both sides of the aisle want this industry to succeed because this 
industry's success is good for our Nation. However, the issues being 
dealt with in this bill are not straightforward. They are complex and 
require thoughtful consideration.
  Unfortunately, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology hasn't 
given these issues thoughtful consideration. We have not held any 
hearings so far this Congress to examine the issues being debated 
today. We also haven't had a subcommittee markup to try to work through 
some of the underlying issues in the legislation. That is really very 
unfortunate, because we could be considering a bipartisan piece of 
legislation today if the majority had simply laid the proper groundwork 
for moving complex legislation. Instead, we have rushed this bill to 
the floor to meet some arbitrary timetable established by somebody, 
perhaps the Republican leadership.
  So what does this bill do? In every possible measure, H.R. 2262 gives 
maximum preference to the priorities of the commercial space launch 
industry--at the expense of the safety of the general public and the 
safety of the future customers of this very industry, and it does so at 
the expense of the American taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill proposes to provide the commercial space 
launch industry with another decade--decade--of regulation-free 
operations with respect to protecting the safety of spaceflight 
passengers. There won't be any passengers when they find out that they 
have no protection.
  Some will state that the industry does not yet have enough experience 
to establish these regulations. That is rubbish. Both the United States 
and Russia have been launching humans into space for more than five 
decades. There has been literally hundreds of space launches on 
numerous different types of spacecraft during this time. The FAA has 
had more than enough data to rely on to set commonsense regulations on 
spaceflight passenger safety.
  In addition, this bill also provides a lengthy 9-year extension of 
commercial space launch indemnification provisions. Congress has 
extended these provisions many times since they were originally crafted 
in 1988. Since 1988, the liability exposure of the U.S. Government 
under this regime has grown each and every year. What began as an 
approximately $1 billion backstop for the industry has now grown to 
more than $2.5 billion, and this will continue to grow for 9 more years 
under this bill. I think this is something that deserves a little more 
attention. Generally, as an industry matures, you would think their 
reliance on the U.S. Government for subsidies would decrease rather 
than increase.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill takes steps into the uncharted 
waters involving space property rights. I am not against asteroid 
mining or space resource utilization. Those activities will come in 
time. However, I am for getting any legislation that addresses these 
areas right.
  We are not at all close to resolving the many unanswered questions 
and issues concerning space resource utilization and property rights. 
At the single hearing the majority held on this topic last Congress, 
several of the invited witnesses expressed their views that there were 
many unsettled issues with the majority's draft legislation. Moving 
this legislation without really ever addressing these issues is, I 
believe, negligent on the part of the Congress.
  Some on the other side of the aisle may point to the fact that the 
administration's Statement of Administration Policy did not include a 
veto threat against this bill. But I would note that the 
administration's statement also had serious concerns about sections of 
the bill and notably did not endorse the bill.
  With respect to the asteroid mining provisions, the statement noted: 
``the administration is concerned about the ability of U.S. companies 
to move forward with these initiatives absent additional authority to 
ensure continuing supervision of these initiatives by the U.S. 
Government as required by the Outer Space Treaty.''
  Mr. Chairman, Ms. Edwards will be offering an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute that I will speak on one more time later. It may not 
have everything that industry desires, it may not reflect all of our 
priorities for commercial space launch policy, but it is a clear route 
to getting a balanced, bipartisan, bicameral commercial space launch 
bill enacted into law, because ultimately that is what we are trying to 
do is get a bicameral agreement.

                              {time}  1045

  We can argue over differences, or we can just join together to pass 
bipartisan, bicameral commercial space legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2262 in its present form and 
instead take a bipartisan approach to enacting commercial space launch 
legislation.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Before I yield, I do want it noted, 1969, what all America felt when 
they watched America make a step on the Moon, on an American rocket and 
American ingenuity. Unfortunately, today, we pay Russia for an 
astronaut from America to ride on their rockets. Some may be content 
with that, but, Mr. Chairman, I am not. That is why this bill today 
allows us to have some change and growth to make that happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hultgren).
  Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to thank the 
sponsor of this bill, Majority Leader McCarthy, for his great work. 
This is very important.
  I also want to thank our great chairman, Lamar Smith, who has had an 
unprecedented week in the House of Representatives of passing bills of 
innovation, advancing science. Congratulations to him as well.
  The space industry represents hundreds of billions of dollars in 
economic investment and thousands of jobs across the United States, but 
it is not just large companies.
  Cain Tubular--a small, multigenerational, family-owned business in my 
district--is doing the innovative work necessary for safe, weld-free 
condensing coils for the next generation of rocket engines.
  Scot Forge is another business in my district, working under an 
amazing employee ownership model, that is forging the heavy metal parts 
and casings for multiple launch systems throughout the supply chain.
  The space industry is an engine of economic growth throughout the 
country, and our opportunity to do this right is vitally necessary to 
maintain American competitiveness as other nations begin to catch up.
  That is why I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2262, 
the Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act 
of 2015. The SPACE Act facilitates a progrowth environment for the 
commercial space sector. It fosters a safety framework that will 
protect the American public, while encouraging the development of new 
space technologies. This will ensure America's exceptional role is 
maintained as the most innovative Nation in the world.
  This legislation also extends the current risk-sharing structure set 
to expire next year and requires an update on how the FAA calculates 
maximum probable loss associated with potential spaceflight accidents. 
This ensures that U.S. space companies won't be forced to go overseas 
to compete.
  The SPACE Act also establishes a legal framework for government 
property rights of resources obtained from

[[Page H3516]]

asteroids, giving U.S. companies the legal assurance they need to 
invest in and develop in situ space resource exploration and 
utilization technologies. The successful exploration and use of in situ 
asteroid resources is an important step in humanity's development and 
is in the national interest of the United States.
  The SPACE Act helps develop the commercial space industry, ensures 
commercial space lawsuits are treated fairly, and allows the commercial 
space industry to grow like never before.
  For these reasons, I strongly recommend my colleagues support 
commercial space with a vote for the SPACE Act of 2015.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each 
side has remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland has 14 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from California has 17 minutes remaining.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to, for the Record, because I think it is important for 
the American people that we don't mix apples and oranges, the Bush 
administration actually canceled the program that would have enabled us 
to make sure that we have American rocket vehicles going to the space 
station.
  In the interim period, those requests have been severely underfunded, 
so I think it is important for us to put into perspective what is 
happening in the space industry.
  Now, I--as somebody who long ago worked in the industry, worked at 
NASA--understand the importance of investing in science and research 
and funding the activities of NASA and supporting the industry. I also 
understand that we have put--this Congress, in fact--has placed burdens 
both on the industry and on the agency to perform without putting the 
money to do that.
  I would note that this SPACE Act doesn't have any money that goes 
with it. In fact, on the appropriations side, as I stated earlier, $230 
million has actually been cut from the President's request.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson), my colleague and the ranking member.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to 
respond to the statement that we have to rely on Russia.
  We are relying on Russia because we won't pay for it in this country, 
but we are willing to allow a private commercial spaceship to fly at 
the expense of the government and at the risk of every person who would 
hire a trip. We are paying them to take supplies to a space station 
because we refuse to fund space station flight for human flight from 
this country.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today, we pay Russia $70 million for one astronaut to go to the 
International Space Station. As commercial space begins to grow, we 
watched others get into the market--SpaceX--so they could do it for 
much less. That is what this bill talks about, allowing the commercial 
space others to join in.
  I don't think all the answers come from Washington. I think 
government should be limited, but we should not limit our ability to 
grow. Why should we complain if we can use private sector money to even 
increase our capabilities to go higher into space?
  Mr. Chairman, the next person I am going to yield to knows a great 
deal about this. He represents aerospace corridor. He comes from a 
family that is renowned in the development of space in America.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Knight), the son of Mr. Pete Knight, who still holds the record for the 
fastest man on Earth in an X-15.
  Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the majority leader for 
bringing this forward. This is a vital piece of legislation.
  The majority leader brings up a subject that is always very important 
to me. It happened on December 17, 1903. It happened in a little 
bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio. Two innovators took their invention 
across part of the country out to a little place in North Carolina in 
Kitty Hawk, and they flew a man-powered controllable aircraft for the 
first time.
  Now, why is that important? It is because the government had thrown a 
$50,000 grant to get this done, and they couldn't get it done, but two 
innovators could get it done by nothing other than the brains that they 
had, the energy, and their two hands.
  America needs to ensure that it will continue to be the leader in the 
space industry. Business and innovation want stability, and this bill 
does just that, by extending the FAA learning period and duration of 
indemnification to 10 years.
  When I speak to fifth graders--and I think we all do at least a 
couple times a year; I try to speak to at least 50 schools a year--but 
when I talk to the fifth graders, I ask them how long it takes to fly 
from LA to Tokyo. There is always a 2-hour or a 20-hour or anything 
like that.
  I tell them it takes about 10\1/2\ hours. I said: But in your 
lifetime, it is going to take about an hour and a half.
  They said: Well, that is great. That is great. I would love to be in 
an airplane for just an hour and a half or a spacecraft when, today, we 
have to do 10\1/2\ hours.
  Well, do you know what, that will happen if we let it happen. Right 
now, it is happening. Innovation is flourishing. These things are 
happening. We are doing jousting programs that is dispersing the 
supersonic wave which means, at some point, we will be able to fly over 
the continent at more than Mach 1.
  That means we will be able to fly home to California in an hour and a 
half. Now, I know all of us Californians would love to do that instead 
of the 5\1/2\ hours it takes today, just like it took in 1970.
  This bill allows the FAA to gather sufficient data to ensure the 
regulations will help foster growth in the industry. I support this 
bill.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have been listening to this discussion, and I think, when the 
other side reclaims their time, it would be really helpful to explain 
why it is that, if this is so important and that it is so urgent, why 
it is that the majority has cut $230 million from commercial crew. I 
will wait to hear the answer, as I am sure the American people are 
waiting.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.
  I thank the managers of this bill, including the majority leader.
  I just want to say that I come from Space City. Houston, Texas, has 
as its motto--its defining moment besides railroads--is Space City. I 
served 12 years on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and I 
had a strong commitment and continue to have a strong commitment to 
human space exploration--in particular, the research that is garnered 
out of that mighty effort.
  I have traveled to most of the NASA centers across the Nation, and I 
have seen outstanding researchers. There is no reason for any of us, 
Democrats or Republicans, to oppose the idea of space exploration and, 
in this instance, commercial space exploration.
  What I will say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to my good friend, the 
majority leader, let us walk step-by-step together.
  Certainly, I am concerned as someone who offered and wrote 
legislation to promote more safety on the International Space Station--
proudly so--legislation that was ultimately passed and I believe has 
made the space station more enduring, to be able to suggest that this 
bill limits to a certain extent the safety requirements that I believe 
would make this industry a better industry, to say also that we are 
highlighting or offering the commercial space industry over the 
investment in NASA, which I have great concern, as we look forward to 
the implementation of the Orion and the opportunities for further space 
exploration.
  I would want to make sure that this legislation does not undermine 
our work with NASA and, frankly, that the safety elements that are so 
important, not only to the civilian population--because I have 
commercial space entities in Texas just a few hundred miles away from 
Houston, Texas, but I also have the NASA Johnson Space Center--and I 
would want to know whether or not there is a conflict between the 
safety

[[Page H3517]]

requirements that we have to implement and the safety requirements and 
security requirements in commercial space exploration.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. EDWARDS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. The other thing that I would offer to suggest, as 
this bill moves to the Senate, is the investments that are made, the 
profits that may ultimately be made by commercial space exploration, it 
would be appropriate to use those moneys to invest in R&D and the 
Federal Government for it to continue its very important, unrestrained 
research that has been so mighty to helping so many different people 
under NASA.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding, but I would ask the 
question: Can we not provide a safety matrix for commercial space 
exploration as we have done in the public sector?
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, several weeks ago, we passed a NASA 
authorization bill that returns NASA to its core mission, human space 
flight.
  The bill before us, H.R. 2262, builds on that good work. We have many 
American businesses employing thousands of American workers right now. 
These businesses are pursuing their own space missions, both orbital 
and suborbital.
  Some of these entrepreneurs have plans to reach below low Earth 
orbit, such as taking the first steps toward missions to mine asteroids 
for precious metals. This landmark legislation will do more to secure 
America as the home of commercial space exploration than any other 
legislation that Congress has considered. These endeavors are a great 
complement to Federal investments in civil and military space 
initiatives.
  Let's face it, in any field, no American entrepreneur is going to 
invest billions of dollars of their own money where there is regulatory 
uncertainty. The SPACE Act of 2015 creates a regulatory framework and 
provides certainty for these privately financed endeavors to take the 
next steps.

                              {time}  1100

  This legislation will bolster thousands of high-tech American jobs, 
building a stronger economy, advancing technological leadership, and 
strengthening our Nation's industrial base.
  I want to recognize the hard work of our colleagues--Majority Leader 
Kevin McCarthy, Bill Posey, Dana Rohrabacher, and Jim Bridenstine. 
These folks have worked hard for several years on key commercial space 
provisions that have been incorporated into this bill. Their efforts 
will create an environment for these private sector companies to 
flourish.
  I would also like to thank our chairman, Lamar Smith, and Space 
Subcommittee chair Steven Palazzo for their leadership in moving this 
legislation through the committee and in bringing it to the House 
floor.
  America has always prospered because we have not stood in the way of 
visionaries. Rather, we have found a way to enable them to take a 
chance and succeed on their own.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BABIN. A vote for this bill is a vote to ignite the flame of 
commercial space and propel the American entrepreneurial spirit beyond 
our world and into the final frontier of space. Passing this bill tells 
the world that America is the home for commercial space.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to be really, really clear with the American people 
because I think sometimes we talk about the commercial space industry 
as though it exists on its own. In fact, it exists because the Federal 
Government and Federal taxpayers have been incredibly generous for this 
innovative, creative, and growing industry. It is because, as 
taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, we support the industry.
  $3 billion alone in inflation-adjusted dollars goes as a backstop for 
indemnification, which is in case there is an accident or whatever--a 
$3 billion backstop by the Federal taxpayer. Billions of dollars have 
gone into the development as the industry has grown. Indeed, some 
projections say that 9 of every 10 dollars that have gone into the 
development have actually come from the American taxpayer. Hundreds of 
millions of dollars support the infrastructure, the launch facilities 
that are maintained for the industry and--who knows?--countless dollars 
from State tax credits on down the line.
  It would be really inaccurate to say that any of us--Republicans or 
Democrats or any American taxpayer--does not support the commercial 
space industry. We want it to be safe. We want to make sure that 
liability is taken care of. We want to make sure that, in fact, the 
skin in the game of the taxpayers is met with responsible public 
policy. To correct the record, it is $243 million that the Republican 
majority has actually cut from Commercial Crew.
  Again, I would say, if you support the industry, then please explain 
why it is that you have also supported a cut to the very thing that 
would continue to grow the industry.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Stewart). The gentleman from California has 
11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Maryland has 7 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me note that the commercial space 
industry has not cost us taxpayers' money. The commercial space 
industry has generated billions and billions of dollars worth of income 
to honest citizens who then pay their taxes--who wouldn't have jobs 
otherwise--not to mention, of course, the billions of dollars the 
commercial space industry has saved us simply by doing a more efficient 
job at launching satellites and at supplying the space station than 
could be done by the public sector--by NASA and other government 
employees.
  H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act of 2015, builds on the House Science, Space, 
and Technology's bipartisan tradition of promoting economic growth in 
America. Today, we are talking about that economic growth in terms of 
an emerging, new, entrepreneurial industry that is tremendously 
beneficial to the bottom line of America--the billions of dollars that 
it is creating with a new, innovative approach to an industry that goes 
into space in order to accomplish its missions. The SPACE Act of 2015 
specifically continues the streamlined regulatory regime that Congress 
put in place for commercial human spaceflight just a decade ago in the 
Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004.
  I am proud to have been the one to have authored that legislation, 
legislation which passed in Congress with bipartisan support. I would 
hope that bipartisan support continues because, in 2004, it was Bart 
Gordon of Tennessee and Nick Lampson of Texas--both Democrats--who made 
it possible for us to get this legislation passed as well as Silvestre 
Reyes from Texas. Of course, there are a lot of Texans here today 
involved in this debate because there are a lot of people in Texas who 
are hired and who have great jobs because of what we did then.
  When we talk about and when we hear that we have cut $243 million, 
no, no. We were willing to keep that in the budget. Republicans would 
have been willing if we had found other areas that had been less 
important. But the reason these things happen is that our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle cannot seem to prioritize. We prioritize 
this.
  Mr. Chairman, we prioritize launching new industries, creating new 
jobs, saving billions of dollars in money that would be spent 
otherwise, because the commercial space industry, like SpaceX and other 
champions of space entrepreneurship, has done a great deal of benefit 
to the United States of America.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to be very, very clear. I was not originally much of a 
supporter

