Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, I think the American public must be quite confused about what we are currently debating in this Chamber. The amendment I rise in strong support of strikes section 422 which prevents funds from being used to ``develop, adopt, implement, administer or enforce any change . . . pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction'' of the Clean Water Act (CWA). I would like to remind the other side that, thanks to the Clean Water Act, billions of pounds of pollution have been kept out of our rivers, and the number of waters that now meet clean water goals nationwide has actually doubled with direct benefits for drinking water, public health, recreation, and wildlife. This is especially true for my home State of Maryland that is within the six-State Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is fed by 110,000 miles of creeks, rivers, and streams; covers 64,000 square miles; includes over 11,500 miles of shorelines; contains 150 major rivers and streams; and is home to over 17 million people. And this watershed's land-to-water ratio is 14-1, the largest of any coastal water body in the world. Several of its tributaries, including the Anacostia, the Patuxent, Potomac, and Severn Rivers flow through the Fourth Congressional District. 70 percent of Marylanders get our drinking water from sources that rely on headwater or seasonal streams. Nationwide, 117 million people, or over a third of the total population, get our water from these waters. However, due to the two Supreme Court decisions, there is, in fact, widespread confusion as to what falls under the protection of the Clean Water Act. That is precisely why the Obama administration finalized their rule clarifying the limits of Federal jurisdiction under the Act on May 27, 2015. The agencies finalized the clean water protection rule after over a year of public outreach on their then proposed rule at a scale unprecedented in the history of the Clean Water Act, as well as countless congressional hearings. Madam Chair, supporters of this provision have complained about the confusion in the litigation. That is precisely why we needed to get through the final rulemaking, which has been years in the making. That is what the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Government to do 14 years ago with the 2001 SWANCC decision and, subsequently, the 2006 Rapanos case. Along with those Supreme Court decisions, the Bush administration followed the exact same process in issuing two guidance documents in 2003 and 2008. Up until the final rule issued just over a month ago, they remained in force. It is, in fact, these two Bush-era guidance documents that have compounded the confusion, uncertainty, and increased compliance costs faced by our constituents--opponents and proponents alike--who all just say they want clarity. You don't actually have to take my word for it. In fact, let me quote from the comments made by the American Farm Bureau Federation, something I don't do all that often: ``With no clear regulatory definitions to guide their determinations, what has emerged is a hodgepodge of ad hoc and inconsistent jurisdictional theories.'' Those are the words of the American Farm Bureau Federation. We all agree that it is confusing. That is why it was so important that this administration finish what the Bush administration started and failed to do, and that is publish a final rule that gives stakeholders the clarity they have been seeking for 14 years. Madam Chair, despite nearly universal calls for increased clarity and certainty from certain stakeholders, my colleagues have made it a priority to prohibit the implementation of the final clean water rulemaking entirely. It is really clear that what they want to do is stop these agencies from doing their jobs at all--no new rules and no clean water, what a shame for our natural resources, our public health, and our environment. I urge my colleagues to support the Quigley-Edwards amendment to strike this harmful and shameful provision.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to strike section 438. Section 438 would prohibit any funds in this Act from being used to even propose a national ozone standard that is less than that currently in law until at least 85 percent of the counties across the country that do not currently meet that standard achieve full compliance. Now, the current ozone standard under title 40 is 75 parts per billion; but, Mr. Chair, we had a series of hearings in our House Science Committee earlier this year where we heard strong testimony from scientists at State pollution control agencies and physicians at hospitals all telling us that the current standard is not in line with the current science. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee declared as far back as 2008 that they believe that the current standard of 75 parts per billion is insufficient to protect public health. In fact, right now, the ozone standard can mislead people to believe that the air, in fact, is safe to breathe when it is not. Studies conducted by the American Lung Association have shown more than 4 out of every 10 people in the United States live in places where ozone levels often make it dangerous to breathe. The current standard rates, what we now know to be very dangerous air quality, as code yellow or moderate. This can lead those who are particularly at risk of ozone-related illness, such as children and senior citizens, to unwittingly be exposed to harmful levels of ozone. This has the potential to impact millions of people in every State across the Nation. Just look at my own home State of Maryland. There are 145,000 children with pediatric asthma. Over 430,000 adults have asthma. Mr. Chairman, 246,000 people in my State have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD, and 367,000 people in our State have cardiovascular disease that is related to ozone. