Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source