[[Page H3518]]

before I knew anything about the industry. I didn't know about the 
industry. Indeed, it was through the bipartisan work on the Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee that I got to know the industry and to 
value the role that the commercial space industry plays.
  I, actually, don't have a quibble with the American taxpayers in 
their providing the kind of support in the development work and in 
resources that are available through NASA to support the industry. I, 
actually, think it is a good thing for us to do. But I don't want to 
hide the fact that, given that and that kind of responsibility, it is 
also our responsibility to provide an important safety framework for 
the industry to proceed, especially as we go into the future, imagining 
that we will have many other players.
  I would also say that I am concerned about what we do around 
liability--how we create both a safety regulatory regime but also place 
liability where it belongs. Although, in the manager's amendment, the 
majority does try to deal with the question of Federal court 
jurisdiction, what we don't deal with is this idea of cross-waivers. 
That is, if you are a passenger--you could be a researcher, not anyone 
who is particularly wealthy--and if something happens, then you have 
waived all of your liability even in a case where there would be 
negligence involved. This, I think, ought to raise great concerns.

  The reality is that, at the end of the day, if there is any kind of 
catastrophic accident, the American taxpayers will, of course, bear the 
responsibility as we always have for those accidents.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My friend on the other side makes a good point in that a lot of 
people may not know about spaceflight or commercial spaceflight, and 
they may not know about this bill. That is why this is a great 
opportunity to explain, and that is why the majority on this side gave 
the bill to the minority last October. Unfortunately, it was 5 months 
before anything came back.
  There is one point that was brought up--indemnification. That has 
been extended 9 times in the last 25 years, and it has never been used. 
The one thing that needs to be noted is that we are in competition with 
the rest of the world. We are more stringent in this than is any other 
country with their space. If we plan on being the leader, we need to 
have the legislation move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Posey).
  Mr. POSEY. I thank the majority leader for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this morning, during debate, there have been a 
number of letters--a litany of letters--by various organizations 
offered for the Record, so I thought it would be appropriate, in the 
interest of intellectual honesty, actually, to enter a couple of 
records myself.
  Let me read from one of them here:

       On May 13, 2015, the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology conducted a markup of four critical space-related 
     bills. Among the bills considered was H.R. 1508, the Space 
     Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015. During the 
     markup--I will leave the Member's name out--submitted a 
     letter for the record from Joanne Gabrynowicz, a former 
     professor of space law at the University of Mississippi. 
     After reviewing the letter, we, the undersigned, feel it is 
     important to clarify some errors in Ms. Gabrynowicz' 
     interpretation of H.R. 1508 and to highlight some 
     constructive elements of the bill. There is a duplicate bill 
     in the Senate cosponsored by Senators Patty Murray and Marco 
     Rubio. Our comments apply to both.
       The basic claims made in the letter rest on two issues: an 
     allegation that the bill violates article II of the Outer 
     Space Treaty and an allegation that the U.S. Government has 
     no licensing regime in place for commercial space activities 
     envisioned by the bill.
       Both statements are based on a misreading of the intent and 
     words of the bill.

  They go on with another four or five pages to clarify what was 
completely misleading there. This letter is signed by Henry R. 
Hertzfeld, Co-Chair of the American Branch, International Law 
Association, Research Professor of Space Policy and International 
Affairs, Elliott School of International Affairs and Adjunct Professor 
of Law, The George Washington University; by Matthew Schaefer, Law 
Alumni Professor of Law, Director--Space, Cyber and Telecommunications 
Law Program, University of Nebraska College of Law, Co-Chair, American 
Branch of International Law Association--Space Law Committee; by James 
C. Bennett, Consultant, Fort Collins, Colorado, Space Fellow, Economic 
Policy Centre, London; and by Mark J. Sundahl, Professor and Associate 
Dean for Administration, Cleveland State University, Cleveland-Marshall 
College of Law.

                                                     May 15, 2015.
       Dear Majority Leader McCarthy, Chairman Smith, Ranking 
     Member Johnson, Chairman Palazzo, and Ranking Member Edwards: 
     On May 13, 2015, the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology conducted a markup of four critical space-related 
     bills. Among the bills considered was H.R. 1508, the Space 
     Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015. During the 
     markup Ranking Member Johnson submitted a letter for the 
     record from Joanne Gabrynowicz, a former professor of space 
     law at the University of Mississippi. After reviewing the 
     letter we, the undersigned, feel it is important to clarify 
     some errors in Ms. Gabrynowicz's interpretation of H.R. 1508 
     and highlight some constructive elements of H.R. 1508. There 
     is a duplicate bill in the Senate, S. 976, co-sponsored by 
     Senators Patty Murray and Marco Rubio. Our comments, below, 
     apply to both H.R. 1508 and S. 976.
       The basic claims made in the letter commenting on H.R. 1508 
     and, by extension, S. 976 rest on two issues:
       1. An allegation that the bill violates Article II of the 
     Outer Space Treaty (OST), and
       2. An allegation that the U.S. Government has no licensing 
     regime in place for commercial space activities envisioned by 
     the bill.
       Both statements are based on a misreading of the intent and 
     words of the bill.
       1. With regard to the allegation that the bill violate the 
     OST by enabling national appropriation:
       The bill does not grant U.S. jurisdiction to an asteroid or 
     any asteroid resource. It does grant U.S. jurisdiction to 
     companies that fall under U.S. jurisdiction as specifically 
     defined in Sec. 51301 with the intent of adjudicating claims 
     of ``harmful interference'' between those companies if such 
     allegations are made in the future. Protecting entities from 
     ``harmful interference'' is consistent with, and indeed 
     furthers, the purposes of the OST, that requires ``due 
     regard'' be given to other's space activities and requires 
     advance consultations if a proposed activity ``would cause 
     potentially harmful interference.''
       The letter states that the bill is addressing ``unextracted 
     resources.'' In fact, there are several steps: identifying 
     the resources, extracting resources, and then using/
     delivering them. The words of the bill are ``resources 
     obtained'', leaving the unknown technical details to be 
     specified in the future when they can be better defined and a 
     process can be developed for regulatory actions as needed. In 
     any event, ``obtained'' is inconsistent with ``unextracted.''
       The use of the word ``in situ'' in defining space resources 
     simply means resources in place in outer space; but any such 
     resource within or on an asteroid would need to be 
     ``obtained'' in order to confer a property right. The use of 
     the word ``in situ'' in merely defining a space resource in 
     the bill is not equivalent to claiming sovereignty or control 
     over celestial bodies or portions of space. Further, there is 
     clear Congressional direction in the bill that the President 
     is only to encourage space resources exploration and 
     utilization, including lowering barriers to such activity, 
     ``consistent with'' and ``in accordance with'' US 
     international obligations--which precludes Ms. Grabynowicz' 
     interpretation of the impact of the term ``in situ.''
       The bill does not, in any manner, claim sovereignty over a 
     celestial body or portions of outer space; it only provides 
     for rights for private entities to use the resources on a 
     celestial body (specifically asteroids) just as States have 
     in the past. Article I of the Outer Space Treaty states that 
     ``the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for 
     exploration and use by all States''. This Article has been 
     interpreted as allowing for the extraction of natural 
     resources.
       Examples: return of Moon rocks and soil by U.S. and Russia 
     (Soviet Union); return of asteroid materials by Japan. Each 
     government has declared that these are their property and has 
     enforced that action:
       United States Government has treated the theft of moon 
     rocks as a criminal offense
       Russia has in the past put moon rocks up for a public 
     auction
       Japan has put its asteroid materials in a Japanese museum A 
     customary international law of the right to claim ownership 
     over extracted natural resources has emerged due to the 
     collections of moon rocks by the United States and the 
     subsequent gifting of these rocks to foreign nationals 
     without any objections from any states.
       In the ``One Lucite Ball'' case, the United States District 
     Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, 
     upheld the right of Honduras to assert ownership over a moon 
     rock (unpublished Case No. 01-0116-CIV-JORDAN). The court 
     discussed two sales of lunar rock samples involving private 
     parties (one involving a slide of lunar dust sold at 
     Sotheby's auction and the second involving the lunar sample 
     and plaque given by the U.S. to Nicaragua that was purchased 
     by a private buyer from the middle east).

[[Page H3519]]

       The NASA proposed Asteroid Recovery Mission involves 
     similar technologies and the current proposal is to move a 
     boulder from an asteroid to a lunar orbit. Some of these 
     activities may be done in partnership with private entities 
     in the United States.
       These activities, ranging from scientific missions to 
     commercial sales have never been judged to be in violation of 
     Article II of the OST.
       If governments and private companies are ever going to 
     ``use'' space for benefits to all humankind, the extraction 
     of resources from celestial bodies will have to be allowed, 
     and this foreseeable future is provided for in the space 
     treaties. There is no prohibition on private entities or 
     profit-making entities performing these services either for 
     themselves or for their governments.
       However, government(s) are responsible for the continuing 
     supervision of non-government activities in outer space (Art. 
     VI of the OST), and the United States Government has the most 
     complete and comprehensive set of regulations for space in 
     the world.
       There already exist regulatory requirements for commercial 
     companies that want to get to space and to use space. The 
     particular U.S. regulatory mechanisms vary with each 
     application but include launch payload reviews, spectrum/
     communications approvals, and, when appropriate, national 
     security and export control approvals.
       Since there are a variety of related new proposed 
     activities in outer space (e.g. on-orbit satellite servicing) 
     proposing a specific licensing requirement for resource 
     utilization alone in this bill would be inappropriate until 
     all new activities are reviewed together.
       The required report in the bill is the first step in 
     developing new procedures and processes for activities in 
     outer space that have not been done before by private 
     entities.
       The criticism that this bill is to meet ``national needs'' 
     alone is incorrect. Those words are taken out of the context 
     of Sec. 51302. That section focuses on what the Federal 
     agencies should do to encourage private activities in space 
     and refers to the economic incentives for those companies. 
     The global needs and information obtained from the science 
     and technology behind resource extraction and use may indeed 
     benefit all humankind through knowledge, through the future 
     global provision of currently scarce minerals, and through 
     expanded space exploration. Further, private foreign 
     companies subject to the jurisdiction of the United States--
     and thus facing exposure to non-interference claims--also can 
     be beneficiaries of non-interference rights under the bill.
       Last month the U.S. State Department made a statement at 
     the United Nations Committee On the Peaceful Uses of Outer 
     Space (COPUOS) that clearly outlines a responsible path to 
     balancing the requirements of our Treaty obligations with the 
     needs of new commercial entities in space:

       ``My Government sees great promise in private investment in 
     path-breaking new activities to advance our understanding of 
     the solar system and to unlock new space applications that 
     benefit all mankind. The history of space exploration--and 
     innovation--teaches us that it is difficult, if not 
     impossible, to foresee the technological innovations, and 
     downstream applications, arising from efforts to push the 
     envelope of exploration--and that the benefits of these 
     innovations and applications are enjoyed across the Earth. As 
     the United States goes about encouraging private investment--
     from all nations--in the peaceful exploration and use of 
     outer space, and evolves its national mechanisms for 
     authorizing and supervising non-governmental space 
     activities, we will continue to be guided by the four core, 
     and widely accepted, treaties on space--the Outer Space 
     Treaty, the Rescue and Return Agreement, and the Liability 
     and Registration Conventions. Under the legal framework of 
     these treaties, the use of space by nations, international 
     organizations, and private entities has flourished. As a 
     result, space technology and services contribute immeasurably 
     to economic growth and improvements in the quality of life 
     around the world.'' [Emphasis added]

