Bill Posey

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, it has been said that this could be restrictive. Well, I just want to point out that never, ever before this year in the history of this program have they ever loaned $600 million under this program, and so I don't think it is unduly restrictive. I mentioned discussing some other amendments, and I am staring down the barrel of taxpayers being on the hook for $1.7 billion on one program that clearly is not going to be able to repay the loan, so it is going to fall on the shoulders of the taxpayer. I think it is just common sense that we take this measure on behalf of our honest, hard-working taxpayers at home. They work hard and play by the rules. I think we should respect that. There are some people that just consider the Federal Government to be a big pinata, and everybody is going to take their whack at it and get all the goodies and the candy and the money that falls out of it, but this money has got to be paid back some day. We are not going to do it. We are not going to be around here to do it. It is going to be paid back by our children, and I think we need to act responsibly and think about their future. I urge my colleagues to please support this commonsense amendment for better accountability in our government. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill adequately funds the Space Launch System, the rocket which will carry the Orion capsule into space, and I am grateful for that. It adequately funds exploration ground systems, which are essential to getting Orion off the ground, and I am really grateful for that. But without sufficiently funding the Orion capsule, we will be delaying the deep space exploration missions. Orion is a very unique and very special spacecraft, unlike any we have ever sent into space, possessing capabilities to carry astronauts deeper into space than humans have ever gone before. The technological and engineering challenges are enormous, and it requires proper funding to get the job done. It is critical that Orion receives adequate funding to remain on schedule. My rough calculations indicate this funding level, so much less than authorized, can result in the delay of having Orion online by as much as 2 years. Imagine having our space launch systems ready to go, our exploration ground systems ready to go, and no space capsule ready to fly for 2 more years after that. That would be disastrous. Unfortunately, when Congress assigns tasks to NASA and does not provide adequate funding, American's space program gets criticized and maligned for being behind schedule, when it is actually Congress that caused the problem. I thank my colleagues for their work on this issue, and I am hopeful that we can work together to make certain Orion gets enough funding to stay on schedule to carry humans into space, deep space, by 2021. I thank Chairman Culberson for his work on this and his assurance that we can work together to secure adequate funding to keep Orion on schedule.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Brooks from Alabama be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2036.

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). 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. 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.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Despite some of the comments we have heard from across the aisle this morning, I remember my first 2 years, my first term here, and not one time was I allowed to even file a single amendment to a single bill here. All the rules were closed, and it was run like a king would run a kingdom, not a democratic republic. Here, today, I think the other side has already filed seven amendments on one of these bills. That is seven times more than I ever got to dream about filing when you ran this place. Another great thing about this bill, you actually get to read it before we pass it. We have done all our bills like that since we have taken control. You actually get to read the bills before they are passed. When you all were in the majority, we had to pass them before you read them. I think you remember the famous quote. You refer to this as a grab bag. The only grab bag I see here is the litany of totally unrelated subjects rattled off, as if they somehow related to this bill. I mean, that doesn't pass the straight face test. Now to the bill. I would like to thank the majority leader, Kevin McCarthy, and Chairman Lamar Smith for their hard work on the SPACE Act. The SPACE Act will help ensure American leadership in space, facilitating the growth and stability of the commercial space industry. This is an important, historic, and exciting piece of legislation. This legislation includes many important provisions to update our laws and the oversight of the commercial space industry, including title 2 of the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act-- historic, bipartisan, bicameral legislation introduced with my colleague from the State of Washington, Derek Kilmer. I appreciate the support H.R. 1508, incorporated herein, has received from many members of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the thorough work and research of Senators Patty Murray and Marco Rubio, who introduced identical legislation in the United States Senate. The SPACE Act also includes a provision which would streamline regulations and encourage cooperation between government agencies' commercial space activities to eliminate red tape and bureaucracy that are impeding development of America's commercial space industry. The Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other agencies are all involved in overseeing many commercial space launches, and sometimes there are duplicative measures that could be streamlined, cutting costs to both the Federal Government and commercial companies and making the United States companies more competitive in the global marketplace. Let me add that this bill includes a provision requiring the FAA to provide direction for space support vehicles, also known as experimental aircraft. Unfortunately, for too long, the FAA has held off providing direction by means of a regulatory framework for these endeavors to safely support the United States commercial space endeavors. In Florida, there is such an entity, approved by NASA and operating out of the Kennedy Space Center, which the FAA grounded because they use experimental aircraft. This is a testament that FAA needs serious reform and needs to be brought into the 21st century. In short, the SPACE Act is a critical piece of legislation to the future of our commercial space industry, and it is important to our space exploration efforts as well. I thank my colleagues again for their work on the SPACE Act and urge all Members to support the rule today and passage of this important legislation.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I would like to speak in support of her amendment.

