American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 2809, the ``American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017''. Before turning to my substantive concerns with the bill, I must note my disappointment with the process followed by the Majority--a…
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 2809, the ``American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017''. Before turning to my substantive concerns with the bill, I must note my disappointment with the process followed by the Majority--a process that led to the Majority's putting this bill on today's suspension calendar without any attempt to engage with the Minority to address our concerns in the ten months since the bill was marked up in the Science Committee. That is not the way we should be legislating in this House.
However, here we are. I would anticipate that very few Members have had any opportunity to review this legislation or to examine the issues it raises. So in my remaining time, I will attempt to identify a few of the concerns I have with this bill.
First, H.R. 2809 proposes a significant realignment of governmental space organizations, and a very significant increase in the responsibilities and authorities to be given the Department of Commerce's Office of Space Commerce--an office that currently has only a handful of employees. These would include the authorization and supervision of nongovernmental space activities. At the same time, the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA AST), which has built up significant expertise and staff over the years in the areas of licensing commercial space launches and reentries and which has coordinated authorization of a non-traditional space mission, would have no significant role in any of the commercial space activities covered in this bill beyond launch and reentry licenses. As a result, DoC will have to build a new bureaucracy to carry out its new duties, and in the process have to duplicate the skills that already reside in FAA's AST. All of this would be set in motion without a single House hearing on the proposal or any other substantive review of it.
At the same time that the Department of Commerce is given those significant new responsibilities, including ensuring compliance with the Outer Space Treaty, something that has been and is a core responsibility of the State Department, the bill would significantly limit DoC's ability to disapprove a certification application as long as the paperwork is complete, regardless of any non-Outer Space Treaty- related concerns involving U.S. international obligations that the application might raise. Again, all of these measures are included in the bill without any substantive prior congressional review of the proposals. I could go on and cite other examples, but in the interests of time I will just note that the bill also would significantly weaken the enforcement of the international standards and guidelines covering ``planetary protection'', i.e., the prevention of contamination of scientifically important sites on planetary surfaces or moons that might accrue from commercial space activities. These standards and guidelines were largely shaped by NASA through years of engagement in relevant international bodies, but the bill would replace them with a largely laissez-faire approach to the problem of potential contamination by commercial space activities.
Mr. Speaker, I will stop with that example. I could cite concerns raised by a number of agencies, including NASA, but the reality is that none of them are going to be resolved by today's House debate on the suspension bill H.R. 2809. The potential for unintended negative consequences from provisions that have not been thoroughly vetted should give all of us pause, as should the pages and pages of comments from agencies such as NASA that warrant attention before the Congress finalizes legislation. For example, NASA's has raised a concern about the bill's ambiguity as to whether its activities will be subject to the oversight of another federal agency, especially those that involve the use of commercial services as part of a NASA mission, which could adversely impact its ability to carry out its challenging initiatives.
In closing, the bill before us attempts to address important issues that need our attention if we are to appropriately balance the needs of the emerging commercial space industry and the government's responsibility to protect the interests of America's citizens and honor our international obligations. It makes a positive contribution to the debate on how best to proceed in undertaking future commercial and governmental space endeavors. However, for the reasons I have already discussed, I think the bill is only partially successful in that attempt. In any event, many of these complex issues are not going to be resolved by a single piece of legislation and will likely require legislative efforts over multiple Congresses. That said, the bill before us does represent a useful starting point for discussion and debate. As a result, I do not intend to oppose this bill moving out of the House today. Instead, if after this bill leaves the House, the Senate decides to engage on this legislation or its own legislative approach, I hope and expect that the issues I have flagged today--along with others--will receive the bicameral scrutiny that they deserve.