Steven Palazzo

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's remarks, but the Air Force has a very bad track record of doing this every few years. And what they're doing is they're spending millions upon millions of dollars. They're talking about cutting costs, but all they're doing is moving planes around, re-basing them, spending more money on capital investment, and basically upsetting communities that have given their heart and shared everything they've had in support of our armed services over and over again. And I hope eventually that the Air Force can get their act straight and that they will be able to figure out a strategic and structural plan that will save taxpayer dollars. And that's what this is about. We are living in a time of limited resources. I know there are a lot of people out there who want to do Americans harm, and we have to have our national security forefront and center as our top priority. I just wish the Air Force would discontinue disrupting communities all around the country. I ask Members to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a very simple amendment that corrects what I believe was a simple oversight when exemptions were laid out for sequestration. In July of 2012, OMB offered an exemption for all military personnel accounts. I believe that decision was driven by a desire to relieve all uniformed deployable military personnel from the furloughs that were caused by sequestration's damaging defense cuts. Unfortunately, a very specific group was left out of this exemption because of a technicality. Our Nation's National Guard and Reserve military technicians--or MILTECHs--are some of the most important assets we have to keeping our servicemen and -women safe. Just like any other servicemember, they proudly wear the military uniform to work, and are expected to abide by the very same standards. Perhaps most importantly, every one of them is deployable. MILTECHs are National Guardsmen and Reserve personnel. Many of them have deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and have been in harm's way all around the world. These dual status technicians work every day in direct support of our warfighters. They supply our troops with the equipment they need to fight and win and return home safely. But because of a technicality, because they are paid out of a different account, these Guardsmen and Reservists have been on furlough for almost a month now. All my amendment would do is ensure that these men and women receive the same treatment as our other uniformed personnel and are included in the furlough exemption. The Congressional Budget Office has verified that my amendment is budget neutral. Let me say, I was one of the first on the House Armed Services Committee to sound the alarm about the damaging effects of these cuts to our national defense. I have supported several alternatives that would resolve the sequestration mess around our defense budgets and across the Federal Government. I have lain awake at night, worried about the damaging effects these cuts will have if we do not prioritize cuts and fix this problem. I hope we will see some consensus on a real fix to sequestration soon. But the exception has already been made for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to defend this Nation. And rightly so. My amendment simply ensures we include all of our deployable men and women in uniform in that exemption. This legislation is supported by our enlisted and commissioned National Guard members and many other organizations. I ask that my colleagues support the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

Mr. PALAZZO. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the Representative from Florida. He brought up a good point: it's not just our dual- purpose technicians, our MILTECHs making sure our equipment that our warfighters need is operating. And many times they deploy with them to Iraq and to Afghanistan on multiple deployments and hot spots all around the world. But there's another purpose of our National Guard, and that's helping us here in the homeland. We're in the middle of hurricane season, and I know that Congressman Nugent's Governor, my Governor, Phil Bryant, the Governor of Louisiana, have all sent a letter to the President of the United States asking for this exemption as well, because those are the first responders. They're there before the storm, during the storm, and after the storm. So I thank him for bringing that important point up. And I'd like to close by saying, again, in times of bitter partisanship and gridlock, the one unifying trait of this Congress is that we keep our promises to the young men and women who tirelessly defend this Nation at home and abroad at great personal sacrifice. A vote against this amendment is a vote to break faith with our military and their families. A vote for this amendment is a vote to uphold our promise to our military and their loved ones. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 312, I was in conversation with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee discussing matters important to the Mississippi National Guard. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Takano