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I would like to support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do so. They are putting in a high-speed rail in my State now, running over 100 miles through my district, something that will go 120-plus miles an hour through the middle of small towns and communities which are ill- prepared and ill-equipped to safely facilitate that high rate of traffic. I wish I had thought ahead to bring some illustrations, photographs, or diagrams of some of the intersections that this train will go blazing through without much thought to the pedestrians, the vehicles, the men, women, and children in the community that will be put in danger by it. I think this is a great amendment. If you are going to use Federal money--I see that the gentlelady said it is for projects that use Federal money, not an unfunded mandate--but if you are going to use the Federal money, you are going to use these RIF loans, some of which appear to be in the process of being granted in direct conflict of the requirements of granting the RIF loans, the very least we could do is insist that the money is used safely in our districts. The very least we could do is insist that the money is used safely in our districts. So I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I urge my colleagues to support this great amendment.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, on December 20, 2014, Brevard County families, businesses and local community organizations will gather together to celebrate the Sixth Annual Christmas Extravaganza. This wonderful event, which will take place at the Max K. Rodes Park in West Melbourne, will provide an uplifting message of hope during this Christmas season as so many families are still facing difficult challenges. The House at Palm Bay, Brevard County Parks & Recreation and their business partners have recognized the importance of providing a positive venue for residents and children to celebrate Christmas. What makes the Christmas Extravaganza so special is that there is no cost to attend--everything is absolutely free to the public. From cotton candy and hot dogs, to live music performed by the Bay West Church Band, and fun activities for children, such as face painting, rock wall climbing, bounce houses, and a robotics demonstration, the sponsors of this annual event have committed to serving others during this Christmas season and giving back to their community in order to make a difference in someone's life. This year, over sixty local businesses and organizations have made donations of food, gift certificates, equipment, cash and goodie bags. Toys for Tots will again make donations of toys for local children while the Sheriff, law enforcement officials and firemen have all volunteered their time. Florida Institute of Technology has partnered with The House at Palm Bay's Christmas Extravaganza team to provide free trolley rides for children and adults alike. Also, this year the Heritage High School Marching Band will be performing along with members of The House at Palm Bay's drama team which will provide their rendition of the Music Box, a Musical Drama for all ages. Senior Pastor Ken Delgado of The House at Palm Bay said, ``The essence of Christmas is about sacrificial giving. Parents do everything possible, to their own hurt, to bless their families. What an honor it is to see the business community sacrificially coming together to create a moment where families can find love, hope and joy--it's the example of the love, hope and joy that was expressed through the life of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago.'' The Cities of Palm Bay and Melbourne have issued proclamations of support for this year's Christmas Extravaganza and the Brevard County Commission passed a resolution commending these efforts and encouraging families to attend. I salute all those who have given so much to make the Annual Christmas Extravaganza possible, and applaud all the communities across our great nation who have seized upon this opportunity to spread the Christmas spirit through good deeds and charitable acts.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I, again, want to thank Congressman LoBiondo for his work on this National Estuary Program and this legislation to reauthorize this important program for another 5 years. Thank you also for working with me on provisions for my bill, which I introduced with Representative Murphy of Florida--H.R. 5117, the Estuary Urgent Needs Priority Program. Our provision establishes a competitive awards program for estuaries to help prioritize funding to estuaries facing urgent needs. It does so without spending any additional money. We simply reprioritize and require all money appropriated from Congress for estuaries to actually be spent on estuaries. Mr. Speaker, the National Estuary Program encourages communities to work toward having healthy estuaries by providing annual base grants for projects to improve and to monitor the quality of their water and the species that live in them. Healthy estuaries provide a diverse home for flora and fauna. Estuaries also provide for countless hours of recreational enjoyment and billions of dollars in economic impact. My congressional district is home to one of the most diverse estuaries in the country, if not in the world--the Indian River Lagoon. Our lagoon's natural beauty has always been central to our community as a key to improving our quality of life, as a recreational area for fishing and boating with friends and family, and as a significant contributor to our local economy. I raised my family along this 156- mile lagoon, and I know firsthand how important this legislation is to making our local estuary program a success. We have all seen the adverse consequences of sea grass loss and harmful algae blooms. The opportunity to compete for additional funding, which this bill provides, would be a valuable tool in combating the types of issues we have seen in our estuary. The bill before us redirects money away from the EPA's Washington bureaucracy and toward actual projects and initiatives across the Nation's estuaries. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation so that we can continue the great work that the NEP provides as it facilitates estuary protection and restoration initiatives.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, on October 24, 2014, Honor America, Inc. will celebrate its 40th Anniversary and hold its 3rd Annual Patriot Awards Dinner at the Rialto Hilton in Melbourne, Florida. Founded in 1974 in Washington, D.C. by the Rev. Billy Graham, Bob Hope, Hobart Lewis, and J. W. Marriott, Honor America seeks to reawaken a sense of pride in American traditions, ideals, and accomplishments. It's critical to the survival of our nation and our freedom for young people to learn about our nation's cultural heritage, our Constitution and history. That's what Honor America is all about--promoting awareness of the great blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--instilling both pride in American citizenship and respect for our flag. To do this, Honor America sponsors the Liberty Bell Memorial Museum, the Brevard Hall of Fame, and the Melbourne Military Memorial Park in Melbourne, Florida. They also sponsor the City of Melbourne's Independence Day Parade and Veteran's Day Parade to pay homage to the many Americans who have made tremendous sacrifices protecting and defending our liberty. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Honor America for their tireless efforts to remind us all what it means to be an American and celebrate it.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for coming in contact with a lot of people during my lifetime, and Richard Salick is certainly one of them. In fact, I think so much of Rich and his selfless giving to others, I introduced this legislation, H.R. 451, to designate the U.S. Post Office on North Brevard Avenue in Cocoa Beach as the Richard K. Salick Post Office. Rich Salick, who passed away on July 2 of 2012, was a local hero and a true champion to many people. Rich was a champion surfer through much of the late 1960s and 1970s, but he was also a lifelong sufferer of kidney disease and a longtime advocate of supporting kidney transplantation and kidney disease patients. What made Rich a champion was not the number of trophies that he won--which was considerable--but the battles he willingly and personally waged on behalf of others in need. At age 23, at the high point of his professional surfing career, Rich fell ill and was told by doctors that he would die if he did not get a kidney transplant. Aided by his twin brother, Phil Salick--who was his first kidney donor--Rich recovered, but was told all physical sports were out of the question in his future. After a year of recovery, Rich developed a unique padding system to protect his transplanted kidney and went on to win surfing contests and even proudly displayed one of the trophies in the Shands teaching hospital in Gainesville, Florida. Rich would routinely call kidney patients to offer them a message of hope and to aid their recoveries. His work did not stop there. Rich and Phil began hosting small surfing events to benefit those on dialysis. Every year, these events grew larger and larger and larger and culminated into hugely successful annual surf festivities. These events have raised millions of dollars for the National Kidney Foundation and are some of the largest charitable surfing events in the world. When I was serving in the State legislature, it was not uncommon to meet Rich Salick walking the halls of the capitol advocating for kidney patients, trying to find some commonsense fixes to some of these flawed laws to help make lives better for other people. The National Kidney Foundation tells us that 90,000 Americans with kidney disease die each year, and approximately 100,000 Americans are waiting for a direly-needed kidney transplant. Every year, I join hundreds of others in our community to participate in the annual Cocoa Beach Kidney Walk, known as Footprints in the Sand, to support those who suffer from kidney disease and to honor Rich's commitment. Despite suffering from kidney disease for most of his adult life, Rich proved that others with the same condition can truly accomplish anything they set their minds to. He was the first professional athlete ever to receive a transplant and return to his sport at a professional level. In 2000, he was inducted into the Surfing Hall of Fame, and in April of 2008, he was also inducted into the Martial Arts Hall of Fame, a man of many talents. He received the prestigious Nancy Katin Award in 1977 for his worldwide humanitarian work. I would like to thank Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and the members and staff of the committee for moving this bill to the floor to honor a great American and a true champion.