       The Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act is in 
     complete compliance with all existing international 
     obligations of the United States. The bill further insists 
     that actions taken pursuant to the bill, both by the 
     Executive Branch and U.S. commercial space resource 
     utilization entities (to benefit from non-interference 
     rights), be consistent with international obligations of the 
     United States. The bill also compliments and furthers the 
     position of the Executive Branch. As Ms. Gabrynowicz notes in 
     her letter regarding the Presidential report requirement, 
     ``This may be sufficient.'' Indeed, it is not only sufficient 
     but the most pragmatic path forward for the U.S. Government 
     to create a process, informed by industry and international 
     concerns, that creates the legal framework necessary to meet 
     our existing international obligations. Creating such a legal 
     framework right now would be shortsighted and likely hamper 
     or destroy our growing space resource industry. Placing a 
     legal framework in this bill is not needed to meet any 
     current United States international obligations. There are 
     adequate interim means of meeting those obligations through 
     existing authorities should new activities in outer space 
     begin before constructing a new legal framework.
       The U.S., between 1980 and the effective date of the 
     Commercial Space Launch Act, October 1984, set precedents for 
     OST-compliant control in the absence of explicit legislation 
     or activity-specific regulation. Two suborbital launch 
     vehicles were privately developed and tested in the U.S. 
     during that time period, Space Services Inc.'s Percheron 
     (1980) and Arc Technologies' (later Starstruck, Inc.'s) 
     Dolphin (1983-84). The U.S. Government licensed both 
     activities. In each case, the Government used existing 
     regulatory requirements and mechanisms (FAA airspace control, 
     FCC radio licenses, OMC export permits) to review the 
     proposed activities and impose conditions such as liability 
     insurance on the launch operators. Lessons learned from these 
     licensing exercises were incorporated in the drafting of the 
     Commercial Space Launch Act.
       Therefore, there is U.S. precedent for control of space 
     activities, adequate to satisfy OST requirements for 
     supervision and control, even in the absence of specific 
     statutory law or regulation describing the particulars of the 
     activity in question. Using these interim mechanisms can 
     serve to provide an experience base for crafting better 
     legislation subsequently.
       In summary, the bill is a necessary step to begin to 
     address our obligations of continuing supervision for 
     commercial space activities and to fulfill our commitments 
     under the terms of the OST.
       It is also important to note the many constructive things 
     that H.R. 1508 and S. 976 accomplish:
       1. Advance U.S. Technology and Leadership
       a. H.R. 1508 and S. 976 provide a legal foundation that 
     provides private U.S. companies to ability to raise funds, 
     protect their investments, employ aerospace professionals, 
     and develop cutting edge aerospace technologies.
       b. Other nations, such as China and Russia, have stated an 
     intent to recover resources from objects in space. H.R. 1508 
     and S. 976 give U.S. industry a legal foundation that 
     provides a head start to compete with these nations.
       2. Create Constructive Dialogue for International 
     Frameworks for Commercial Space Resource Exploration and 
     Utilization
       a. As stated by the U.S. delegate to COPUOS, the U.S. will 
     need to develop a framework that meets existing international 
     obligations and creates an environment in which all nations 
     can benefit from space resource exploration and utilization. 
     H.R. 1508 and S. 976 allow the U.S. to lead and direct this 
     international discussion.
       A failure to pass H.R. 1508 and S. 976 will create 
     uncertainty about the U.S. Government's position on space 
     resource exploration and utilization. This uncertainty would 
     be extremely detrimental to our developing space resource 
     industry and it would provide encouragement for other nations 
     to challenge our leadership in this area.
       It is apparent that considerable effort has gone into 
     drafting H.R. 1508 and S. 976. These bills create a valid 
     legal foundation to begin the processes necessary to create 
     informed oversight mechanisms, which are required by the 
     treaties, and are in compliance with all existing U.S. 
     international obligations.
           Sincerely,
                                               Henry R. Hertzfeld,
               Co-Chair of the American Branch, International Law 
              Association, Research Professor of Space Policy and 
           International Affairs, Elliott School of International 
      Affairs and Adjunct Professor of Law, The George Washington 
                                                       University.
                                                 Matthew Schaefer,
          Law Alumni Professor of Law, Director--Space, Cyber and 
           Telecommunications Law Program, University of Nebraska 
       College of Law, Co-Chair, American Branch of International 
                                  Law Assoc.--Space Law Committee.
                                     James C. Bennett, Consultant,
     Fort Collins, Colorado, Space Fellow, Economic Policy Centre, 
                                                           London.
                                                  Mark J. Sundahl,
       Professor and Associate Dean for Administration, Cleveland 
             State University, Cleveland--Marshall College of Law.
  Mr. POSEY. There is a similar letter, and I will submit that also. It 
is by Dennis J. Burnett, District of Columbia Bar Association; J.D., 
University of Nebraska; LL.M., Georgetown University; Adjunct Professor 
of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law--U.S. Trade Law and 
Commercial Space Law; Vice Chairman, Advisory Board, Space, Cyber and 
Telecom Program, University of Nebraska College of Law; Secretary and 
Director, International Institute of Space Law.

                                                     May 16, 2015.
       Dear Majority Leader McCarthy, Chairman Smith, Ranking 
     Member Johnson, Chairman Palazzo, and Ranking Member Edwards: 
     On May 13, 2015, the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology conducted a mark-up of four critical space-related 
     bills. Among the bills considered was H.R. 1508, the Space 
     Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015.
       During the markup Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 
     submitted a letter for the record from Joanne Gabrynowicz, 
     Professor Emerita of space law at the University of 
     Mississippi. After reviewing H.R. 1508 and Professor 
     Gabrynowicz's letter, I would like to comment on several 
     issues of international law related to the proposed 
     legislation.

[[Page H3520]]

       In particular, I will comment on the following issues: (1) 
     whether recognition of property rights in asteroid resources 
     would result in a ``national appropriation'' in violation of 
     Article II of the Treaty on Principles Governing the 
     Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer 
     Space, Including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies (the 
     ``Outer Space Treaty''); and (2) whether the absence of the 
     creation of a licensing regime by H.R. 1508 would result in a 
     failure to authorize and supervise the activities of 
     nationals of the United States in the exploration and use of 
     outer space as is required by Article VI of the Outer Space 
     Treaty.
       Is the use of asteroid resources and acquisition of 
     property rights in asteroid resources is not a violation of 
     Article II of the Outer Space Treaty?
       It should be clearly stated that there is no provision of 
     the Outer Space Treaty that explicitly prohibits the 
     acquisition of property rights in asteroid resources. To the 
     contrary, the Outer Space Treaty explicitly recognize the 
     right of ``exploration and use'' of outer space, including 
     the moon and other celestial bodies. A right of use is a 
     well-recognized property right in both common law and civil 
     law.
       While it may be asserted that granting property rights in 
     asteroid resources is a national appropriation, this 
     assertion is inconsistent with state practice. For example, 
     Moon rocks and soil returned to the Earth by U.S. and Russia 
     (Soviet Union), and asteroid materials return to Earth by 
     Japan have been treated as property of those governments. The 
     United States has prosecuted theft of moon rocks and Russia 
     has auctioned moon rocks. These actions have never been 
     judged to be in violation of Article II of the Outer Space 
     Treaty.
       Does the absence of a licensing regime in H.R. 1508 result 
     in a failure to authorize and supervise the activities of 
     nationals of the United States in violation of Article VI of 
     the Outer Space Treaty?
       It is quite clear that Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty 
     requires the United States to authorize and supervise the 
     activities of its nationals in outer space. It also is clear 
     that H.R. 1508 does not authorize any executive agency or any 
     independent commission to regulate (i.e., authorize and 
     supervise) the activities of U.S. nationals in outer space 
     that are not already regulated.
       It is my understanding that there are a variety of new 
     proposed activities in outer space (e.g on-orbit satellite 
     servicing, space tourism, moon habitation, solar satellites, 
     etc.). It may be argued that these activities need 
     appropriate authorization and supervision by the United 
     States if conducted by nationals of the United States. At 
     this time it appears that there is no agreement on basic 
     issues of what authority is required, which agency, if any, 
     should authorize and supervise, which agency should have 
     which responsibility and what resources would be required to 
     implement those responsibilities.
       In lieu of imposing a solution when the problem is not 
     fully understood, it is my understanding that the drafters of 
     H.R. 1508 propose that the President prepare a report to 
     Congress as the first step in developing new procedures and 
     processes for activities in outer space for which there may 
     be no existing agency authority to authorize and supervise. 
     It appears that the drafters are attempting to create a valid 
     legal foundation to begin the processes necessary to create 
     appropriate mechanisms for any authorization and supervision 
     that may be required by the Outer Space Treaty and other 
     existing U.S. international obligations.
           Very truly yours,
                                                Dennis J. Burnett.

  Mr. POSEY. I think that, clearly, they reflect that there has been 
some misleading information put forth in objecting to this bill, and I 
urge my colleagues to take that into consideration and to vote 
favorably for this badly needed historic and constructive legislation 
to make America's space program and commercial space industry much 
better.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just for the record, I would note that the letters that have been 
submitted by the majority are interesting. I would note that one of the 
authors, in fact, is paid by one of the companies that is involved in 
this legislation, so we should take that into consideration.
  I also want to point out that, with respect to indemnification, 
again, the United States in current--today's--dollars bears a 
responsibility for about $3 billion in indemnification should there be 
an accident.
  Lastly, of course, it is really important for us to understand that 
these liability concerns are not small potatoes. In fact, the Judiciary 
Committee should have taken a look at this when it came to looking at 
Federal court jurisdiction. We should have had additional hearings on 
this when it comes to looking at the impact on international treaties. 
We have not had any hearings in that regard. I just think we ought to 
proceed more responsibly.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 2262, the 
Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 
2015, or the SPACE Act.
  Since 2004, when Congress last amended the Commercial Space Launch 
Act, commercial space companies have made significant contributions to 
space technology development and helped to strengthen American 
leadership in space. Congress must keep up with the changes in the 
industry, and the CSLA needs to be updated to ensure that the space 
sector can flourish in the years to come.
  Currently, all major spacefaring nations require some form of third-
party liability insurance for launching entities. The indemnification 
regime of the CSLA expires next year. The act would extend 
indemnification to 2025 in order to prevent U.S. launches from going 
overseas and taking high-tech American jobs with them.
  In a letter praising the act's extension of the indemnification, Tom 
Stroup, president of the Satellite Industry Association, wisely stated 
that the act is ``an important step in maintaining U.S. innovation and 
leadership in satellite launch and one that promotes overall access to 
space.'' Several other groups, such as the Commercial Spaceflight 
Federation, have had similar comments praising the extension.
  Moreover, this bill promotes stability and flexibility in the 
commercial space market through regulatory reform. By extending the 
learning period to 2025, the Federal Aviation Administration and 
industry will have more time to collect information and develop a 
safety framework for commercial spaceflight. This will ensure that the 
growing commercial space market will not be overburdened with 
uninformed regulations.
  Space-based technology has become a vital part of our economy. 
Americans rely on it every day, from GPS to weather forecasting to land 
remote sensing, in everything we do.
  The SPACE Act gives the private sector a chance to expand this 
growing portion of our economy by allowing commercial spaceflight 
companies to take passengers to and from space and by setting the 
groundwork for a comprehensive safety framework that will guide future 
spacefaring activities.
  Now is not the time to turn our backs on the innovators and the 
entrepreneurs who have made this Nation great. If we care about 
American leadership in space and the American space economy, I urge you 
to support this important piece of legislation.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise here today because, as I said in my opening 
remarks, that I think that most of us on both sides of the aisle share 
the excitement about the commercial space industry and we do indeed 
want it to succeed.
  We all work for the taxpayer; and the American taxpayer, as I have 
stated, has a vested interest in the commercial space industry because 
we have laid out hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars 
to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, the Senate yesterday marked up a bipartisan compromise 
bill with very few changes to it. On the other hand, this bill, if it 
passes the House unchanged, is going to be dead in the water. But if we 
pass the substitute that we are considering later on, that I offer 
later today, we will have a great chance to do some real lawmaking. It 
will not have addressed all of the industry concerns. It will not have 
done anything to get in the way of the advance of commercial space.
  So I urge my fellow Members to support a bipartisan process that 
began over in the Senate. Vote for the substitute amendment later on 
and say, you know, we can start fresh here, not with something that 
just disadvantages consumers and taxpayers. Let's try to be on the same 
page when it comes to the strong support that I think each side feels 
with respect to the commercial space industry.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I have one question for everyone here: Do you believe America is 
exceptional?

[[Page H3521]]

  Fifty-four years ago, President Kennedy spoke to a joint session of 
Congress in this very Chamber, and he set forth an astounding goal: to 
put an American on the Moon before the end of the decade.
  Many doubted our ability to do that. But like America has done 
throughout our history, we proved them wrong. So on July 20, 1969, Neil 
Armstrong took one small step and changed the course of history.
  You see, President Kennedy's vision is part of America's fundamental 
character. We are pioneers. We always move forward. We never back down 
from a challenge, and beating the odds is in our DNA.
  This was the case for our very founding. We brought forth a new 
nation in pursuit of a more perfect union. With the winds of freedom at 
our back, we headed west to unchartered lands, relying on the same 
spirit of adventure that endures in the Central Valley of California to 
this day.
  We watched as two bicycle repairmen flew above the sand and waves on 
a beach in North Carolina, not because of government grants or 
Washington connections, but because they had the audacity to make a 
dream a reality.
  Today, dorm room startups and tech entrepreneurs are connecting our 
entire world, paving the way to tomorrow.
  The world looks to America because we give them a reason to look to 
us. We show them a vision of the future, and we deliver. But we can't 
take our global leadership and innovation for granted. Today we pay 
Russia $70 million for one seat on their rocket.
  Right now there is a new generation of pioneers. They want to embark 
on the next stage of space exploration, and we should not hold them 
back. The truth is Washington never comes up with the next big idea, 
but we can support those innovators who do and create the best 
environment possible for them to succeed.
  Steve Jobs, one of America's great innovators, once said ``innovation 
distinguishes between a leader and a follower.'' That is true for 
people and for a country. Those words carry special meaning for 
everyone who ever dared to venture off the beaten path. It means 
something to the small-business owners working at their kitchen tables 
and the inventors tinkering in the dorm rooms and garages. It means 
something to every kid who ever dreamed of space and who still dreams 
of leading us in a journey to the stars.
  So for all American pioneers, those who will lead our Nation through 
the 21st century, I again ask: Do you believe America is exceptional? 
Because I do.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, printed in the bill, 
it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-17. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 2262

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Spurring 
     Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 
     2015'' or the ``SPACE Act of 2015''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                    TITLE I--COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH

Sec. 101. Consensus standards.
Sec. 102. International launch competitiveness.
Sec. 103. Launch license flexibility.
Sec. 104. Government astronauts.
Sec. 105. Indemnification for space flight participants.
Sec. 106. Federal jurisdiction.
Sec. 107. Cross-waivers.
Sec. 108. Orbital traffic management.
Sec. 109. State commercial launch facilities.
Sec. 110. Space support vehicles study.
Sec. 111. Streamline commercial space launch activities.
Sec. 112. Space Launch System update.

          TITLE II--SPACE RESOURCE EXPLORATION AND UTILIZATION

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Title 51 amendment.

                  TITLE III--COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING

Sec. 301. Annual reporting.
Sec. 302. Statutory update report.

                   TITLE IV--OFFICE OF SPACE COMMERCE

Sec. 401. Renaming of Office of Space Commercialization.
Sec. 402. Functions of the Office of Space Commerce.

                    TITLE I--COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH

     SEC. 101. CONSENSUS STANDARDS.