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommends that, in order to protect the public health, the EPA set the primary ozone standard between 60 and 70 parts per billion. In November of last year, the EPA did exactly what it is supposed to do. It looked at the strong scientific evidence showing the health risks of ozone, and it issued a proposed rule to lower the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to a standard within the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion. Setting that standard begins a 2-year process designed to identify areas with too much ozone. Once those areas are identified, State and local governments can craft plans tailored to their areas using cost- effective approaches. This new standard, based on the most current science, will help to provide a framework for these plans, which, in turn, will help our States continue along the path to clean air. And yet, here we are, and this provision that I am providing to strike would stop the EPA from even proposing a standard of 70 parts per billion. This is the responsibility of the EPA. This new standard would protect Americans' health and our environment. In addition, an analysis conducted by the EPA shows that, though the annual cost of the proposed standard of 70 parts per billion might be around $3.9 billion, the health benefits are estimated to reach between $6.4 billion and $13 billion annually. Mr. Chairman, ground level ozone is harmful to the public health. It contributes to asthma attacks, decreased lung function, respiratory infection, and even death. Breathing ozone is dangerous for everyone, but particularly for children, for the elderly and people of all ages who have lung diseases. We need to allow the EPA--in fact, empower the EPA--to follow the science and create minimum standards necessary to protect public health. I urge my colleagues to protect these vulnerable populations as well as clean air for every American, and vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, here we have heard again the exaggerated claims about implementation, so let's get to the facts. The first fact, the scientists tell us that this is a standard that we need to protect the public health. The second fact, the EPA estimates that the cost might be around $3.9 billion. But let's look at the health benefits, because those are costing us currently. The health benefits are estimated to reach between $6.4 and $13 billion, and that means that there is a ripple effect when we invest in making sure that we implement a standard that protects the public health, and it has a benefit on the public health. So, Mr. Chairman, there is an argument here for the EPA to simply do its job, the job that it was charged to do by taxpayers, and that is to protect the public health, to give us clean air, and to make sure that we have ozone standards that in fact meet our responsibility. The EPA is doing its job. Let's stop Congress from keeping the EPA from keeping our air clean. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, here we go again, yet another fix in search of a problem. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Goodlatte's amendment. It would deliberately undermine the crucial work that is already being done to rehabilitate the Chesapeake Bay. It would also undermine the historic Federal-State partnership that has done so much already to improve the quality of the Bay and its surroundings. Mr. Chairman, the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. It is the Nation's largest estuary. It benefits all Americans, and especially those living in the six States that comprise the Bay watershed: Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, and the District of Columbia. The States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including the gentleman's own home State of Virginia, have been working together for over 40 years to clean up the Bay. And guess what, Mr. Chairman? It is working. The Chesapeake Bay Program's most recent interim report shows that tremendous progress has been made. States are meeting the pollution reduction goals in their plans. In fact, some are exceeding them. Studies show that so-called ``dead zones'' are shrinking, and key populations such as oysters are starting to rebound. Under the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint, States develop and implement their own pollution reduction plans. The EPA set up an initial framework, but the details of how each State chooses to reach the targets, in fact, are State-driven and State-implemented. My own home State of Maryland has created a plan to reduce its nitrogen levels by 46 percent, phosphorus by 48 percent, and sediment by 28 percent below the benchmark 1985 levels. Of course, each of the Bay watershed States depends on the other States to implement these plans simultaneously and in good faith. After all, Mr. Chairman, watersheds don't stop at the State borders, and the kind of go-it-alone approach that seems to be advocated by the majority has never worked for environmental issues, and it will not work to preserve and to save the Chesapeake Bay. Failure, for example, by one State to do its part threatens the work and hundreds of millions of dollars that all the other States have invested in their plans. I don't want to see Maryland's work jeopardized because another State in the watershed doesn't meet its responsibilities. And only the EPA can stand as the arbiter to make sure that that is true. So, Mr. Chairman, as a safety measure against that kind of bad faith by one of the partners, the EPA has backstop actions that it can take to ensure that the other States' investments are preserved. These backstop actions are not new authorities, but they are existing authorities that the EPA can use to make the needed pollution reductions. That has been part of the partnership for 40 years. In fact, just yesterday, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia unanimously affirmed the EPA's authority to place restrictions on wastewater treatment and runoff by farms and construction. The EPA places limits on the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment that are allowed in the watershed and, thus, into the Bay. This is known as the total maximum daily load, or TMDL, of chemical runoff that the Bay's watershed can handle while still meeting water quality standards. The court in its decision strongly affirmed that ``the States and EPA could, working together, best allocate the benefits and burdens of lowering pollution.'' It is, in fact, an acknowledgment that this is a partnership that requires the full participation of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Chairman, the goal of the partnership is not just an environmental one. According to a peer-reviewed report by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the economic impact of full implementation of the Clean Water Blueprint is more than $22 billion annually. Yet this amendment by one of Virginia's own Members actually threatens that partnership by barring the EPA from using funds to take any backstop actions. It would allow one State to break its agreement and cease implementing the plan. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chair, I wish to join my colleague from Alabama, Congresswoman Sewell, to support this amendment, which would restore necessary funding for preserving our nation's Civil Rights history. This amendment would increase funding by $2.5 million for documentation and preservation of Civil Rights history, as well as restoring $2.5 million for the rehabilitation and preservation of historic sites on the campuses of HBCUs. In my own state of Maryland, the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Monument in Dorchester is currently putting together educational programming in conjunction with the Harriet Tubman State Park, which is slated to open later this year. This National Monument is an important part of telling our American story--especially in light of the fact that, currently, only 26 of our nation's 460 national parks have a primary focus on African-American history. It is our responsibility as federal representatives to come together in order to preserve the history of our nation and its people. We must keep this commitment to preserve the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement, and the land and structures that will keep that legacy alive. I encourage all of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, to support this amendment.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I reintroduced the Stop Overdose Stat (S.O.S.) Act, legislation that will curb the nation's growing opioid overdose rates. Joined by Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, our legislation will establish a grant program that funds efforts to educate and train the public, first responders, and caregivers of those at-risk of overdose on how to administer naloxone, a drug that reverses the effects of heroin and opioid overdoses until proper medical care can be provided. We remain encouraged that this important legislation can be funded during the Fiscal Year 2016 appropriations cycle, a reflection of the Obama Administration's priority to expand naloxone access across our nation. Since I first introduced this bill in 2009, nearly 140,000 Americans have died from opioid related deaths, including more than 4,000 from my home state of Maryland. I thank Sen. Reed for leading this effort on the Senate side, committing to the idea that Washington lawmakers have a responsibility to fund proven programs that make a real difference in treating and preventing overdose, and ultimately saving lives. And while I understand that there is much work to be done in order to address substance abuse before it gets to the point of overdose, each year hundreds of Maryland families and tens of thousands of American families need immediate assistance. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this important and much needed piece of legislation.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. It is such a danger, Mr. Speaker, that the majority is trying to move through the back door what it could not get through the front door on the floor of this House last week. And they are doing it in the most shameful way, Mr. Speaker: hiding behind our first responders. That is right; hiding behind firefighters and emergency personnel. The International Association of Firefighters, representing more than 300,000 firefighters and emergency room personnel, oppose what is being done here today on this floor, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. There is one thing that I agree with the gentleman from Texas about. This is a donkey that died last week when we stood up for American workers, small businesses, and American jobs. And right now that donkey is like roadkill, and we are going to kill it right here on the floor of this House of Representatives. We know that this body can pass legislation that in fact is not just about free trade, but is about free trade--and they are not doing it today--protecting our workers, protecting our climate, protecting our Buy America provisions for our procurement. And so, Mr. Speaker, even as we are just getting word of the Pope's encyclical on climate change and overwhelmingly recognizing the human cost to us all, we have a letter from our U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Froman, saying that this deal doesn't do anything to deal with the authority of the administration to negotiate climate change. That, in fact, is shameful. And what we are doing here today is against American workers, against American businesses, and against American jobs. It is time to kill this donkey once and for all by putting it to rest and coming back to the table to reset for the American workers.

Ms. EDWARDS

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.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member.

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.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. EDWARDS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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.

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.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Restoring Education and Learning (REAL) Act, legislation that will curb our nation's high incarceration rate through the avenue of education. Joined by Reps. Davis, Lee, Scott, DeLauro and Richmond, our legislation will reinstate Pell Grant eligibility to federal and state prisoners, which was allowed from 1972-1995. A provision in the 1994 omnibus crime bill amended the 1965 Higher Education Act and reversed this rehabilitating and well invested policy. Back then, 350 postsecondary prison programs in 37 states existed across the nation for incarcerated individuals. That ability to gain post-secondary education has been drastically reduced to about a dozen today. Subsequently, our state and federal population has increased by nearly 50 percent from 1 million to 1.5 million today. According to a recent Vera Institute study, it costs American taxpayers roughly $31,000 a year to house an inmate. In my home state of Maryland, it costs taxpayers more than $38,000 a year to house an inmate. Overall, our nation spends roughly $40 billion a year on correctional facilities. This comes despite a recent report by the RAND Corporation, which found that for every $1 investment in prison education programs there is a $4-5 dollar reduction in incarceration costs during the first three years post-release of a prisoner. Earlier this month, I visited the Maryland Correctional Institution in Jessup as an observer of Goucher College's Prison Education Partnership. I was inspired as I sat down with incarcerated men and women taking college courses and asking for the opportunity to better serve society once they are released. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this important and much needed piece of legislation.