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Crenshaw for his help on this amendment and for his support on this issue of critical importance to the Florida financial industry. My amendment transfers $1 million from the Internal Revenue Service enforcement division to the IRS office of the inspector general. It is my intent that this money be used to study the impact of IRS nonresident alien bank account reporting and requirements on the United States economy. The IRS has issued a final regulation requiring all banks in the United States to report to the IRS the amount of interest paid to nonresident alien individual depositors. Now these are people who are not taxpayers, and they do not owe us taxes. These payments are not subject to U.S. taxes, so these reports do not collect a single penny of additional revenue. This regulation also reverses a 90-year policy that the interest earned by foreign depositors in American banks would not be taxed or reported. When the IRS first proposed this regulation in 2001, a bipartisan coalition of more than 100 Members of Congress opposed it. The IRS eventually withdrew the crazy proposal. In 2011, the entire Florida delegation signed a letter to the Internal Revenue Service expressing concern with the economic impact of this policy, and I thank my colleague, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for taking the lead on that initiative. On July 25, 2012, the House passed my amendment to H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act, which would have prevented the IRS from enforcing the IRS nonresident alien reporting requirement. The amendment was passed with bipartisan support, but the Senate failed to take up the bill. The IRS regulation places United States banks at a global disadvantage relative to foreign banks that lack such reporting requirements. Furthermore, United States banks hold $500 billion in nonresident alien bank accounts. Millions of dollars have already been withdrawn by foreign depositors, and it only promises to get worse. Because every dollar in bank deposits generates nearly $9 in lending, these withdrawals will reduce the amount of credit available to individual and commercial borrowers, hurting the United States' economy at a time when we need to be recovering, not suffering worse. A similar IRS program imposes a requirement on foreign financial institutions to report information on accounts held by Americans overseas. This has already resulted in foreign banks canceling banking services to U.S. citizens to avoid compliance costs. For these reasons, I ask that the money transferred to the IRS inspector general be used to conduct an economic impact study of these policies, including an analysis of the effect on capital levels, capital flight, safety and soundness, and changes to public confidence in depository financial institutions, something Treasury is arguably required to do already under current law, but has refused to do. I include a letter of support from the Credit Union National Association and the World Council of Credit Unions to be entered into the Record. Credit Union National Association, Inc., and World Council of Credit Unions, Inc., July 14, 2014. Hon. Bill Posey, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Posey: On behalf of the Credit Union National Association (CUNA) and the World Council of Credit Unions (World Council), we are writing to thank you for your efforts to address the difficulties and compliance costs associated with the newly-implemented Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). CUNA is the largest credit union advocacy organization in the United States, representing America's state and federally chartered credit unions and their 99 million members. World Council is the leading trade association and development organization for the international credit union movement. Worldwide, there are nearly 56,000 cooperatively owned credit unions in 101 countries with approximately $1.7 trillion in total assets and 200 million credit union members. FATCA is designed to create a tax information reporting and withholding system for certain payments that are made to financial institutions and other entities. The FATCA statute passed by Congress in 2010 requires foreign financial institutions to register with the IRS and detect taxable account activity by U.S. citizens in foreign countries; these requirements are making it difficult for U.S. citizens living overseas, including American credit union members, to maintain access to financial services in the countries where they live. The Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) FATCA regulation also requires U.S.-based financial institutions, including U.S. credit unions, to conduct due diligence and tax withholding on international funds transfers even though the FATCA statute passed by Congress made no mention of U.S.- based credit unions or banks. CUNA and the World Council support the amendment you intend to offer to HR. 5016, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2015. Your amendment would transfer $1 million in finding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) enforcement division and instead provide $1 million to the IRS Inspector General's office to conduct an economic impact study of FATCA. We believe this study is necessary given the complexity of implementing FATCA, the complex rulemaking that has taken place, and the myriad unintended consequences of the law on U.S. financial institutions and U.S. citizens living abroad. We appreciate all of your work to ensure that credit unions remain focused on their mission of serving their members rather than spending precious time and resources complying with unduly burdensome regulations. On behalf of America's credit unions and around the globe, thank you for offering this amendment. We look forward to its consideration and enactment. Sincerely, Bill Hampel, President & CEO, Credit Union National Association, Inc. Brian Branch, President & CEO, World Council of Credit Unions, Inc.

