Discussion on the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015

Thomas Gangale: I'm a Democrat on most days, but the party screwed the pooch in opposing the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015. The vote in Congress was along party lines... very disappointing.

Christopher Hearsey: actually the real issue is that the rights created in the bill have not been given legal effect. That is a product of the commercial sector still discussing the scope of such authority.

Thomas Gangale: That sounds like a bunch of degenerate atheist commie doubletalk, and I'm reporting it to HUAC. (wink emoticon) Seriously, I'd like to hear more on this. In international law, we don't get into such messy issues of municipal law. The international legal messes keep us busy enough.

Christopher Hearsey: art VI of the OST is not self-executing under the Constitution. Therefore, you need a statute that gives legal effect to that right. This can take many forms. The current idea is the concept of a Mission Authorization, where an inter agency group would review commercial activities in space and approve the activities to meet the requirements of art VI.

Thomas Gangale: Quoting from the "Minority Views" of HR153:
The point is, the bill does not provide for any licensing regime by any agency of the U.S. government. Prof. Joanne Gabrynowicz, in her letter to Ranking Member Johnson, wrote, ‘‘Unlicensed U.S. commercial space activities are unprecedented in United Space Law ’’. She went on to also say: ‘‘Licensing is how the U.S. meets its obligations to authorize and continually supervise the space activities of non-government entities under the Outer Space Treaty.’’ This bill has no licensing regime to govern the activities undertaken in the bill.

Christopher Hearsey: yes, and that was deliberate. However, there is still some disagreement among the commercial space companies with respect to the legal requirements and implementation of commercial space activities.

Thomas Gangale: Quoting § 51302 ‘‘(b) REPORT REQUIRED
.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the President shall submit to Congress a report that contains recommendations for—
‘‘(1) the allocation of responsibilities relating to the exploration and utilization of space resources among Federal agencies; and
‘‘(2) any authorities necessary to meet the international obligations of the United States with respect to the exploration and utilization of space resources.
My comment: It seems to me that this provision addresses the issue raised in the Minority Views. The President has 180 days to put together a preliminary plan for the regulatory framework necessary to meet our international obligations, and a cursory glance at the calendar informs me that 180 days from the signing of the bill into law, the President will still be a Democrat. Is that correct?

Christopher Hearsey: kinda. the legislation for mission auth already exists. However, this is the compromise language because the WH leg office hadnt cleared it in time to be included in the bill.

So why the alarm bells? Why weren't Congressional Democrats on board this bill? Only a handful of Dems crossed over to vote with the solid Republican caucus.

Christopher Hearsey: The cop out answer is because that's the status quo in congress. But it's probably because there was no hearing and so the members couldnt be informed.

Christopher Hearsey: First off the language that was passed is not the language from the report about resources. second, Joanne's testimony was with respect to the ASTEROIDS 1.0 bill, not the bill that was passed.

Christopher Hearsey: the process was largely driven by staff because some members are running for president. So there's not like one thing that drove the process but many things. Obviously input from interest groups and other companies drove the bill to its final form.

Christopher Hearsey: it's standard sauage making

Christopher Hearsey: really it was a timing issue and its a presidential election season. I would expect to see mission auth come up again once an appropriate legislative vehicle comes around. But it is an open issue despite the promulgation of the right to obtain resources. Which again was a product of keeping the bill in the space committees rather than the mining committees.

Christopher Hearsey: Dem concerns are mostly related to authority

Christopher Hearsey: not the substance of the right

Thomas Gangale: Regarding the "Minority Views," however, it appears that Rep. Johnson was re-fighting last year's battle, which the "Asteroids Bill" lost, since it died in committee.

Christopher Hearsey: report language only is useful with respect to congressional intent. however, the minority views do not really inform too much how the final bill may express congressional intent because there were no hearings on the compromise language.

Thomas Gangale: Sausage making indeed! Well, the ball has been moved downfield a few yards, and that is a significant achievement. Congratulations, Christopher Hearsey! I daresay that the "180 days" will generate considerable stakeholder comment. The President's report should make for interesting reading.

Christopher Hearsey: yea, and that was the point of the bill's language. it moves the ball forward. that's how you start. let it settle, then evolve.

Thomas Gangale: Amen... and amend. (wink emoticon)