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Joshua Olin Williams as a member of the United States Air Force Academy Class of 2013. Joshua graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy with a degree in English and a minor in Russian, and he received a commission as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Air Force on May 29th. His career in the service has just begun, but it is a testament to Joshua's unselfish devotion to the people of this great nation. The challenges will be many and the time, although it may seem like an eternity, will fly by almost unnoticed. The challenge for this young man will be to retain as much as possible, pass what he learns to others, and live life for every moment. South Mississippi is proud of Joshua and his accomplishments, and we look forward to his continuing to represent not only Mississippi, but also the entire nation, as a United States Air Force officer. As Joshua embarks on a new chapter in life, it is my hope that he may always recall with a deep sense of pride and accomplishment graduating from a program as prestigious as the Air Force Academy. I would like to send Joshua my best wishes for continued success in his future endeavors, thank him for his service, and congratulate him on this momentous occasion.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to discuss my amendment, which ensures adequate funding for a valuable program already authorized within this farm bill. My amendment would simply provide the funding of the Agricultural Technology Innovation Partnership from the funds already available for that purpose. As a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, we often discuss the significant role technological advancements play in maintaining U.S. competitiveness among global industries and growing our economy. My amendment is simple. It adds absolutely no extra cost to this bill or to the taxpayer. It authorizes existing funds within the agricultural research program budget to support the ATIP program, which has already been established by the USDA. For those of you unfamiliar with the program, the Agricultural Technology Innovation Partnership, ATIP, is a partnership set up to harness the research and development capabilities and innovations of USDA's research programs for technology-based economic development. Adequate funding for the program will enable the integration of research from academic, government and industry institutes, and will help develop relationships with outside businesses and private investors. Establishing these relationships will allow the agriculture industry to assist in guiding USDA to conduct research most beneficial to the industry as well as providing the agriculture industry quick access to new and innovative findings within USDA's research as it becomes available. The program allows the advancement of transferring groundbreaking ideas and results from research labs into the commercial sector, which will maintain the growth of the industry as well as our economy. It is important for the U.S. to remain competitive in today's global agriculture marketplace, and in order to do this, we must lead the way in research and innovation. I believe this amendment is a step to ensure that this tool is being fully utilized. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, in drafting this amendment, I saw nowhere where it would actually be considered an earmark. I'm definitely opposed to earmarks in this Congress, and it doesn't specify an entity in a certain State or a certain location. If you just want to tag something as an earmark just to kill an amendment, explain why this amendment may be bad, but don't just sit there and say this is an earmark just because everybody is going to run from it. I see no reason why it would be considered such. But if the gentleman from Arkansas will work with me in addressing this to possibly pursue this in the final legislation, I would definitely consider withdrawing my amendment. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALAZZO. I am, Mr. Chairman. So with that, I withdraw my amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PALAZZO. I rise today to ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations act. I want to thank Representative Cassidy, Representative Waters, Representative Scalise, Representative Richmond, and the many others who support this amendment. This amendment would provide relief for many homeowners across the Nation facing significant increases in their flood insurance premiums because of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. Many facing these steep increases are still recovering from devastating storms in recent years, such as Hurricanes Katrina, Isaac, and Sandy. And some can see increases as steep as 25 percent per year. While I believe it is imperative that the NFIP program remain solvent so that flood insurance remains available to those who need it the most, changes can be implemented in a more compassionate and gradual way. The severe way in which these rates are increased under current law will place a heavy financial strain on families, small businesses, and new home buyers. The fact is we need more time to study how these rate changes will affect Americans. This amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill gives FEMA more time to complete an affordability study and to review the impact that these rate increases would have on homeowners. It keeps NFIP solvent while implementing changes in a compassionate manner that keeps flood insurance available. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).