       Section 50905(c) of title 51, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (3);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (8); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Interim industry voluntary consensus standards 
     report.--The Secretary, in consultation with the Commercial 
     Space Transportation Advisory Committee, or its successor 
     organization, shall provide a report to the Committee on 
     Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate on the progress of the 
     commercial space transportation industry in developing 
     voluntary consensus standards or any other construction that 
     promotes best practices to improve the industry. Such report 
     shall include, at a minimum--
       ``(A) any voluntary industry consensus standards or any 
     other construction that have been accepted by the industry at 
     large;
       ``(B) the identification of areas that have the potential 
     to become voluntary industry consensus standards or another 
     potential construction that are currently under consideration 
     by the industry at large;
       ``(C) an assessment from the Secretary on the general 
     progress of the industry in adopting voluntary consensus 
     standards or any other construction;
       ``(D) lessons learned about voluntary industry consensus 
     standards or any other construction, best practices, and 
     commercial space launch operations;
       ``(E) any lessons learned associated with the development, 
     potential application, and acceptance of voluntary industry 
     consensus standards or any other construction, best 
     practices, and commercial space launch operations; and
       ``(F) recommendations, findings, or observations from the 
     Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, or its 
     successor organization, on the progress of the industry in 
     developing industry consensus standards or any other 
     construction.
     This report, with the appropriate updates in the intervening 
     periods, shall be transmitted to such committees no later 
     than December 31, 2016, December 31, 2018, December 31, 2020, 
     and December 31, 2022. Each report shall describe and assess 
     the progress achieved as of 6 months prior to the specified 
     transmittal date.
       ``(4) Interim report on knowledge and operational 
     experience.--The Secretary shall provide a report to the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the of the Senate on the status of the 
     knowledge and operational experience acquired by the industry 
     while providing flight services for compensation or hire to 
     support the development of a safety framework. Interim 
     reports shall by transmitted to such committees no later than 
     December 31, 2018, December 31, 2020, and December 31, 2022. 
     Each report shall describe and assess the progress achieved 
     as of 6 months prior to the specified transmittal date.
       ``(5) Independent review.--No later than December 31, 2023, 
     an independent, private systems engineering and technical 
     assistance organization or standards development organization 
     contracted by the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on 
     Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate an assessment of the readiness 
     of the commercial space industry and the Federal Government 
     to transition to a safety framework that may include 
     regulations. As part of the review, the contracted 
     organization shall evaluate--
       ``(A) the progress of the commercial space industry in 
     adopting industry voluntary standards or any other 
     construction as reported by the Secretary in the interim 
     assessments included in reports provided under paragraph (4); 
     and
       ``(B) the knowledge and operational experience obtained by 
     the commercial space industry while providing services for 
     compensation or hire as reported by the Secretary in the 
     interim knowledge and operational reports provided under 
     paragraph (4).
       ``(6) Learning period.--Beginning on December 31, 2025, the 
     Secretary may propose regulations under this subsection 
     without regard to paragraph (2)(C) and (D). The development 
     of any such regulations shall take into consideration the 
     evolving standards of the commercial space flight industry as 
     identified through the reports published under paragraphs (3) 
     and (4).
       ``(7) Communication and transparency.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of the 
     Secretary of Transportation to discuss potential approaches, 
     potential performance standards, or any other topic related 
     to this subsection with the commercial space industry 
     including observations, findings, and recommendations from 
     the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, or 
     its successor organization, prior to the issuance of a notice 
     of proposed rulemaking. Such discussions shall not be 
     construed to permit the Secretary to promulgate industry 
     regulations except as otherwise provided in this section.''.

[[Page H3522]]

     SEC. 102. INTERNATIONAL LAUNCH COMPETITIVENESS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for 
     updating the methodology used to calculate the maximum 
     probable loss from claims under section 50914 of title 51, 
     United States Code, with a validated risk profile approach to 
     provide reasonable maximum probable loss values associated 
     with potential third party losses from commercially licensed 
     launches. An appropriately updated methodology will help 
     ensure that the Federal Government is not exposed to greater 
     financial risks than intended and that launch companies are 
     not required to purchase more insurance coverage than 
     necessary.
       (b) Maximum Probable Loss Plan.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall provide to the Committee on Science, 
     Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a plan to update the methodology used to calculate 
     maximum probable loss from claims under section 50914 of 
     title 51, United States Code, through the use of a validated 
     risk profile approach. Such plan shall include, at a 
     minimum--
       (1) an evaluation of the reasonableness of the current 
     single casualty estimate and, if needed, the steps the 
     Secretary will take to update such estimate;
       (2) an evaluation, in consultation with the Administrator 
     of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the 
     heads of other relevant executive agencies, of the 
     reasonableness of the dollar value of the insurance 
     requirement required by the Secretary for launch providers to 
     cover damage to Government property resulting from a 
     commercially licensed space launch activity, and 
     recommendations as to a reasonable calculation if, as 
     determined by the Secretary, the current statutory threshold 
     is insufficient;
       (3) a schedule of when updates to the methodology and 
     calculations for the totality of the Maximum Probable Loss 
     will be implemented, and a detailed explanation of any 
     changes to the current calculation; and
       (4) consideration of the impact of the cost of its 
     implementation on the licensing process, both in terms of the 
     cost to industry of collecting and providing the requisite 
     data and cost to the Government of analyzing the data.
       (c) Independent Assessment.--Not later than 270 days after 
     transmittal of the plan under subsection (b), the Comptroller 
     General shall provide to the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate an 
     assessment of--
       (1) the conclusions and analysis provided by the Secretary 
     of Transportation in the plan required under subsection (b);
       (2) the implementation schedule proposed by the Secretary 
     in such plan;
       (3) the suitability of the plan for implementation; and
       (4) any further actions needed to implement the plan or 
     otherwise accomplish the purpose of this section.
       (d) Launch Liability Extension.--Section 50915(f) of title 
     51, United States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31, 
     2016'' and inserting ``December 31, 2025''.

     SEC. 103. LAUNCH LICENSE FLEXIBILITY.

       Section 50906 of title 51, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), by striking ``launched or 
     reentered'' and inserting ``launched or reentered under that 
     permit'';
       (2) by amending subsection (d)(1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) research and development to test design concepts, 
     equipment, or operating techniques;'';
       (3) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ``prior to obtaining 
     a license'';
       (4) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``suborbital rocket 
     design'' and inserting ``suborbital rocket or rocket 
     design''; and
       (5) by amending subsection (g) to read as follows:
       ``(g) The Secretary may issue a permit under this section 
     notwithstanding any license issued under this chapter. The 
     issuance of a license under this chapter shall not invalidate 
     a permit under this section.''.

     SEC. 104. GOVERNMENT ASTRONAUTS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 50902 of title 51, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (22) as 
     paragraphs (5) through (23), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) `government astronaut' means an individual designated 
     as such by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration, pursuant requirements established by 
     the Administrator, who--
       ``(A) is an employee of--
       ``(i) the United States Government, including the United 
     States Armed Forces; or
       ``(ii) a foreign government that is a party to the 
     Intergovernmental Agreement Among the Government of Canada, 
     Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, 
     the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian 
     Federation, and the Government of the United States of 
     America Concerning Cooperation on the Civil International 
     Space Station, signed on January 29, 1998; and
       ``(B) is carried within a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle 
     in the course of his or her employment, which may include 
     performance of activities directly relating to the launch, 
     reentry, or other operation of the launch vehicle or reentry 
     vehicle.'';
       (3) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) 
     of this subsection, by inserting ``government astronaut,'' 
     after ``crew,'';
       (4) in paragraph (7)(A), as so redesignated by paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection, by inserting ``government 
     astronaut,'' after ``(including crew training),'';
       (5) in paragraph (14), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) 
     of this subsection, by inserting ``government astronauts,'' 
     after ``crew,'';
       (6) in paragraph (15)(A), as so redesignated by paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection, by inserting ``government 
     astronaut,'' after ``(including crew training),'';
       (7) by amending paragraph (18), as so redesignated by 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection, to read as follows:
       ``(18) `space flight participant' means an individual, who 
     is not crew or a government astronaut, carried within a 
     launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.''; and
       (8) in paragraph (22)(E), as so redesignated by paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection, by inserting ``, government 
     astronauts,'' after ``crew''.
       (b) Restrictions on Launches, Operations, and Reentries; 
     Single License or Permit.--Section 50904(d) of title 51, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, government 
     astronauts,'' after ``crew''.
       (c) License Applications and Requirements; Applications.--
     Section 50905 of title 51, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``crews and space 
     flight participants'' and inserting ``crew, government 
     astronauts, and space flight participants'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(2)(D), by inserting ``, government 
     astronauts,'' after ``crew''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, government 
     astronauts,'' after ``crew''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``to crew or space flight 
     participants'' each place it appears and inserting ``to crew, 
     government astronauts, or space flight participants''.
       (d) Monitoring Activities.--Section 50907(a) of title 51, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``crew or space 
     flight participant training'' and inserting ``crew, 
     government astronaut, or space flight participant training''.
       (e) Additional Suspensions.--Section 50908(d)(1) of title 
     51, United States Code, is amended by striking ``to crew or 
     space flight participants'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``to crew, government astronauts, or space flight 
     participants''.

     SEC. 105. INDEMNIFICATION FOR SPACE FLIGHT PARTICIPANTS.

       Chapter 509 of title 51, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 50914(a)(4), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(E) space flight participants.''; and
       (2) in section 50915(a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``or a contractor'' and inserting ``a 
     contractor''; and
       (B) by striking ``but not against'' and inserting ``or''.

     SEC. 106. FEDERAL JURISDICTION.

       Section 50914 of title 51, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Federal Jurisdiction.--Any action or tort arising 
     from a licensed launch or reentry shall be the sole 
     jurisdiction of the Federal courts and shall be decided under 
     Federal law.''.

     SEC. 107. CROSS-WAIVERS.

       Section 50914(b)(1) of title 51, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows: ``(1) A launch or reentry license 
     issued or transferred under this chapter shall contain a 
     provision requiring the licensee or transferee to make a 
     reciprocal waiver of claims with its contractors, 
     subcontractors, and customers, the contractors and 
     subcontractors of the customers, and any space flight 
     participants, involved in launch services or reentry services 
     or participating in a flight under which each party to the 
     waiver agrees to be responsible for property damage or loss 
     it or they sustain, or for personal injury to, death of, or 
     property damage or loss sustained by its own employees 
     resulting from an activity carried out under the applicable 
     license.''.

     SEC. 108. ORBITAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that, as none currently exists, there may be a need for a 
     framework that addresses space traffic management of United 
     States Government assets and United States private sector 
     assets to minimize the proliferation of debris and decrease 
     the congestion of the orbital environment.
       (b) Study Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration shall enter into an 
     arrangement with an independent, private systems engineering 
     and technical assistance organization to study frameworks for 
     the management of space traffic and orbital activities. The 
     study shall include the following:
       (1) An assessment of current regulations, Government best 
     practices, and industry standards that apply to space traffic 
     management and orbital debris mitigation.
       (2) An assessment of current statutory authority granted to 
     the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration and how those agencies utilize and coordinate 
     those authorities.
       (3) A review of all space traffic management and orbital 
     debris requirements under treaties and other international 
     agreements to which the United States is a signatory, and 
     other nonbinding international arrangements in which the 
     United States participates, and the manner in which the 
     Federal Government complies with those requirements.
       (4) An assessment of existing Federal Government assets 
     used to conduct space traffic management and space 
     situational awareness.
       (5) An assessment of the risk associated with smallsats as 
     well as any necessary Government coordination for their 
     launch and utilization.

[[Page H3523]]

       (6) An assessment of existing private sector information 
     sharing activities associated with space situational 
     awareness and space traffic management.
       (7) Recommendations related to the framework for the 
     protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public 
     and economic vitality of the space industry.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
     provide to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate the report required 
     in subsection (b).
       (d) Department of Defense Authorities.--Congress recognizes 
     the vital and unique role played by the Department of Defense 
     in protecting national security assets in space. Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed to amend authorities granted 
     to the Department of Defense to safeguard the national 
     security.

     SEC. 109. STATE COMMERCIAL LAUNCH FACILITIES.

       It is the Sense of Congress that State involvement, 
     development, ownership, and operation of launch facilities 
     can help enable growth of the Nation's commercial suborbital 
     and orbital space endeavors and support both commercial and 
     Government space programs. It is further the sense of 
     Congress that State launch facilities and the people and 
     property within the affected launch areas of those State 
     facilities are subject to risks if the commercial launch 
     vehicle fails or experiences an anomaly. To ensure the 
     success of the commercial launch industry and the safety of 
     the people and property in the affected launch areas, it is 
     the further sense of Congress that States and State launch 
     facilities should seek to take proper measures to secure 
     their investments and the safety of third parties from 
     potential damages that could be suffered from commercial 
     launch activities.

     SEC. 110. SPACE SUPPORT VEHICLES STUDY.

       Not less than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on 
     Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate, a report on the use of space 
     support vehicle services in the commercial space industry. 
     This report shall include--
       (1) the extent to which launch providers rely on such 
     services as part of their business models;
       (2) the statutory, regulatory, and market barriers to the 
     use of such services; and
       (3) recommendations for legislative or regulatory action 
     that may be needed to ensure reduced barriers to the use of 
     such services if such use is a requirement of the industry.

     SEC. 111. STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     eliminating duplicative requirements and approvals for 
     commercial launch and reentry operations will promote and 
     encourage the development of the commercial space sector.
       (b) Reaffirmation of Policy.--Congress reaffirms that the 
     Secretary of Transportation, in overseeing and coordinating 
     commercial launch and reentry operations, should--
       (1) promote commercial space launches and reentries by the 
     private sector;
       (2) facilitate Government, State, and private sector 
     involvement in enhancing U.S. launch sites and facilities;
       (3) protect public health and safety, safety of property, 
     national security interests, and foreign policy interests of 
     the United States; and
       (4) consult with the head of another executive agency, 
     including the Secretary of Defense or the Administrator of 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as 
     necessary to provide consistent application of licensing 
     requirements under chapter 509 of title 51, United States 
     Code.
       (c) Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation under 
     section 50918 of title 51, United States Code, and subject to 
     section 50905(b)(2)(C) of that title, shall consult with the 
     Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the heads of other 
     executive agencies, as appropriate--
       (A) to identify all requirements that are imposed to 
     protect the public health and safety, safety of property, 
     national security interests, and foreign policy interests of 
     the United States relevant to any commercial launch of a 
     launch vehicle or commercial reentry of a reentry vehicle; 
     and
       (B) to evaluate the requirements identified in subparagraph 
     (A) and, in coordination with the licensee or transferee and 
     the heads of the relevant executive agencies--
       (i) determine whether the satisfaction of a requirement of 
     one agency could result in the satisfaction of a requirement 
     of another agency; and
       (ii) resolve any inconsistencies and remove any outmoded or 
     duplicative requirements or approvals of the Federal 
     Government relevant to any commercial launch of a launch 
     vehicle or commercial reentry of a reentry vehicle.
       (2) Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until the 
     Secretary of Transportation determines no outmoded or 
     duplicative requirements or approvals of the Federal 
     Government exist, the Secretary of Transportation, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator 
     of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the 
     commercial space sector, and the heads of other executive 
     agencies, as appropriate, shall submit to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives, and the congressional defense committees a 
     report that includes the following:
       (A) A description of the process for the application for 
     and approval of a permit or license under chapter 509 of 
     title 51, United States Code, for the commercial launch of a 
     launch vehicle or commercial reentry of a reentry vehicle, 
     including the identification of--
       (i) any unique requirements for operating on a United 
     States Government launch site, reentry site, or launch 
     property; and
       (ii) any inconsistent, outmoded, or duplicative 
     requirements or approvals.
       (B) A description of current efforts, if any, to coordinate 
     and work across executive agencies to define interagency 
     processes and procedures for sharing information, avoiding 
     duplication of effort, and resolving common agency 
     requirements.
       (C) Recommendations for legislation that may further--
       (i) streamline requirements in order to improve efficiency, 
     reduce unnecessary costs, resolve inconsistencies, remove 
     duplication, and minimize unwarranted constraints; and
       (ii) consolidate or modify requirements across affected 
     agencies into a single application set that satisfies the 
     requirements identified in paragraph (1)(A).
       (3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       (A) any applicable definitions set forth in section 50902 
     of title 51, United States Code, shall apply;
       (B) the terms ``launch'', ``reenter'', and ``reentry'' 
     include landing of a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle; and
       (C) the terms ``United States Government launch site'' and 
     ``United States Government reentry site'' include any 
     necessary facility, at that location, that is commercially 
     operated on United States Government property.