Mr. POSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This legislation would not be necessary if the IRS or the Treasury had already done what was required by law. When you promulgate a rule that has over a $100 million impact on the private sector, you are supposed to do a cost-benefit analysis, and they refused to do it in this case. They took the position that, well, it doesn't cost that much money just to fill out a little form and try and rat out foreign bank depositors here. The reality is studies show it clearly will have a multibillion- dollar impact. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to salute the career accomplishments and community service of Mr. Richard A. Ennis on the occasion of his retirement as the Executive Director of the Melbourne International Airport, a position which he has held for the past nine years. Our community credits an increase in tourism and airline traffic to Richard's tireless work and advocacy for our airport. He is noted for positioning Melbourne International Airport as a prime location for the aviation and the aerospace industry. Due to his strategic plans, the airport is now one of the world's fastest growing aviation and aerospace manufacturing and maintenance hubs. Our economy has been positively impacted by Richard's efforts to increase the airport's capital improvements by more than $150 million which has led to the expansion of new manufacturing and maintenance facilities and resulted in the creation of hundreds of new jobs. Richard's community service includes serving as the Chairman of the Babcock Street Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee. I also commend Richard's service to the United States Air Force from 1966 to 1970. Richard holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Forestry which he earned while attending the University of Florida. He also attained a Bachelor of Science Degree in Accounting from Rollins College. Previously Richard was employed with Hoyman, Dobson & Company in 1982 where he audited the City of Melbourne and Melbourne International Airport's records for two years. He then served as the Assistant Finance Director with the City of Melbourne in January 1984 and served as the Deputy Director of Finance and Administration with the Melbourne International Airport in 1992. Mr. Ennis received his national certification as a Certified Public Finance Officer in 2001 and assumed additional duties of Deputy Director of Finance and Administration and Operations. Richard was promoted to interim Executive Director of the Melbourne International Airport in February 2005 and officially became the Executive Director on August 17, 2005. I urge my Colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Richard A. Ennis for his dedication to our community and his exceptional service to our nation.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events occur throughout the United States. They are damaging to water bodies, and are harmful to plant and animal life. They also cost local communities millions of dollars and many hours of recreational enjoyment. The adverse effects are both near-term and long-term. The continued need for advancing research on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events is very apparent. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation will continue robust funding for this important research, leading us to a better understanding of the causes, effects, and steps we can take to prevent harmful algae and hypoxia events in the future. Reported to the floor with bipartisan support from the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, S. 1254, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2014, includes provisions that Representative Bonamici and I were privileged to advance. As amended, this bill will better streamline and coordinate existing harmful algae bloom and hypoxia research activities at NOAA and other Federal agencies. We place a high priority on using research to create implementable action plans to minimize the economic, ecologic, and human health impacts from harmful algae blooms. By incorporating provisions to encourage collaborative research between local, State, and Federal agencies, we will be able to avoid costly duplicative research, which will stretch every dollar further and significantly advance this important research. In my congressional district, the Indian River Lagoon has experienced algae blooms each year from 2011 to 2013, leading to the loss of nearly half of all the sea grass beds--the primary means of measuring health in the Indian River Lagoon. Prior to 2011, sea grass beds in the lagoon had been on a steady increase for nearly 15 years. The devastating economic and ecologic impacts of these blooms over the past 3 years can be felt across the entire length of the 156-mile lagoon. The economic impact of the Indian River Lagoon is approximately $3.5 billion. A healthy lagoon is vital to the economic well-being of the Treasure Coast and the Space Coast. I raised my family on the lagoon, so I can speak from personal experience about the changes we have seen and the benefits of our lagoon to our communities. Our bill gives researchers another tool to help us better