[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.
____________________