     SEC. 112. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM UPDATE.

       (a) Chapter 701.--
       (1) Amendment.--The chapter heading of chapter 701 of title 
     51, United States Code, is amended by striking ``SPACE 
     SHUTTLE'' and inserting ``SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The item relating to chapter 701 
     of title 51, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``Space Shuttle'' and inserting ``Space Launch System''.
       (b) Section 70101.--
       (1) Amendments.--Section 70101 of title 51, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``space shuttle'' 
     and inserting ``Space Launch System''; and
       (B) by striking ``space shuttle'' and inserting ``Space 
     Launch System''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The item relating section 70101 
     in the table of sections for chapter 701 of title 51, United 
     States Code is amended by striking ``space shuttle'' and 
     inserting ``Space Launch System''.
       (c) Section 70102.--
       (1) Amendments.--Section 70102 of title 51, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``Space shuttle'' 
     and inserting ``Space Launch System'';
       (B) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking ``space shuttle'' 
     both places it appears and inserting ``Space Launch System'';
       (C) in subsection (a)(1)(A)(i), by inserting ``directly to 
     cis-lunar space and the regions of space beyond low-Earth 
     orbit'' after ``human presence'';
       (D) in subsection (a)(1)(B), by striking ``a shuttle 
     launch'' and inserting ``a launch of the Space Launch 
     System'';
       (E) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``a space shuttle 
     mission'' and inserting ``a mission of the Space Launch 
     System'';
       (F) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``space shuttle'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Space Launch System''; and
       (ii) by striking ``from the shuttle'' and inserting ``from 
     the Space Launch System'';
       (G) in subsection (c), by striking ``space shuttle'' and 
     inserting ``Space Launch System''; and
       (H) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `Space Launch 
     System' means the Space Launch System authorized under 
     section 302 of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration Authorization Act of 2010.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The item relating section 70102 
     in the table of sections for chapter 701 of title 51, United 
     States Code is amended by striking ``Space shuttle'' and 
     inserting ``Space Launch System''.
       (d) Section 70103.--
       (1) Amendments.--Section 70103 of title 51, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``space shuttle'' 
     and inserting ``Space Launch System''; and
       (B) by striking ``space shuttle'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Space Launch System''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The item relating section 70103 
     in the table of sections for chapter 701 of title 51, United 
     States Code is amended by striking ``space shuttle'' and 
     inserting ``Space Launch System''.

          TITLE II--SPACE RESOURCE EXPLORATION AND UTILIZATION

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Space Resource Exploration 
     and Utilization Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 202. TITLE 51 AMENDMENT.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle V of title 51, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     chapter:

       ``CHAPTER 513--SPACE RESOURCE EXPLORATION AND UTILIZATION

``Sec.
``51301. Definitions.

[[Page H3524]]

``51302. Commercialization of space resource exploration and 
              utilization.
``51303. Legal framework.

     ``Sec. 51301. Definitions

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Space resource.--The term `space resource' means a 
     natural resource of any kind found in situ in outer space.
       ``(2) Asteroid resource.--The term `asteroid resource' 
     means a space resource found on or within a single asteroid.
       ``(3) State.--The term `State' means any of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other 
     commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
       ``(4) United states commercial space resource utilization 
     entity.--The term `United States commercial space resource 
     utilization entity' means an entity providing space resource 
     exploration or utilization services, the control of which is 
     held by persons other than a Federal, State, local, or 
     foreign government, and that is--
       ``(A) duly organized under the laws of a State;
       ``(B) subject to the subject matter and personal 
     jurisdiction of the courts of the United States; or
       ``(C) a foreign entity that has voluntarily submitted to 
     the subject matter and personal jurisdiction of the courts of 
     the United States.

     ``Sec. 51302. Commercialization of space resource exploration 
       and utilization

       ``(a) In General.--The President, acting through 
     appropriate Federal agencies, shall--
       ``(1) facilitate the commercial exploration and utilization 
     of space resources to meet national needs;
       ``(2) discourage government barriers to the development of 
     economically viable, safe, and stable industries for the 
     exploration and utilization of space resources in manners 
     consistent with the existing international obligations of the 
     United States; and
       ``(3) promote the right of United States commercial 
     entities to explore outer space and utilize space resources, 
     in accordance with the existing international obligations of 
     the United States, free from harmful interference, and to 
     transfer or sell such resources.
       ``(b) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this section, the President shall 
     submit to Congress a report that contains recommendations 
     for--
       ``(1) the allocation of responsibilities relating to the 
     exploration and utilization of space resources among Federal 
     agencies; and
       ``(2) any authorities necessary to meet the international 
     obligations of the United States with respect to the 
     exploration and utilization of space resources.

     ``Sec. 51303. Legal framework

       ``(a) Property Rights.--Any asteroid resources obtained in 
     outer space are the property of the entity that obtained such 
     resources, which shall be entitled to all property rights 
     thereto, consistent with applicable provisions of Federal law 
     and existing international obligations.
       ``(b) Safety of Operations.--A United States commercial 
     space resource utilization entity shall avoid causing harmful 
     interference in outer space.
       ``(c) Civil Action for Relief From Harmful Interference.--A 
     United States commercial space resource utilization entity 
     may bring a civil action for appropriate legal or equitable 
     relief, or both, under this chapter for any action by another 
     entity subject to United States jurisdiction causing harmful 
     interference to its operations with respect to an asteroid 
     resource utilization activity in outer space.
       ``(d) Rule of Decision.--In a civil action brought pursuant 
     to subsection (c) with respect to an asteroid resource 
     utilization activity in outer space, a court shall enter 
     judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the court finds--
       ``(1) the plaintiff--
       ``(A) acted in accordance with all existing international 
     obligations of the United States; and
       ``(B) was first in time to conduct the activity; and
       ``(2) the activity is reasonable for the exploration and 
     utilization of asteroid resources.
       ``(e) Exclusive Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the 
     United States shall have original jurisdiction over an action 
     under this chapter without regard to the amount in 
     controversy.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for title 
     51, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of 
     the items for subtitle V the following:

``513. Space resource exploration and utilization..........51301''.....

                  TITLE III--COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING

     SEC. 301. ANNUAL REPORTING.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 601 of title 51, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 60126. Annual reporting

       ``The Secretary shall provide a report to the Committee on 
     Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of the SPACE Act of 2015 and annually 
     thereafter on--
       ``(1) the Secretary's implementation of section 60121, 
     including--
       ``(A) a list of all applications received in the previous 
     calendar year;
       ``(B) a list of all applications approved;
       ``(C) a list of all applications denied;
       ``(D) a list of all applications that required additional 
     information; and
       ``(E) a list of all applications whose disposition exceeded 
     the 120 day deadline established in section 60121(c), the 
     total days overdue for applications that exceeded such 
     deadline, and an explanation for the delay;
       ``(2) all notifications and information provided to the 
     Secretary pursuant to section 60122; and
       ``(3) all actions taken by the Secretary under the 
     administrative authority granted by section 60123(a)(4), (5), 
     and (6).''.

     SEC. 302. STATUTORY UPDATE REPORT.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary, in consultation with other appropriate 
     Federal agencies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration's Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote 
     Sensing, shall report to the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on 
     statutory updates necessary to protect national security, 
     protect privacy (which is not to be taken as altering any 
     condition or standards for licensing), protect the United 
     States industrial base, and reflect the current state of the 
     art of remote sensing systems, instruments, or technologies.

                   TITLE IV--OFFICE OF SPACE COMMERCE

     SEC. 401. RENAMING OF OFFICE OF SPACE COMMERCIALIZATION.

       (a) Chapter Heading.--
       (1) Amendment.--The chapter heading for chapter 507 of 
     title 51, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``COMMERCIALIZATION'' and inserting ``Commerce''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The item relating to chapter 507 
     in the table chapters for title 51, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``Commercialization'' and inserting 
     ``Commerce''.
       (b) Definition of Office.-- Section 50701 of title 51, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``Commercialization'' and inserting ``Commerce''.
       (c) Renaming.--Section 50702(a) of title 51, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``Commercialization'' and 
     inserting ``Commerce''.

     SEC. 402. FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE OF SPACE COMMERCE.

        Section 50702(c) of title 51, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``Commerce.'' and inserting ``Commerce, 
     including to--
       ``(1) foster the conditions for the economic growth and 
     technological advancement of the United States space commerce 
     industry;
       ``(2) coordinate space commerce policy issues and actions 
     within the Department of Commerce;
       ``(3) represent the Department of Commerce in the 
     development of United States policies and in negotiations 
     with foreign countries to promote United States space 
     commerce;
       ``(4) promote the advancement of United States geospatial 
     technologies related to space commerce, in cooperation with 
     relevant interagency working groups; and
       ``(5) provide support to Federal Government organizations 
     working on Space-Based Positioning Navigation, and Timing 
     policy, including the National Coordination Office for Space-
     Based Position, Navigation, and Timing.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House 
Report 114-127. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part A of House Report 114-127.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order 
under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, line 18, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 14, lines 18 and 19, strike ``and shall be decided 
     under Federal law''.
       Page 15, line 18, insert ``, in consultation with the 
     Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications 
     Commission, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, and the Department of Defense,'' after 
     ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration''.
       Page 17, line 18, insert ``(a) Sense of Congress.--'' 
     before ``It is the Sense''.
       Page 18, after line 8, insert the following:
       (b) Report Required.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the 
     potential inclusion of all government property, including 
     State and municipal property, in the existing indemnification 
     regime established under section 50914 of title 51, United 
     States Code.
       Page 23, line 19, insert ``in the table of chapters'' after 
     ``chapter 701''.

[[Page H3525]]

       Page 31, line 22, amend subparagraph (C) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(C) a list of all applications denied and an explanation 
     of why each application was denied, including any information 
     relevant to the interagency adjudication process of a 
     licensing request;
       Page 32, line 10, after paragraph (3), insert the 
     following:
     Such report may include classified annexes as necessary to 
     protect the disclosure of sensitive or classified 
     information.
       Page 32, after line 10, insert the following:
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 601 of such title is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 60125 the 
     following new item:
``60126. Annual reporting.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment contains minor 
corrections to the underlying bill and is generally technical in 
nature. The amendment provides clarity to some of the reports in the 
bill on the learning period, orbital traffic management, commercial 
remote sensing, and the inclusion of classified annexes.
  Additionally, this amendment ensures that Federal courts handling 
legal disputes will look to substantive State law to resolve claims 
that arise from a federally licensed launch.
  Finally, this amendment includes a reporting requirement from the 
Government Accounting Office about the inclusion of State and municipal 
launch facilities in the indemnification regime.
  This technical amendment will improve the clarity of multiple 
sections of the bill and ensure continued support for the growing 
commercial space industry. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Maryland is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The amendment partially addresses the concerns that we have had with 
the Federal jurisdiction provision in H.R. 2262. Maintaining ``under 
Federal law'' would have resulted in eliminating the rights of 
individuals to bring almost any type of legal action against companies 
related to commercial spaceflight accidents due to the lack of any 
applicable Federal law.
  I would also like to highlight another change in the manager's 
amendment that goes beyond a technical remedy or a simple 
clarification. The amendment adds a requirement for the Secretary of 
Commerce to provide an annual report on its review of applications for 
licenses for commercial remote sensing. The manager's amendment now 
makes accommodation for the inclusion of classified annexes as 
necessary.
  Mr. Chair, while this is a necessary addition to protect the 
disclosure of sensitive or classified information, it is only necessary 
because this amendment adds the requirement for the Secretary of 
Commerce to provide information related to the interagency adjudication 
process of a commercial remote sensing licensing request.
  I highlight these two changes because they demonstrate that the 
process of developing H.R. 2262 has, in fact, been rushed and not very 
well thought out. Had we taken the time to hold hearings and sort 
things out, we actually could have had an opportunity to consider these 
changes as part of the committee process.
  That said, I support the chairman's amendment to make some needed 
improvements to the bill, though I firmly believe it still needs an 
awful lot more work.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part A House Report 114-127.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 9, lines 18 through 20, amend paragraph (1) to read as 
     follows:
       (1) in subsection (d), by striking ``that will be launched 
     or reentered'' and inserting ``or reusable launch vehicles 
     that will be launched into a suborbital trajectory or 
     reentered under that permit'';
       Page 10, lines 1 and 2, amend paragraph (3) to read as 
     follows:
       (3) in subsection (d)(3)--
       (A) by striking ``prior to obtaining a license''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or vehicle'' after ``design of the 
     rocket'';
       Page 10, line 5, insert ``, or for a particular reusable 
     launch vehicle or reusable launch vehicle design,'' after 
     ``rocket design''.
       Page 10, line 5, strike ``and''.
       Page 10, line 6, redesignate paragraph (5) as paragraph 
     (6).
       Page 10, after line 5, insert the following new paragraph:
       (5) in subsection (e)(2), by inserting ``or launch 
     vehicle'' after ``the suborbital rocket'';
       Page 10, line 11, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 10, after line 11, insert the following new paragraph:
       (7) in subsection (h), by inserting ``or reusable launch 
     vehicle'' after ``suborbital rocket''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to offer an amendment to 
support and facilitate innovation in cutting-edge American enterprises. 
My amendment will expand the eligibility for experimental permits for 
reusable rockets to include reusable launch vehicles.
  Experimental permits currently have three uses: the research and 
development of new test designs, concepts, equipment, or operating 
techniques; to show compliance with requirements as part of the process 
for obtaining a license; or to train crews before they receive a 
license for launch or reentry. However, the FAA currently does not have 
the ability to grant experimental permits for launch vehicles.