Mr. PALAZZO. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, 8 months from now, the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate will begin to punish Americans with a tax simply because they refuse to purchase health care. The mandate sets a dangerous new precedent. If Congress has the power to tax our decision to not purchase health insurance, what else can a future Congress tax? The Supreme Court has opened Pandora's box and has allowed future Congresses to tax Americans for failing to purchase any number of conceivable goods or services--basically, whatever Congress deems necessary. That's why I introduced House Joint Resolution 28, the Right to Refuse Amendment, which would effectively reverse the mandate taxes and permanently prevent Congress from forcing Americans to choose between a purchase and a tax. The amendment is short and simple: Congress shall make no law that imposes a tax on a failure to purchase goods or services. If my colleagues believe the Court got it wrong and if they believe in limited government, then I urge my colleagues to cosponsor House Joint Resolution 28.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of a great American, Mr. James E. Walker. Mr. Walker was born on April 12, 1924, in Gulfport, Mississippi. He grew up in a close-knit family of seven children. After graduating from Woolmarket High School, he joined the United States Marine Corps and served in World War II from 1942 to 1945. Upon returning home, he earned a degree in engineering and became the engineering supervisor at the VA in Biloxi, retiring after 35 years. Mr. Walker was also the loving husband of Helen Peterson Walker. They wed on February 21, 1946, exactly 67 years to the date of his recent passing. Mr. Walker was known for his love of trout fishing, his hometown of Gulfport, Mississippi, and most importantly, his family. I stand before you today and declare without a shadow of a doubt that he was the epitome of what we consider a member of the Greatest Generation. Mr. Walker, you will be missed, not only by your family, but also by the country you so faithfully served in the Marine Corps. Semper fidelis.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Bishop Jonathan Tate, Sr., as he celebrates 50 years as pastor of The Anointed Temple Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God in Gulfport, Mississippi. He began his work with the Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God as an elder, and soon emerged as the Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas District Overseer. After many years of dedication and commitment, he now serves as the Mississippi, Louisiana & Texas Diocese Bishop under Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God Presiding Prelate, Bishop G.W. Ayers. Bishop Tate has served his Church and community in the highest regard and during that time has received numerous honors from local and national organizations, ranging from the NAACP to the Gulfport Chamber of Commerce. A scholar, he holds the degree of Master of Theology in Biblical Studies and is a Certified Counselor. Bishop Tate has been married for 56 years to Reverend Mother Shirley Tate, who has faithfully worked alongside him. They are the parents of seven children, seventeen grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. A notable spiritual leader in the South Mississippi, I am proud today to acknowledge Bishop Tate, Sr., and his many accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise today to recognize the life and legacy of Bishop Jonathan Tate, Sr., and congratulate him on 50 years as pastor.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. I want to thank the good doctor from Tennessee for yielding me some time. Mr. Speaker, in 2 weeks we face one of the most devastating cuts to our military that our country has ever seen, literally, a worst-case scenario for our men and women in uniform, all in just 2 weeks. For a year and a half, several of my colleagues and I have been discussing with anyone who will listen the devastating impact of these automatic budget cuts, but still we have stalled and delayed till we are where no one in their right mind would want to be. If these cuts are not stopped, not only will our military be hollowed out, but a number of other agencies will be severely impacted as well. Defense cuts are bad enough. Unfortunately, these cuts affect a lot more than just defense. These automatic cuts affect food inspections at the Department of Agriculture, FBI investigations, TSA screening at airports, and others. No agency is untouched. One example in Mississippi alone is it is anticipated that these automatic budget cuts could cost as many as 845 jobs in the education sector alone. These are the people we task with educating our future generations and ensuring our country's success. We're now hearing of furloughs across the government agencies. This would mean that families that are dependent on that paycheck to put food in their children's mouths and clothes on their backs will be forced to stay home as much as 1 day a week for up to 22 weeks. This means millions of dollars in lost pay for dedicated public servants because Congress and this President cannot get their act together and do what is right for our country. At this point, the House has passed two separate plans that were never even considered by the Senate. Ultimately, inaction by the President and Senate are allowing us to inch closer and closer