understand, anticipate, control, and mitigate harmful algal blooms like those we have seen in the Indian River Lagoon and in communities across the country. I would like to thank Chairman Smith and the majority and minority staff who worked together to shepherd this bill through committee. I would also like to thank the ranking member of the Environmental Subcommittee, Ms. Bonamici. It was a pleasure to work with you and your staff to make several bipartisan perfecting changes to the Senate bill so that this bipartisan measure can make it here to the House floor. I would encourage my colleagues to support the bill before us so that we can reauthorize this important program and continue to advance this research that is so important for communities, like the coastal community I am privileged to live in and represent in Congress.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined here today by my colleague, Resident Commissioner Pierluisi, whom you just heard from, in support of our bill, H.R. 1726, to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Puerto Rico's 65th Infantry Regiment, known as the Borinqueneers. During the darkest days of the Korean war, the Borinqueneers, an ethnically segregated unit, served with singular distinction during a multitude of major and minor combat engagements. During the now famous Battle of Chosin Reservoir, the regiment fought alongside the 1st Marine Division, covering them through what is recognized as one of the greatest strategic withdrawals in military history. The regiment was known for its fierceness in the face of the enemy and demonstrated their exceptional courage by launching the last recorded battalion-size bayonet charge in U.S. military history. For its service, the regiment was singled out for special recognition by General Douglas MacArthur, who declared: I am proud, indeed, to have them in this command. I wish that we might have many more like them. Last month, Borinqueneer Master Sergeant Juan Negron was awarded the Medal of Honor, our Nation's highest military honor for heroic actions ``above and beyond the call of duty.'' His actions reflect the fighting spirit, sense of duty, and dedication of the entire regiment. The Borinqueneers are part of a proud tradition of distinguished American soldiers that include the Tuskegee Airmen, Montford Point Marines, Navajo Code Talkers, and the Japanese American Nisei regiments, all of whom have already received the Congressional Gold Medal. I would also like to recognize the grassroots efforts of the Borinqueneer Congressional Gold Medal Alliance and their national chair, Frank Medina. For many of their members, this bill was their first time ever contacting a Member of Congress. Congratulations. We would not be here today if it were not for the tireless efforts of literally hundreds of people in the Borinqueneer community. I would also like to thank Rob Medina of my Florida office, who first brought this issue to my attention, and Robert Carter, my legislative counsel, who has advanced this legislation as a member of my staff. I rise in full support of the Borinqueneers and urge all of my colleagues to join us to ensure that these American soldiers are recognized for their exceptional, their courageous, and their selfless service to our Nation. And I call upon the Senate to take prompt action to pass this bill and allow us to declare, ``Mission accomplished.''

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, in March of 2012, then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman assured Congress: ``there is no targeting of conservative groups.'' Yet, I continued to hear stories from constituents telling me a different story. On April 23, 2012, I joined with 62 of my House colleagues in writing the IRS Commissioner inquiring further about the possible targeting. We were assured that the rules were being applied fairly and that there was no targeting or delay of processing applications from conservative groups. In April of 2013, top IRS official Lois Lerner revealed in a public forum that the agency had been discriminating against more than 75 groups with conservative sounding names like ``Tea Party'' or ``Patriot'' in the run-up to the 2012 election the very time we were inquiring. Ms. Lerner actually went so far as to plant a question in the audience about the issue. Ms. Lerner's admission came just days before the release of an internal Treasury Inspector General audit that documented that the IRS had been misleading Congress. When asked by Members of the House about the targeting, Miss Lerner has refused to answer our questions on multiple occasions, prompting the House to find her in contempt of Congress. The rights of hundreds and perhaps thousands of ordinary Americans have been violated, and I am most concerned about making sure that justice is pursued in protecting their rights. Further allegations of abuse have been made by other conservative groups. The IRS admitted that someone violated the law and leaked confidential taxpayer information on a Republican Senatorial candidate. Disclosing confidential taxpayer information is one of the worst things an IRS employee can do--it's a felony, punishable with a $5,000 fine and up to five years in prison. The Treasury