                              {time}  1130

  Under current law, they are restricted to granting permits for 
reusable suborbital rockets. This can require industry and the Federal 
Government to go to extraordinary lengths to find ways to conduct 
tests. In some cases, there is no alternative for testing.
  Expanding access to these permits will help innovators develop new 
and important technologies right here in America. These permits will 
create new opportunities for American businesses and will help harness 
the tremendous potential of our space exploration industry.
  I want to thank Chairman Lamar Smith, Ranking Member Eddie Bernice 
Johnson, and their staffs for their assistance with this amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment, although I don't oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment ensures that the 
commercial space industry is not pigeonholed into specific vehicle 
designs. By allowing different types of vehicles to be included in the 
launch license flexibility regime, we will allow the industry to grow, 
innovate, and continue to improve safety designs.
  This amendment is reasonable and consistent with the spirit of the 
license flexibility provisions of the underlying bill. I support the 
gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 114-127.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H3526]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 14, after line 12, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 106. INDEPENDENT STUDY OF INDEMNIFICATION FOR SPACE 
                   FLIGHT PARTICIPANTS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General shall provide to the Committee 
     on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report detailing the results 
     of a study of the issues associated with space flight 
     participants and potential third party claims that could 
     arise from a potential accident of a commercial licensed 
     launch vehicle or reentry vehicle that is carrying space 
     flight participants. The study shall--
       (1) identify the issues associated with space flight 
     participants and third party liability;
       (2) identify options for addressing the issues;
       (3) identify any potential unintended consequences and 
     issues associated with each of the options; and
       (4) identify any potential costs to the Federal Government 
     for each of the options.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment calls for a study 
analyzing our approach to third-party liability with regard to 
spaceflight participants. The study will identify issues, options to 
address those issues, consequences of those options, and the potential 
cost to the Federal Government for each option.
  I would note that the idea for this study was originally put forward 
by Ms. Edwards of Maryland, someone whom I deeply admire and listen to 
when she makes her points. We heard her make her points during 
discussion with our committee, and I felt it was a very good idea, and 
I am moving forward with it today.
  The underlying bill includes a legislative fix for third-party 
liability and spaceflight participants. That is what our bill does. 
However, a study would see if there is even a better way or if we have 
covered all of our bases with the fix that is in this bill.
  Right now, a spaceflight participant is financially at risk if the 
vehicle they fly on has some kind of an incident. It doesn't matter if 
you are a billionaire or someone who has scrimped for a long time to 
get one of these spaceflights, maybe a contest winner or a science 
teacher who wants to share his experience with students or a scientist 
accompanying their experiment.
  Right now, these folks aren't just paying the fare; they are 
potentially risking everything that their family owns because they may 
be liable if something goes wrong.
  As I say, we have a fix about that in the current bill, but this 
study would see if there is a better way, along with some other things 
we can do, to make that fix better. There is no reason at this point to 
believe that this approach is any worse than the other approaches, but 
let's keep our minds open.
  Right now, we have a hole in the bridge, and this bill puts a patch 
on that hole. Let's see if there is a study to see if there is a better 
way to fix the bridge. In the meantime, we have got something in place 
in this bill--a study--to see if we can do a better job.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Maryland is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDWARDS. I want to note for the record, though I am not in 
opposition, I think the study is a good idea. Ideally, I would think 
that Congress would choose to study the thing before it actually passes 
the law, but that is not where we are today. I think it is a good idea 
to proceed forward with this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank the gentlewoman for giving us the idea for 
this study in the first place, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank my colleague from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, 
for yielding me time.
  I simply want to say that this amendment requires an independent 
report about the inclusion of spaceflight participants in the 
indemnification regime. This is an important topic, and gathering 
additional information on this policy would be helpful for future 
legislation.
  Requiring this study is reasonable and consistent with the spirit and 
the policies of the underlying bill, so I support it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Castro of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part A of House Report 114-127.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 15, line 19, insert ``nonprofit,'' after 
     ``independent,''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Castro) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank my 
colleague from San Antonio, Chairman Lamar Smith, and also follow Texan 
Eddie Bernice Johnson, the ranking member, for their work on this bill 
and for consideration of my amendment.
  My amendment amends the section of the bill concerning the orbital 
traffic management study. The bill, as written, has the Administrator 
of NASA enter into an agreement with an independent private systems 
engineering and technical assistance organization to study frameworks 
for the management of space traffic and orbital activities.
  My amendment would include nonprofits, so that nonprofit independent 
research organizations can contribute to this critical work. In 
addition to allowing for private contractors to be part of this 
discussion, my amendment would also allow for nonprofits to do the 
same.
  In Texas, we have become a hub for space research and exploration. 
Some of the private industries or private businesses doing work in this 
business include Lockheed and Boeing, but there are also wonderful 
nonprofits like the Southwest Research Institute, in our hometown of 
San Antonio, and the Universities Space Research Association, which is 
based in Houston. My amendment would allow these nonprofits to also be 
part of this work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, 
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the orbital 
traffic management study in the underlying bill to be conducted by an 
independent, nonprofit, private systems engineering and technical 
assistance organization.
  Requiring the study to be done by a nonprofit is reasonable and 
consistent with the spirit of the study requirement in the underlying 
bill.
  I appreciate the gentleman's amendment; I support the amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part A of House Report 114-127.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 22, line 19, strike ``and''.

[[Page H3527]]

       Page 22, line 23, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 22, after line 23, insert the following:
       (iii) facilitate outreach to minority- and women-owned 
     businesses on business opportunities in the commercial space 
     industry.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the manager of the bill, the chairman 
of the full committee, and the ranking member of the full committee for 
the hard work they do on issues that are important to our Nation and 
their service to this country. Let me also thank the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Ms. Edwards) for her astute leadership on many of these 
issues.
  Let me as well indicate my commitment to space exploration. As I said 
earlier, I hope that we can work on a number of issues, but I hope we 
can work together on what I think is an important economic engine for 
the Nation, first starting with John F. Kennedy's challenge to all of 
us and developing, through President Johnson, the NASA centers across 
America, and the enormous research that has been done by NASA over the 
years.
  I remember debating this question of funding for NASA really in the 
1990s and 2000s, talking about the research of heart disease, cancers, 
HIV/AIDS.
  I say that to say that, as we move into commercial space exploration, 
we certainly want to make sure that opportunities are given to all of 
America. This is commercial, yes; but the provisions of commercial 
space work are enhanced by the government in the resources that we 
have.
  My amendment is to provide that recognition and to conduct outreach 
to the small-, minority-, and women-owned business community. It 
requires that the provisions of the bill that address future 
legislation should include work on how to effectively conduct outreach 
to small business concerns owned and controlled by women and 
minorities.
  As we have all worked hard to encourage small-business owners to 
produce jobs, this is a great entrepreneurial effort, and therefore, I 
support the initiatives that would increase an outreach to small 
businesses and create more jobs.
  There are approximately 6 million minority-owned businesses in the 
United States--representing significant aspects of our economy--and 
many, many more women and small businesses and other minority-owned 
businesses.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member 
Johnson for their efforts to advance our nation's space exploration 
horizon.
  I am a firm believer that commercial and government unmanned and 
manned space exploration complement each other.
  The Internet was initially a federal government research and 
development project that transitioned to a commercial and public 
resource that has in less than 2 decades fueled economic opportunities 
for thousands of U.S. companies large and small.
  The transition to commercial space exploration will need the 
collaboration and support of the Federal government to be sure that it 
is inclusive, safe and profitable.
  The commercial space industry must yield opportunities for all U.S. 
businesses, which is why I am offering Jackson Lee Amendment Number 5.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment requires that the provisions of the bill 
that address future legislation also lay the foundation for the 
commercial space industry to include work on how to effectively conduct 
outreach to small business concerns owned and controlled by women and 
minorities.
  I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize 
their current and future potential.
  That is why I support entrepreneurial development programs, including 
the Small Business Development Center and Women's Business Center 
programs.
  These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas, 
including business plan development, finance, and marketing.
  Outreach is key to developing healthy and diverse small businesses in 
all sectors of the economy.
  There are approximately 6 million minority owned businesses in the 
United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy.
  According to the most recent available Census data, minority owned 
businesses employ nearly 6 million Americans and generate $1 trillion 
dollars in economic output.
  Women owned businesses have increased 20% between 2002 and 2007, and 
currently total close to 8 million.
  My home city of Houston, Texas, the home of the Johnson Space Center, 
is also home to more than 60,000 women owned businesses, and more than 
60,000 African American owned businesses.
  Just as the national highway system and rural electrification has led 
to opportunities for communities to participate in the national 
economy, so will federal investment in our nation's infrastructure and 
capacity in space exploration pave the way for a new era of economic 
growth and opportunity.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for the Jackson Lee Amendments.
  I would ask that my amendment be accepted, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment, although I don't oppose it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the launch 
license streamlining report to include recommendations on how the FAA 
should facilitate outreach to minority- and women-owned businesses 
about opportunities in the commercial space industry. I don't object to 
the gentlewoman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. May I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that women-
owned businesses have increased 20 percent between 2002 and 2007. They 
currently total close to $8 million. According to the most recent 
available Census data, minority-owned businesses employ nearly 6 
million Americans and generate $1 trillion in economic output.
  My home city of Houston, the home of the Johnson Space Center, is 
also home to more than 60,000 women-owned businesses, 60,000 African 
American-owned businesses, and multitudes of minority-owned businesses.
  I would offer to say that, if we can include this amendment, that 
outreach to these entities under this commercial space exploration 
legislation will be adding more jobs to the American economy.
  I ask for the support of the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part A of House Report 114-127.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 22, line 19, strike ``and''.
       Page 22, line 23, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 22, after line 23, insert the following:
       (iii) facilitate the participation of the Emerging 
     Researchers National Conference in STEM, American Association 
     for the Advancement of Science, Louis Stokes Alliances for 
     Minority Participation Program (LAMP), Historically Black 
     Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP) of 
     the National Science Foundation, Emerging Researchers 
     National Conference in Science, Technology, Engineering and 
     Mathematics, the University of Florida's Institute for 
     African-American Mentoring in Computing Sciences, the 
     Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, the 
     National Indian Education Association, and other 
     institutions, organizations, or associations as the Secretary 
     of Transportation determines to be useful in investigating 
     the feasibility of developing programs for fellowships, work-
     study, and employment opportunities for undergraduate and 
     graduate students.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.

[[Page H3528]]

                              {time}  1145

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, my appreciation to all of those who are 
on the floor today.
  My amendment speaks to discussions that this Congress has had over 
many, many years on the question of science, technology, engineering, 
and math and, in particular, working with more vulnerable communities.
  My amendment would facilitate the participation of HBCUs, Hispanic 
Serving Institutions, National Indian Institutions, in fellowships, 
work-study, and employment opportunities in the emerging commercial 
space industry.
  I remember some years ago that we developed a fellowship for graduate 
and Ph.D. candidates at Texas Southern University to interact at NASA 
Johnson. It was a very effective effort, and certainly, well-received 
by those who were able to participate.
  That is, again, investing in universities and colleges that interact, 
again, with vulnerable populations or do outreach to minority students 
and expose them, again, at graduate level and undergraduate level to 
science, technology, engineering, and math.
  For over two decades the Nation has known that the economy will be 
driven, not by the hammer and anvil, but by the ingenuity and hard work 
of our Nation. Therefore, the imagination that fuels invention is so 
valuable to the well-being of our Nation.
  My amendment would follow in that spirit by increasing awareness 
among underrepresented groups in STEM employment and education 
opportunities and, I would hope, would create partnerships between the 
commercial space industry and our HBCUs, our Native American 
Institutions, Hispanic Serving, and allow work-study and employment 
opportunities in this growing and emerging commercial space industry.
  I believe it would be an excellent partnership and would be an 
excellent contribution to the economic engine of this Nation. I ask my 
colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, Article 1 Section 8 of the United States 
Constitution states that ``The Congress shall have Power to promote the 
Progress of Science and useful Arts . . .''
  Too often the interpretation of these words are only about patents 
and inventions, but it extends to our nation's federal investment in 
areas of science that open up new avenues for economic and 
technological advancements.
  I thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson for their work to 
advance the scientific horizon of our nation.
  Jackson Lee Amendment Number 6, made in order by the Rules Committee, 
would facilitate the participation of HBCU, Hispanic Serving 
Institutions; National Indian institutions, in fellowships, work-study 
and employment opportunities in the emerging commercial space industry.
  For over 2 decades the nation has known that the economy will be 
driven by the hammer and the anvil, but by the ingenuity and hard work 
of our nation's people.
  The imagination that fuels invention--is so valuable to the wellbeing 
of our nation that the founders placed it as a key responsibility of 
the legislative branch.
  My amendment would follow in this spirit by increasing awareness 
among underrepresented groups in STEM employment and education 
opportunities in the commercial space industry.
  One of the most enduring difficulties faced by underrepresented 
populations in the STEM field is a lack of awareness and understanding 
of the connection between STEM and employment opportunities.
  In 2012, a survey found that despite the nation's growing demand for 
more workers in science, technology, engineering, and math grows, the 
skills gap among the largest ethnic and racial minorities groups remain 
stubbornly wide.
  Blacks and Latinos account for only 7 percent, of the STEM workforce 
despite representing 28 percent of the U.S. population.
  All of our nation's citizens must be able to tap into, what has been 
described in the Brookings' Metropolitan Policy Program Report as, 
``The Hidden STEM Economy.''
  This report stated that in 2011, 26 million jobs or 20 percent of all 
occupations required knowledge in 1 or more STEM areas.
  Half of all STEM jobs are available to workers without a 4 year 
degree, and these jobs pay on average $53,000 a year, which is 10 
percent higher than jobs with similar education requirements.
  Houston, Texas, the home of the Johnson Space Center, has the second 
highest concentration of engineers (22.4 for every 1000 workers 
according to the Greater Houston Partnership).
  Houston has 59,070 engineers, the second largest population in the 
nation.
  This Jackson Lee Amendment will open up an avenue to allow 
underrepresented groups in the STEM economy a means of learning about 
the commercial space industry through the development of fellowships, 
work study, and employment opportunities for undergraduate and graduate 
students.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for the Jackson Lee Amendments.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment, though I don't oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the launch 
license streamlining report in the underlying bill to include 
recommendations on how the FAA might facilitate the participation of 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving 
Institutions, and National Indian Institutions in the emerging 
commercial space industry. I don't object to this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
his support for both of my amendments. And I, again, would indicate 
that every opportunity we have to grow the economy and expand to those 
populations not fully included, this Congress should take an 
opportunity to do.
  I see, in this amendment, opportunity for jobs, for partnerships, and 
certainly opportunities for growing the engineers and other talented 
persons whom we need for, in essence, a new America with a new economy, 
technologically-based.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Edwards

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part A of House Report 114-127.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``U.S. Commercial Space Launch 
     Competitiveness Act''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES TO TITLE 51, UNITED STATES CODE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, wherever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of title 51, United States Code.

     SEC. 3. LIABILITY INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that it 
     is in the public interest to update the methodology used to 
     calculate the maximum probable loss from claims under section 
     50914 of title 51, United States Code, with a validated risk 
     profile approach in order to consistently compute valid and 
     reasonable maximum probable loss values.
       (b) Implementation.--Not later than September 30, 2015, the 
     Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the 
     commercial space sector and insurance providers, shall--
       (1) evaluate and, if necessary, develop a plan to update 
     the methodology used to calculate the maximum probable loss 
     from claims under section 50914 of title 51, United States 
     Code;
       (2) in evaluating or developing a plan under paragraph 
     (1)--
       (A) ensure that the Federal Government is not exposed to 
     greater costs than intended and that launch companies are not 
     required to purchase more insurance coverage than necessary; 
     and
       (B) consider the impact of the cost to both the industry 
     and the Government of implementing an updated methodology; 
     and
       (3) submit the evaluation, and any plan, to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House 
     of Representatives.