to the disgusting reality of these cuts. Even more disappointing than the Senate and the President's inaction is the ridiculous position of many that seem completely content to throw their hands up and say that we have done all we can do. But I am perhaps the most disappointed in my colleagues that want these cuts to take place in the name of spending cuts only. What good are spending cuts when you can't defend the Nation you are trying to save and destroying our economy in the process? I am in favor of reducing our national debt and balancing our budget as much as anyone in this Congress, but I refuse to do it on the backs of our men and women in uniform and their families. I will not jeopardize their safety and security, yet some in this body want to do just that. It is foolish--no, naive--to believe that allowing $1 trillion in spending cuts to our national defense is responsible or sustainable. Many of my colleagues seem to have forgotten that these automatic cuts were intended to be the absolute worst thing we could do. It was designed to force bipartisan action on addressing our spending addiction in this Congress. It is the unintended consequences of an absolute failure by the supercommittee. So, instead of using a scalpel, we're using a meat-ax, and the impact of our failure to act will soon be all too apparent unless we avert this irresponsible action. Despite repeated requests for over a year for more details on what effects these details will have, only now, 2 weeks before they are scheduled to take place, have we received any information from this administration. The military services have let us know exactly what effect they think sequestration will have, and it is not a pretty sight. We are talking about one of the biggest drivers of small businesses, a major employer of our Nation's veterans, and a major economic driver in our economy. And some here are willing to see it slashed for no benefit whatsoever. But civilians are not the only issue here. We are downsizing our force to deal with the cuts already in place--$487 billion worth. We will have to cut further into our active duty if these cuts are not rolled back and replaced responsibly. In my district, over 10,000 people walk through the gates of Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi every day. If just one ship contract is cancelled as a result of sequestration, we are talking about thousands of people being immediately unemployed and layoffs at small businesses in over 49 States. These are some of the most patriotic and hardest working people I have ever met in my life. They have dedicated their lives to building the greatest naval ships the world has ever seen. So this week, I spoke with our most senior military leaders, and they told us very directly, if you want our military to continue doing what it's doing today, then we can't give you another dollar. There are similar stories across the Nation at plants building the largest planes to the smallest component parts. These are the stories of real people who go to work every day to make America a better place. These skills are not easily relearned. Once they go away they are gone forever, and I will not stand by and allow inaction by my colleagues to kill American jobs. I ask my colleagues: Is this what you want? Do you honestly believe this is for the best? I beg anyone to explain to me how we're a better country if these cuts take place. Mr. Speaker, I implore our leaders, the Senate, and the President to act. The future safety and security of our Nation is at stake.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning, right here in our Nation's Capital, your country's leaders will meet to gather in prayer. Yes, I said ``in prayer.'' For 60 years now, Presidents, Members of Congress, and other leaders have gathered every year for the National Prayer Breakfast. So today I want to take a moment to stand here and say it is time to acknowledge the importance of faith in God within our Nation and the importance of prayer in our lives. Our Founding Fathers were men of faith, believing that America should be a shining city on a hill for the world to see. So as we participate in this year's National Prayer Breakfast, I call on our leaders and all Americans to pray for our country. Pray for our men and women in uniform and their families as they sacrifice to help protect our Nation and ensure our freedoms. Pray for our President and our elected officials, that they may remember the people they are elected to serve. Pray not just tomorrow, but every day. As we gather tomorrow morning for the prayer breakfast, let us pour out our hearts to God, lift one another up, and commit to working toward a better America. My prayer will be simple. I pray that God will continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Chair, I rise in favor of the Sandy relief packages being considered today. I want to thank Chairman Rogers and the Appropriations Committee for their work to bring this bill to the floor in a responsible manner and address many of the concerns that some in this body have. I also want to take this opportunity once more to thank my colleagues for their work on yesterday's Sandy Relief Improvement Act that brought much- needed reforms for our disaster relief systems. This bill that passed the House unanimously is a good first step in streamlining the disaster relief process and saving the country money and lives. These are the kinds of commonsense reforms