Inspector General noted eight instances of unauthorized access to records, with at least one willful violation, yet Attorney General Eric Holder has failed to prosecute. Why? Earlier this year I led an effort with the support of over fifty of my House colleagues demanding that Attorney General Eric Holder appoint an independent special prosecutor to investigate these IRS abuses. Instead, A.G. Holder has appointed a partisan Democrat to lead the Justice Department's internal investigation who has donated thousands of dollars to the President's campaign and other Democrat campaigns. This is completely unacceptable. It's long past time that we have a real and thorough investigation conducted by an objective investigator. Thousands of American citizens deserve to see justice pursued rather than have these abuses swept, under the rug.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. It is time to end the budget games in Washington, D.C., and this bill is one way to bring more accountability and more honest budgeting to Washington. Four years ago, when the President's health care law was passed, it included a number of budget gimmicks so that it appeared to be cheaper than it really was. The gimmicks included collecting premiums for 10 years but only paying benefits for 5, delaying some provisions to the year 11, 12, or 13. We need commonsense budgeting, like the rest of America has to budget. The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act simply allows the Congressional Budget Office to take a policy proposal and measure its impact on future growth. And understand, that also means future generations. That way we can tell if it is a good or a bad policy and make more informed decisions. Some people really don't want to do that. This bill is about doing what is right for the next generation. No more passing the buck. Let's bring realistic budgeting and accountability to Washington, D.C. Let's pass this bill today.

Mr. POSEY

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, when the health care law was passed on a party line vote people were assured they could keep their current doctors and insurance plans, it would cost them less, it was not a tax, and there would be no rationing of medical care. Those are not my words. They are the words from the supporters of the bill in the Congress and the Obama Administration. The stark reality is very different for many of my constituents and hundreds of them have shared with me how this health care law has adversely impacted them. I'd like to share just a few of these comments with you. They are from real people, hardworking Americans who I have the privilege of representing and they are begging for relief: ``My group rate insurance increased 100% and my deductible went from $2,500 to $7,500'' wrote Preston in Brevard, and Margaret says her ``insurances costs jumped 300%.'' Paul in Brevard writes, ``It has created a situation where I can't retire safely.'' Norma in Indian River County says her ``premiums increased $600 per year. That's a lot for someone on a fixed income.'' Tom in south Brevard wrote that the law ``increased premiums and inserted unneeded benefits into our policy.'' Rob in Melbourne fears for his kids, writing: ``My kids cannot find a job and the cost of healthcare is three times more for them than it was previously.'' And another constituent wrote: ``My grandchildren lost their insurance due to the exorbitant increase in monthly premiums by their employer.'' A friend wrote: ``My best friend's hours got cut so the company would not have to provide healthcare for him and his family.'' And, Ed in Titusville wrote of the impact on his daughters: ``Both of my daughters have had their work hours cut [so their employers could avoid providing health insurance].'' Christine in Vero shared: ``With no change in my health, my premiums went up 21% with a $2500 deductible.'' Rob in Melbourne says his insurance costs ``doubled''. Ralph in Brevard says ``I lost my doctor and am paying for things I don't need.'' Chris in Palm Bay says he ``lost his job and was forced to move and pay higher insurance costs.'' Paul in Palm Bay says: ``The policy increased from $50 a month to $350 a month.'' Terri shares that her doctors won't take her private insurance. Dave in central Brevard shared that: ``It has DOUBLED my premiums!! I am very upset about Obamacare! FIX IT!'' John says he lost his plan, and Norma writes: ``I have to die, because my medical bills will not be covered.'' I could go on. This bill simply delays the individual mandate tax penalty for a year so that Americans can pick a plan that they want and that they can afford, rather than one that the government in Washington tells them they must sign up for. The President has already given large multinational corporations and labor unions the same waiver. We are simply extending this same flexibility to average Americans who want nothing more than to be treated equally. Ultimately, when you have to pass a bill to find out what's in it, there's a good chance that you're not going to like what it says. The only way to fix this situation is to repeal this law and replace it with a plan that restores individual freedom and makes health insurance more affordable.