     SEC. 4. LAUNCH LIABILITY EXTENSION.

       Section 50915(f) is amended by striking ``December 31, 
     2016'' and inserting ``December 31, 2020''.

[[Page H3529]]

     SEC. 5. COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH LICENSING AND EXPERIMENTAL 
                   PERMITS.

       Section 50906 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), by striking ``launched or 
     reentered'' and inserting ``launched or reentered under that 
     permit'';
       (2) by amending subsection (d)(1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) research and development to test design concepts, 
     equipment, or operating techniques;'';
       (3) in subsection (d)(3) by striking ``prior to obtaining a 
     license'';
       (4) in subsection (e)(1) by striking ``suborbital rocket 
     design'' and inserting ``suborbital rocket or suborbital 
     rocket design''; and
       (5) by amending subsection (g) to read as follows:
       ``(g) The Secretary may issue a permit under this section 
     notwithstanding any license issued under this chapter. The 
     issuance of a license under this chapter may not invalidate a 
     permit issued under this section.''.

     SEC. 6. LICENSING REPORT.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of 
     the House of Representatives a report on approaches for 
     streamlining the licensing and permitting process of launch 
     vehicles, reentry vehicles, or components of launch or 
     reentry vehicles, to enable non-launch flight operations 
     related to space transportation. The report shall include 
     approaches to improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary costs, 
     resolve inconsistencies, remove duplication, and minimize 
     unwarranted constraints.

     SEC. 7. SPACE AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Science 
     and Technology Policy, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     State, the Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the heads 
     of other relevant Federal agencies, and the commercial space 
     sector, shall--
       (1) assess current, and proposed near-term, commercial non-
     governmental activities conducted in space;
       (2) identify appropriate oversight authorities for the 
     activities described in paragraph (1);
       (3) recommend an oversight approach that would prioritize 
     safety, utilize existing authorities, minimize burdens, 
     promote the U.S. commercial space sector, and meet the United 
     States' obligations under international treaties; and
       (4) submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science, 
     Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives a 
     report on the assessment and recommended approaches.
       (b) Exception.--Nothing in this section shall apply to the 
     activities of the ISS national laboratory as described in 
     section 504 of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration Authorization Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 18354), 
     including any research or development projects utilizing the 
     ISS national laboratory.

     SEC. 8. SPACE SURVEILLANCE AND SITUATIONAL AWARENESS DATA.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Transportation in concurrence with the 
     Secretary of Defense shall--
       (1) in consultation with the heads of other relevant 
     Federal agencies, study the feasibility of processing and 
     releasing safety-related space situational awareness data and 
     information to any entity consistent with national security 
     interests and public safety obligations of the United States; 
     and
       (2) submit a report on the feasibility study to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of 
     the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 9. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN SAFETY REGULATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Extension of Certain Safety Regulation Requirements.--
     Section 50905(c)(3) is amended by striking ``Beginning on 
     October 1, 2015'' and inserting ``Beginning on October 1, 
     2020''.
       (b) Construction.--Section 50905(c) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     limit the authority of the Secretary to discuss potential 
     regulatory approaches with the commercial space sector, 
     including observations, findings, and recommendations from 
     the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, prior 
     to the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking.''.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in 
     consultation with the commercial space sector, including the 
     Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, shall 
     submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science, 
     Space, and Technology of the House of Representative a report 
     specifying key industry metrics that might indicate readiness 
     of the commercial space sector and the Department of 
     Transportation to transition to a regulatory approach under 
     section 50905(c)(3) of title 51, United States Code, that 
     considers space flight participant, government astronaut, and 
     crew safety.
       (d) Biennial Report.--Beginning on December 31, 2016, and 
     biennially thereafter, the Secretary of Transportation, in 
     consultation and coordination with the commercial space 
     sector, including the Commercial Space Transportation 
     Advisory Committee, shall submit to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives a report that identifies the activities, 
     described in subsections (c) and (d) of section 50905 of 
     title 51, United States Code, most appropriate for regulatory 
     action, if any, and a proposed transition plan for such 
     regulations.

     SEC. 10. INDUSTRY VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS.

       (a) Industry Voluntary Consensus Standards.--Section 
     50905(c), as amended in section 9 of this Act, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) The Secretary shall continue to work with the 
     commercial space sector, including the Commercial Space 
     Transportation Advisory Committee, to facilitate the 
     development of voluntary consensus standards based on 
     recommended best practices to improve the safety of crew, 
     government astronauts, and space flight participants as the 
     commercial space sector continues to mature.''.
       (b) Biennial Report.--Beginning on December 31, 2016, and 
     biennially thereafter, the Secretary of Transportation, in 
     consultation and coordination with the commercial space 
     sector, including the Commercial Space Transportation 
     Advisory Committee, shall submit to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives a report detailing progress on the 
     development of industry voluntary consensus standards under 
     section 50905(c)(6) of title 51, United States Code.

     SEC. 11. GOVERNMENT ASTRONAUTS.

       (a) Findings and Purpose.--Section 50901(15) is amended by 
     inserting ``, government astronauts,'' after ``crew'' each 
     place it appears.
       (b) Definition of Government Astronaut.--Section 50902 is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (22) as 
     paragraphs (7) through (25), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) `government astronaut' means an individual who--
       ``(A) is either--
       ``(i) an employee of the United States Government, 
     including the uniformed services, engaged in the performance 
     of a Federal function under authority of law or an Executive 
     act; or
       ``(ii) an international partner astronaut;
       ``(B) is identified by the Administrator of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration;
       ``(C) is carried within a launch vehicle or reentry 
     vehicle; and
       ``(D) may perform or may not perform activities directly 
     relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of the 
     launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.
       ``(5) `international partner astronaut' means an individual 
     designated under Article 11 of the International Space 
     Station Intergovernmental Agreement, by a partner to that 
     agreement other than the United States, as qualified to serve 
     as an International Space Station crew member.
       ``(6) `International Space Station Intergovernmental 
     Agreement' means the Agreement Concerning Cooperation on the 
     International Space Station, signed at Washington January 29, 
     1998 (TIAS 12927).''.
       (c) Definition of Launch.--Paragraph (7) of section 50902, 
     as redesignated, is amended by striking ``and any payload, 
     crew, or space flight participant'' and inserting ``and any 
     payload or human being''.
       (d) Definition of Launch Services.--Paragraph (9) of 
     section 50902, as redesignated, is amended by striking 
     ``payload, crew (including crew training), or space flight 
     participant'' and inserting ``payload, crew (including crew 
     training), government astronaut, or space flight 
     participant''.
       (e) Definition of Reenter and Reentry.--Paragraph (16) of 
     section 50902, as redesignated, is amended by striking ``and 
     its payload, crew, or space flight participants, if any,'' 
     and inserting ``and its payload or human beings, if any,''.
       (f) Definition of Reentry Services.--Paragraph (17) of 
     section 50902, as redesignated, is amended by striking 
     ``payload, crew (including crew training), or space flight 
     participant, if any,'' and inserting ``payload, crew 
     (including crew training), government astronaut, or space 
     flight participant, if any,''.
       (g) Definition of Space Flight Participant.--Paragraph (20) 
     of section 50902, as redesignated, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(20) `space flight participant' means an individual, who 
     is not crew or a government astronaut, carried within a 
     launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.''.
       (h) Definition of Third Party.--Paragraph (24)(E) of 
     section 50902, as redesignated, is amended by inserting ``, 
     government astronauts,'' after ``crew''.
       (i) Restrictions on Launches, Operations, and Reentries; 
     Single License or Permit.--Section 50904(d) is amended by 
     striking ``activities involving crew or space flight 
     participants'' and inserting ``activities involving crew, 
     government astronauts, or space flight participants''.
       (j) License Applications and Requirements; Applications.--
     Section 50905 is amended--

[[Page H3530]]

       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``crews and space 
     flight participants'' and inserting ``crew, government 
     astronauts, and space flight participants'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(2)(D), by striking ``crew or space 
     flight participants'' and inserting ``crew, government 
     astronauts, or space flight participants''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``crew and space flight 
     participants'' and inserting ``crew, government astronauts, 
     and space flight participants''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``to crew or space flight 
     participants'' each place it appears and inserting ``to crew, 
     government astronauts, or space flight participants''.
       (k) Monitoring Activities.--Section 50907(a) is amended by 
     striking ``crew or space flight participant training'' and 
     inserting ``crew, government astronaut, or space flight 
     participant training''.
       (l) Additional Suspensions.--Section 50908(d)(1) is amended 
     by striking ``to crew or space flight participants'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``to any human being''.
       (m) Enforcement and Penalty.--Section 50917(b)(1)(D)(i) is 
     amended by striking ``crew or space flight participant 
     training site,'' and inserting ``crew, government astronaut, 
     or space flight participant training site,''.
       (n) Relationship to Other Executive Agencies, Laws, and 
     International Obligations; Nonapplication.--Section 50919(g) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) Nonapplication.--
       ``(1) In general.--This chapter does not apply to--
       ``(A) a launch, reentry, operation of a launch vehicle or 
     reentry vehicle, operation of a launch site or reentry site, 
     or other space activity the Government carries out for the 
     Government; or
       ``(B) planning or policies related to the launch, reentry, 
     operation, or activity under subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--The following activities are 
     not space activities the Government carries out for the 
     Government under paragraph (1):
       ``(A) A government astronaut being carried within a launch 
     vehicle or reentry vehicle under this chapter.
       ``(B) A government astronaut performing activities directly 
     relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of the 
     launch vehicle or reentry vehicle under this chapter.''.
       (o) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act, or the 
     amendments made by this Act, may be construed to modify or 
     affect any law relating to astronauts.

     SEC. 12. STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     eliminating duplicative requirements and approvals for 
     commercial launch and reentry operations will promote and 
     encourage the development of the commercial space sector.
       (b) Reaffirmation of Policy.--Congress reaffirms that the 
     Secretary of Transportation, in overseeing and coordinating 
     commercial launch and reentry operations, should--
       (1) promote commercial space launches and reentries by the 
     private sector;
       (2) facilitate Government, State, and private sector 
     involvement in enhancing U.S. launch sites and facilities;
       (3) protect public health and safety, safety of property, 
     national security interests, and foreign policy interests of 
     the United States; and
       (4) consult with the head of another executive agency, 
     including the Secretary of Defense or the Administrator of 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as 
     necessary to provide consistent application of licensing 
     requirements under chapter 509 of title 51, United States 
     Code.
       (c) Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation under 
     section 50918 of title 51, United States Code, and subject to 
     section 50905(b)(2)(C) of that title, shall consult with the 
     Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the heads of other 
     executive agencies, as appropriate--
       (A) to identify all requirements that are imposed to 
     protect the public health and safety, safety of property, 
     national security interests, and foreign policy interests of 
     the United States relevant to any commercial launch of a 
     launch vehicle or commercial reentry of a reentry vehicle; 
     and
       (B) to evaluate the requirements identified in subparagraph 
     (A) and, in coordination with the licensee or transferee and 
     the heads of the relevant executive agencies--
       (i) determine whether the satisfaction of a requirement of 
     one agency could result in the satisfaction of a requirement 
     of another agency; and
       (ii) resolve any inconsistencies and remove any outmoded or 
     duplicative requirements or approvals of the Federal 
     Government relevant to any commercial launch of a launch 
     vehicle or commercial reentry of a reentry vehicle.
       (2) Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until the 
     Secretary of Transportation determines no outmoded or 
     duplicative requirements or approvals of the Federal 
     Government exist, the Secretary of Transportation, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator 
     of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the 
     commercial space sector, and the heads of other executive 
     agencies, as appropriate, shall submit to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives, and the congressional defense committees a 
     report that includes the following:
       (A) A description of the process for the application for 
     and approval of a permit or license under chapter 509 of 
     title 51, United States Code, for the commercial launch of a 
     launch vehicle or commercial reentry of a reentry vehicle, 
     including the identification of--
       (i) any unique requirements for operating on a United 
     States Government launch site, reentry site, or launch 
     property; and
       (ii) any inconsistent, outmoded, or duplicative 
     requirements or approvals.
       (B) A description of current efforts, if any, to coordinate 
     and work across executive agencies to define interagency 
     processes and procedures for sharing information, avoiding 
     duplication of effort, and resolving common agency 
     requirements.
       (C) Recommendations for legislation that may further--
       (i) streamline requirements in order to improve efficiency, 
     reduce unnecessary costs, resolve inconsistencies, remove 
     duplication, and minimize unwarranted constraints; and
       (ii) consolidate or modify requirements across affected 
     agencies into a single application set that satisfies the 
     requirements identified in paragraph (1)(A).
       (3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       (A) any applicable definitions set forth in section 50902 
     of title 51, United States Code, shall apply;
       (B) the terms ``launch'', ``reenter'', and ``reentry'' 
     include landing of a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle; and
       (C) the terms ``United States Government launch site'' and 
     ``United States Government reentry site'' include any 
     necessary facility, at that location, that is commercially 
     operated on United States Government property.