that must continue to be a part of the disaster relief conversation. A little over a week ago, I voted against adding more debt to a failing system without reforms. Many of my colleagues joined me in that vote, and I know some still have reservations about the package before the House today. I have spoken to many of these colleagues. I understand concerns about the fiscal state of our Nation. I understand your position, and I respect your vote. But while we continue to do the responsible thing by looking for ways to pay for future disaster relief, we must do what is necessary to help those in the Northeast, and we must do it now. Let me just say, a vote for yesterday's reform package would pass the House unanimously, and a vote for today's relief package allows us to move forward in a way that begins to address much-needed reforms while at the same time providing the immediate relief that Sandy victims so desperately need. I saw those needs up close and personal when I visited some of the hardest hit areas of New Jersey and New York last week. It brought back vivid images of Hurricane Katrina and the destruction that my home State of Mississippi experienced 7 years ago. Districts like those of my friends Congressman Runyan and Congressman Grimm are similar to those along the gulf coast after Katrina. Their constituents experienced a terrible natural disaster, and they need our help. Today, we consider provisions that provide immediate relief for Sandy victims while allowing them to build forward, not just back, and that will strengthen these communities in the face of future storms. We cannot wait another 7 years, and we cannot wait until the next disaster before we take up these reforms. Today's vote for immediate relief is about giving the Sandy victims the help they need now. It is vital to the recovery efforts of the Northeast, it is vital to making our communities more resilient, and it is vital to ensuring better preparedness and response to future storms. So I urge my colleagues to support the disaster relief package.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013. I want to thank Chairman Shuster, Congressman Denham, and the entire Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their work to bring this very important piece of disaster relief reform legislation to the floor this week. Last Tuesday, I had the opportunity to travel to the hardest hit areas of New York and New Jersey to see firsthand the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. It immediately reminded me of the devastation we in Mississippi experienced after Hurricane Katrina just 7 years ago. When you look at the response to hurricanes such as Sandy and Katrina and other superstorms that have hit in recent years, there is no doubt in my mind that we have a broken system. Last week, I took a vote against propping up a bankrupt and broken system without any serious reforms, and today, I proudly stand before this body to advocate for some commonsense reforms on how we administer disaster relief. The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 scheduled for consideration today is the first step in a much longer process of reforming our disaster relief system. Improving resiliency, increasing mitigation efforts, and changing the way we pay for disaster relief will be key to this discussion. I'm especially grateful for the committee's work in adding my language to this bill which will require FEMA to develop recommendations to Congress for a national strategy to reduce future costs and loss of life associated with these extreme weather events. Make no mistake, the Northeast needs our help now in ensuring the victims of Sandy receive the relief they so desperately require and need, and I want to encourage my colleagues to join me in support of both today's bill and the remaining Sandy relief measures we will take up this week. But I also believe there's no better time to address the very real needs of our broken disaster relief system. We must not only build back, we must build forward. That's why I'm proud to support this legislation to improve and streamline disaster relief in our country.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, today, this body will take up legislation that will cut spending, replace the dangerous defense sequester, and protect millions from the biggest tax hike our country has ever seen. This is a good first step. The costs are simply too high to go over the fiscal cliff. Earlier this week, the CPA Caucus met with former Comptroller David Walker to discuss what we truly need for meaningful, long-term reform. Walker proposed six basic principles that I want to share with this body today: 1. Pro-Growth. Truly pro-growth policies will empower our small businesses rather than strangle them with taxes and regulations at every turn. 2. Socially equitable. We're in this together, and we cannot expect one income bracket to bear the burden of solving all of our problems. 3. Culturally acceptable. We need the support and backing of the American people to enact good solutions. 4. Mathematically possible. We cannot continue to ignore the bottom line. I'm a CPA. To me, it's obvious that we have to balance our books. 5. Politically feasible. Our solutions won't always be perfect, but they have to be proposals both sides can agree on. 6. Bipartisan support. We can agree to disagree on certain matters, but we must still work together. These six principles can be our bridge forward.