     SEC. 13. OPERATION AND UTILIZATION OF THE ISS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) maximum utilization of partnerships, scientific 
     research, commercial applications, and exploration test bed 
     capabilities of the ISS is essential to ensuring the greatest 
     return on investments made by the United States and its 
     international partners in the development, assembly, and 
     operations of that unique facility; and
       (2) every effort should be made to ensure that decisions 
     regarding the service life of the ISS are based on the 
     station's projected capability to continue providing 
     effective and productive research and exploration test bed 
     capabilities.
       (b) Continuation of the International Space Station.--
       (1) Maintaining use through at least 2024.--Section 70907 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 70907. Maintaining use through at least 2024

       ``(a) Policy.--The Administrator shall take all necessary 
     steps to ensure that the International Space Station remains 
     a viable and productive facility capable of potential United 
     States utilization through at least September 30, 2024.
       ``(b) NASA Actions.--In furtherance of the policy under 
     subsection (a), the Administrator shall ensure, to the extent 
     practicable, that the International Space Station, as a 
     designated national laboratory--
       ``(1) remains viable as an element of overall exploration 
     and partnership strategies and approaches;
       ``(2) is considered for use by all NASA mission 
     directorates, as appropriate, for technically appropriate 
     scientific data gathering or technology risk reduction 
     demonstrations; and
       ``(3) remains an effective, functional vehicle providing 
     research and test bed capabilities for the United States 
     through at least September 30, 2024.''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     contents for chapter 709 is amended by amending the item 
     relating to section 70907 to read as follows:

``70907. Maintaining use through at least 2024.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering this substitute amendment because I think 
we have a unique opportunity this week to pass bipartisan commercial 
space legislation that actually stands a chance of becoming law. That 
is what we need to focus on this morning.
  The choice before us is really quite straightforward. We can spend 
the morning, as we have, fighting over the provisions of H.R. 2262, 
several of which were opposed by all of the Democratic members of the 
Science, Space, and Technology Committee when its provisions were 
marked up just last week. And when we are done, Members can

[[Page H3531]]

vote, largely on party lines, to pass the bill.
  But to what end, Mr. Chairman?
  The Senate has already made it clear that H.R. 2262 has the 
proverbial snowball's chance of being adopted by the Senate.
  Pursuing House legislation, House passage of a bill that is going 
nowhere in the Senate seems to me to be the ultimate exercise in 
futility, and one that does a real disservice to the commercial space 
launch industry that all of us are trying to help succeed. But we don't 
have to go down that path.
  My amendment would replace the underlying text of H.R. 2262 with 
provisions of the bipartisan Senate commercial space bill, the one that 
was marked up in committee just yesterday.
  Let me repeat that. The language in the substitute amendment, in my 
amendment, already has garnered bipartisan support in the Senate. It is 
language that is cosponsored by Senators Ted Cruz, Bill Nelson, Cory 
Gardner, and Gary Peters, which is not something you can say about many 
other bills that we consider in the House.
  Now, the Senate bill doesn't have everything I would like to see in a 
commercial space bill. I am sure that is the same for my Republican 
colleagues and for some in the industry. That is actually how 
legislation is made.
  However, it has a core set of provisions that I think we and the 
industry can support, and that is what good compromises are all about.
  The amendment addresses key issues facing the industry. It extends 
the ``learning period'' for another 5 years. It extends third-party 
liability and indemnification of the entire regime for another 4 years.
  It provides commercial space launch licensing and experimental permit 
flexibility. It provides a NASA-sought definition of ``Government 
Astronaut'' and provides a path for streamlining commercial space 
launch activities.
  The Senate provisions also provide for a review of issues related to 
commercial activities in space, as well as matters related to space 
situational awareness data.
  They provide encouragement for the FAA and the industry to work 
together to facilitate the development of voluntary consensus 
standards, and they also ensure the International Space Station can 
remain a viable and productive facility through 2024.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what my amendment does. It doesn't give the 
commercial space industry anything or everything that some in the 
industry might want.
  But I would remind colleagues that the Senate bill has been endorsed 
by the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, the National Space Society, 
Students for Exploration and Development of Space, SpaceX, Blue Origin, 
and Virgin Galactic, among others. That is the Senate bill. That is the 
substitute that is being offered.
  So Members today can feel perfectly comfortable that my amendment is 
one that the commercial space industry believes meets its legitimate 
needs.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, we have a 
clear choice today. We can maintain a counterproductive, partisan 
divide and hold out for provisions that won't move this legislation 
even 1 inch closer to becoming law.
  Or we can step back, take a deep breath, and embrace the bipartisan 
compromise that our colleagues in the Senate have worked out. They have 
handed us a golden opportunity to move past partisan posturing and 
actually deliver legislation that can meet the needs of the commercial 
space industry and be enacted into law.
  Mr. Chairman, House Democrats support the provisions of my amendment. 
Democrats and Republicans in the Senate support the provisions of my 
amendment.
  If my Republican colleagues here today in the House can join us in 
supporting this substitute amendment, the provisions in the amendment, 
we can pass bipartisan legislation that could be on its way to the 
President for enactment in a matter of weeks.
  I can think of no better way to end this week, and I urge Members to 
vote ``yes'' on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment seeks to strike and replace the entire underlying bill 
with Senate legislation which differs with the House bill in many 
respects.
  The Senate bill, S. 1297, is a work product of the Senate. It has not 
been negotiated with any Member of this Chamber. In fact, the Senate 
just marked up the bill yesterday. This amendment abdicates the House's 
legislative responsibilities to the Senate.
  The SPACE Act paves the way for the next generation of explorers and 
innovators. This amendment prevents the House from providing any 
direction for the future of space exploration.
  We must consider what we will forfeit if we accept this amendment. 
The amendment significantly shortens the extension of the regulatory 
learning period and the extension of the indemnification regime.
  These changes reduce certainty in the commercial launch market and 
could threaten the jobs of thousands of Americans. These are hard-
working men and women who depend on the extension of these laws for 
their jobs. They count on us to provide some certainty for their 
industry.
  This amendment strikes all of the commonsense transparency provisions 
in the SPACE Act and significantly shortens the extension of the 
learning period. This extension is essential to the health of the 
commercial space industry.
  Also, this amendment includes a significant reduction to the 
regulatory flexibility provided in the underlying bill. The underlying 
bill requires assessments from the FAA on the growth of the industry, 
constructive interactions between stakeholders and the FAA, a glide 
path to a safety framework that enables and encourages innovations, and 
improvements in safety.
  These are all part of a development structure that combines lessons 
learned from the industry with the inherent government function to 
protect the public.
  The underlying bill preserves FAA's ability to regulate commercial 
human spaceflight in order to protect national security, public health, 
and safety. It also preserves FAA's existing authorities to regulate 
spaceflight participant and crew safety.

  This amendment does not include any comparable benchmarking tools for 
Congress to monitor the growth of the industry. The amendment removes 
the ability of stakeholders to work with the FAA to develop safety 
standards that will improve the industry as a whole.
  The amendment will have a chilling effect on the industry and put 
stakeholders on the defense against an onslaught of government 
intervention and possible lawsuits. This does not support a dynamic 
space economy or encourage innovation.
  This amendment assumes that the commercial space industry has not 
placed a priority on safety. It is unfortunate that the minority looks 
at the American entrepreneurial spirit in this way.
  Under the Senate bill, spaceflight participants would be exposed to 
significant financial risk and liability. This amendment strikes the 
vital provisions of the underlying bill which help ensure that human 
spaceflight is available to anyone who wants to participate.
  The minority talks a lot about safety. I appreciate that. I think 
everyone involved in the space industry places a high priority on these 
endeavors being as safe as possible. I just wish the minority had a 
higher opinion of the scientists, engineers, and technicians building 
these systems.
  Let's be clear. Space is inherently risky. America's memory is 
imprinted with tragic events such as the Apollo 1 fire, Challenger, and 
Columbia. The appropriate way to improve safety systems and reduce risk 
is to test, launch, learn, study, and repeat.
  The entire space industry is behind this bill.
  I do not oppose the gentlewoman's amendment simply because the Senate 
bill has no good qualities. I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment 
because it would abdicate the responsibilities of the House.

[[Page H3532]]

  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and not turn their backs 
on so many space companies.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentlewoman.
  I rise in strong support of Ms. Edwards' amendment. This amendment 
offers the possibility of actually accomplishing something worthwhile 
today and is an amendment that should garner bipartisan support.
  Just last week, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee reported 
out H.R. 2262 and H.R. 1508 on party-line votes. Of course, we had 
moved to markup without any hearings on commercial space issues in the 
114th Congress, nor a legislative hearing on either bill, nor a 
subcommittee markup. It is, thus, not surprising that they could not 
garner any significant bipartisan support for these bills.
  And yet, now here we are on the floor, with these same bills. If we 
take the same path we took in yesterday's consideration of the COMPETES 
legislation, we will get a similar result, a partisan vote, and a bill 
that will never become law.
  Ms. Edwards offers us another way forward. Just yesterday, the Senate 
Commerce Committee favorably reported out S. 1297, the Senate's 
bipartisan commercial space bill, a bill introduced by Senators Ted 
Cruz and Bill Nelson.

                              {time}  1200

  As I said, it is a bipartisan bill that was endorsed by a large 
segment of the commercial space industry when it was introduced. The 
gentlewoman from Maryland's (Ms. Edwards) amendment simply incorporates 
provisions of S. 1297 into her amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of engaging in a meaningful exercise, we could 
vote today to approve bipartisan legislation that Senate Democrats and 
Republicans are supporting.
  While the Senate bill is not the bill I would have written, it is a 
vast improvement over the bill we have before us today.
  As the gentleman said earlier, America is exceptional. And that is 
why we have a Congress. That is why we have committee structure. That 
is why we have subcommittees that examine issues and listen to 
witnesses. That is why we have committee work. It provides really a 
means for us to come together.
  The bill that is in the Senate provides constructive updates to the 
Commercial Space Launch Act.
  I know that some Members want to go further than the Senate bill in 
some areas, but the reality is, there is no bipartisan consensus to 
doing so. And if we proceed to pass H.R. 2262, we will have passed a 
bill that the Senate probably will not take up. We did that with the 
COMPETES bill yesterday. Do we really want to continue to waste our 
time in the same way again this morning?
  Holding out hope that somehow these contentious provisions will find 
favor in a House-Senate conference is also an exercise in futility. 
Time is not on our side in dealing with the two expiring authorities in 
this bill, and we know from experience that Congress can act to extend 
them without passing a commercial space bill.
  I think that outcome would be unfortunate, but I see little 
likelihood that the Senate will do anything with H.R. 2262 in its 
current form. And in a conference, I think that House Democrats will be 
disinclined to support provisions that we are opposing today.
  Ms. Edwards' amendment offers us an opportunity to avoid months of 
pointless back-and-forth between the two Chambers. We can pass 
legislation that we already know has bipartisan support in the Senate, 
and if we do, we can look forward to seeing a bill head to the 
President's desk within weeks. All it takes is my Republican colleagues 
being willing to forgo the temptation to posture for that last extra 
bit of advantage and, instead, accept a reasonable compromise bill that 
will do much to meet the legitimate needs of the commercial space 
launch industry.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine), who is a member of the Science, Space, 
and Technology Committee and is also the chairman of the Environment 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I thank the chairman of the Science Committee for 
yielding and for his strong leadership on working this bill through 
regular order so that all of the amendments that we have made, all the 
Members have had their voices heard in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
Maryland.
  The language she is proposing to insert into our House bill is 
authored by Senator Cruz of Texas, and it does have bipartisan support 
with Senator Nelson of Florida. But there are provisions that we got 
included because of the open process that we went through that are not 
included in that bill.
  I would like to just run through a few of those that I, myself, got 
included into this bill, starting with section 110, which was an 
amendment I offered at markup that will require a GAO report to capture 
the role of space support vehicles--training vehicles, if you will--in 
the commercial space industry; regulatory and statutory barriers to the 
services these vehicles offer and recommendations for updates that will 
address these barriers. This is critically important in my neck of the 
woods. In the State of Oklahoma, we have a spaceport at Burns Flat. 
There are businesses there that are very interested in doing training 
for commercial crew and commercial spaceflight participants.
  This was a provision of the bill that went through an open process. 
It was an amendment that was accepted in a very bipartisan way. And I 
am hopeful that when the full bill gets to the floor, it also will be 
accepted in a bipartisan way.
  Additionally, title III of this bill incorporates H.R. 2261, the 
Commercial Remote Sensing Act, which was also bipartisan legislation 
that I introduced with my friend from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter). This 
title sets metrics to give Congress a full picture of the workload 
facing the Department of Commerce when licensing remote sensing 
activities and what issues are preventing them from meeting statutory 
deadlines.
  Title III also recognizes the importance of seeking input from the 
Advisory Committee for Commercial Remote Sensing, which is largely made 
up of private sector representatives. This legislation will be crucial 
as industry expands beyond traditional remote sensing satellites and 
activities and as Congress looks to update the statutes governing these 
activities for the first time since the 1990s.
  My case for this being bipartisan is that I worked very hard with the 
other side on the amendments that I ultimately got into this bill. 
There were some amendments that maybe were not as bipartisan. But I 
would attest that there is support on the other side of the aisle for a 
lot of the provisions that we got into this bill.
  I look forward to taking a vote on this bill. I oppose the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute. I encourage all my colleagues to pass 
the bill that went through regular order in the House of 
Representatives. I hear a lot of people talking about regular order. 
This was a very open process. Everybody had their voice heard. I 
encourage passage of the bill but not passage of the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, we have offered my 
amendment in the nature of a substitute because we are interested not 
just in making speeches here on the House floor, but we are interested 
in passing law and good policy that will be signed by the President, 
that will set the commercial space industry onto a pathway of continued 
innovation and success.
  As has been described, the Senate yesterday, out of committee, marked 
up a bill that is bipartisan in nature. And because of the 
negotiations, there are not going to be any changes.
  We want to make law for the industry, and we believe that this 
amendment in the nature of a substitute is good policy. I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the amendment.

[[Page H3533]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
substitute amendment and to support the underlying bill, which has 
significant improvements to the Senate bill, and that is why we should 
pass it.
  I will now enter into the Record an exchange of letters between the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology regarding H.R. 2262.

                                                     May 18, 2015.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith: I write concerning H.R. 2262, the 
     Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and 
     Entrepreneurship Act of 2015. This legislation includes 
     matters that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       In order to expedite floor consideration of H.R. 2262, the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will forgo 
     action on this bill. However, this is conditional on our 
     mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill 
     does not prejudice the Committee with respect to the 
     appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional 
     claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or 
     similar legislation that fall within the Committee's Rule X 
     jurisdiction. I request you urge the Speaker to name members 
     of the Committee to any conference committee named to 
     consider such provisions.
       Please place a copy of this letter and your response 
     acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on 
     the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Shuster,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                     May 18, 2015.
     Hon. Bill Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's 
     jurisdictional interest in H.R. 2262, the ``Spurring Private 
     Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015.''
       I agree that the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional interests in matters 
     pertaining to the Federal Aviation Administration and the 
     National Transportation Safety Board, and that your 
     Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely affected by 
     your decision to forego consideration of H.R. 2262. As you 
     have requested, I will support your request for an 
     appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your 
     Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this 
     or similar legislation, if in your jurisdiction, should such 
     a conference be convened.
       Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this 
     response in the Congressional Record during the floor 
     consideration of this bill. Thank you again for your 
     cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lamar Smith,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 236, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 261]

                               AYES--173

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lieu, Ted
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Allen
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blackburn
     Brat
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Carter (GA)
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Crawford
     Davis, Danny
     Donovan
     Lewis
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Noem
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Tsongas

                              {time}  1233

  Messrs. GROTHMAN and TED LIEU of California changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. MASSIE, JONES, Ms. KUSTER, Messrs. DOGGETT and GENE GREEN of 
Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 261, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Thursday, May 21, 2015, I was absent 
during rollcall vote No. 261. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye'' on the Edwards Amendment to H.R. 2262, Spurring Private 
Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015.
  Stated against:
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 261 I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

[[Page H3534]]

  Mr. BRAT. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 261 I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 261 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Black) having assumed the chair, Mr. Stewart, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2262) to 
facilitate a pro-growth environment for the developing commercial space 
industry by encouraging private sector investment and creating more 
stable and predictable regulatory conditions, and for other purposes, 
and, pursuant to House Resolution 273, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on adoption of House Resolution 274.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 284, 
nays 133, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 262]

                               YEAS--284

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     Latta
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--133

     Adams
     Amash
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Neal
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bera
     Blackburn
     Capps
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Crawford
     Davis, Danny
     Donovan
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Noem
     Smith (WA)
     Tsongas

                              {time}  1243

  Mr. MOULTON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, May 21st, 2015, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 262. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``nay'' on passage of H.R. 2262, Spurring Private Aerospace 
Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015.

                          ____________________