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to stand before you today to recognize Chairman Hall and his work as the oldest serving Member of Congress. Over the last 2 years, I've had the honor of serving with Chairman Hall on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Chairman Hall has been an inspiration and a mentor to me in those 2 years. He has been a crucial force in keeping NASA on track and for pushing for a strong American space program. We've had the opportunity to work on space bills, such as the recent indemnification extension and the NASA artifacts bill that passed unanimously back in September. Another reason I admire Chairman Hall is that he never forgets those back home whom he represents. He doesn't want anyone else to forget either. He's a Texan through and through. Chairman Hall always tells me that he is willing to forgive people who aren't from Texas. Fortunately, he has been especially good to me, and that's probably because I married a Texan myself. Finally, Chairman, I know at your age you don't like the word ``final''; but in closing, I just want to say the no-nonsense way you've led the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, the way you've put good policy and people above politics--all without compromising your principles--is the kind of leadership we need. That's the kind of leader you are, and that's the kind of leader we should all strive to be. So, today, I thank you for your many years of service, for your model of leadership, and for being so kind to all of those Members who aren't from Texas. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. PALAZZO

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6586) to extend the application of certain space launch liability provisions through 2014.

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 6586, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin by thanking Members for their bipartisan support of this legislation. H.R. 6586 is a very simple bill. It extends for 2 years a commercial space transportation risk-sharing and liability regime that was established by Congress in 1988 with passage and enactment of the Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments. The structure of the liability regime is modeled on the Price-Anderson Act that governs risk-sharing for the nuclear power industry. There are several features of the Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments, but one that is central to today's debate is indemnifying commercial launch and reentry operators against catastrophic losses suffered by the uninvolved public, or ``third parties.'' Since 1988, the Office of Commercial Space Transportation has licensed more than 200 commercial space launches and three reentries without any claims for Federal coverage for loss of life, serious injury, or significant property claims. The 1988 Act was driven in part by the emergence of foreign launch services companies that were made competitive through government subsidies and preferential foreign national laws, including indemnification. Foreign launch companies continue to be formidable competitors. If this program were allowed to lapse, it would threaten our domestic market for launches, as the cost of insurance would significantly increase. The Office of Commercial Space Transportation, as part of its licensing and permitting mission, administers financial responsibility and risk-sharing requirements for commercial launch and reentry operators. They calculate the required amount of financial responsibility based on the maximum probable loss of the license applicant's proposed launch or reentry. In the event there is a catastrophic accident, the operator's insurance coverage would be first in line. The government's liability would then cover excess claims above the insured amounts, but not to exceed $2.7 billion. And I also want to note that to trigger Federal indemnification, the administration must submit a request to Congress for claims in excess of insurance coverage, and Congress must, in turn, pass a separate appropriation bill to fund the request. Responsibility for any claims above the Federal cap would revert to the launch or reentry operator. The Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee held two hearings this Congress examining the activities of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation and the performance of its licensing and indemnification regime. Administration and industry witnesses provided compelling evidence that indemnification for third-party claims is needed to preserve the U.S. commercial launch market. I want to reiterate that the Federal Government's exposure is only for third-party claims and only for amounts that exceed the maximum probable loss determined by the Office of Commercial Space Transportation. Mr. Speaker, our commercial space launch industry needs this extension. While there are only a small number of commercial launches occurring today from domestic spaceports, this is about to change. First, NASA relies on commercial providers to carry cargo, and eventually crew, to and from the international space station. SpaceX has already flown its first mission to ISS earlier this fall, and together with Orbital Sciences Corporation, these two companies are under contract to complete 20 cargo missions before the end of 2016. Secondly, commercial manned spaceflights--orbital and suborbital-- will require indemnification in order to launch from U.S. spaceports. While it's not clear when these types of services will begin, just like today's commercial communications satellite customers, launch customers will rely on an indemnification regime for third-party claims, or the business is at risk of going offshore. I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.