The rapidly emerging commercial space industry is likely to get at least another five years of lightly regulated incubation now that the U.S. Senate has joined the House of Representatives in passing an extension of American commercial space laws.

The Senate bill, sponsored by a bipartisan group of six space-state senators including Florida’s U.S. Sens. Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio, was approved late Tuesday evening. The House bill, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Rockledge, among others, was approved in May.

Much of the current commercial space law expires Sept. 30.

For that reason, the commercial space industry has been lobbying hard to get a renewal, and both versions offer what upstart space companies such as SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin and Vulcan Aerospace want most: an extension of the regulatory “learning period” that exempts them from some aviation laws and liabilities, so they may have more freedom to experiment with rockets, aircraft and spacecraft to figure out what works.

The bill also incorporates language that Posey wrote for the House version, which streamlines the regulatory process and requires that NASA, the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration work together.

Yet the two versions have some significant differences that will have to be worked out before a final law might be approved and signed.

The first difference: the Senate bill would extend the learning period through 2020. The House bill would extend it through 2025.

The Senate bill also would extend U.S. authorization of use of the International Space Station to Sept. 30, 2024. Currently, official authorization ends Sept. 30, 2020. The House bill does not authorize a space station extension.

The bills are likely to go to a joint congressional conference committee to work out the differences. Insiders expect the Senate bill, which garnered broad bipartisan support from the start, will have the upper hand in most differences, because it authorizes less and the timetable is short for compromise negotiations.

The House bill had only limited bipartisan support and drew strong opposition from some Democrats.

The Senate calls its bill the Commercial Space Launch Act of 2015. The House calls its bill the Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015 or the SPACE Act of 2015.

Among other differences:

— The House bill allows the Federal Aviation Administration to grant certain waivers to commercial space companies that would allow them to put paying customers on experimental aircraft. The Senate bill does not.

That provision is critical to some startup commercial space companies such as Starfighters, a Titusville-based company that NASA recruited to Kennedy Space Center to use surplus military fighter jets to help train civilian astronauts.

— The House bill authorizes companies to develop asteroid mining operations, and the Senate bill does not, though it calls for a report on the prospects so that the issue might be developed into law later.

While space mining may be many years from reality, plenty of companies are trying to develop the prospect. A good reason for that interest just flew by the Earth earlier this week. An asteroid labeled 2011 UW158 is believed to have a core made up of trillions of dollars worth of the precious metal platinum. It flew within about 1 million miles of Earth Sunday night, though it is long gone now.

— While both bills provide a level of government-backed liability protection for commercial launch disasters that endanger people or property away from the launch site, the Senate bill is a bit tougher on the private launch companies.

When All Aboard Florida executives unveiled their project, they presented it as a high-speed train that would be built on their own property at their own expense. It was explained to me that it would not require any government approvals, endanger any of my constituents, or put the taxpayers on the hook for another federally funded failure.

Turns out these selling points were too good to be true.

It wasn’t long before AAF’s proponents asked me to sign a letter to the secretary of transportation endorsing the project as they pursued a $1.6 billion loan from the Federal Railroad Administration’s Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program. Of the 35 loans that were ever made through this program, only five have exceeded $100 million. AAF’s loan would be the largest to date.

Throughout my years of public service — from city council to Legislature to Congress — I have yet to see a taxpayer-financed passenger train that didn’t run large deficits. As such, I did not endorse AAF’s loan request and instead wrote to the Government Accountability Office, as did my colleague U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, asking the GAO to study the loan to ensure that taxpayer funds were not at risk.

Because this loan requires a lengthy environmental impact study, AAF decided to put the loan on hold and pursue financing through the use of tax-exempt facility bonds, which must be authorized by the U.S. Department of Transportation. These are special bonds designed to help raise funds for infrastructure needs such as airports, waste-management facilities and other transportation projects.

One area where the law restricts these bonds is in financing passenger rail, which it limits to projects that “use vehicles that are reasonably expected to be capable of attaining a maximum speed in excess of 150 miles per hour between scheduled stops.” AAF does not fit this definition; yet the DOT decided to ignore the law and authorize bonds anyway.

DOT says the project previously received taxpayer funds through other sources and that can be used to justify the department’s bond authority. But the DOT has refused to answer basic questions on where, when and how those funds were spent.

Also, DOT is wrong to expedite taxpayer financing of this project without a completed environmental impact study — we don’t even know if it is safe or feasible. These trains will move through our small beach towns at speeds up to 110 mph with virtually no buffer separating them from our communities.

AAF envisions running 32 trains per day on the same track with 20 freight trains. Given how close this track is to adjacent roads and neighborhoods, there are serious safety considerations.

Furthermore, a recent independent economic analysis conducted by John Friedman concludes that even under all optimistic assumptions, AAF will generate annual losses of more than $100 million and will be unable to service its debt burden. Friedman is a distinguished Brown University professor, has a doctorate in economics, and has served as an Obama administration economic adviser.

I am disappointed by the DOT’s refusal to answer basic questions about its authority to finance this project, and astonished by the department’s disregard for the concerns of my constituents, many of whom oppose this train because of the safety risks it presents to their communities.

Regardless of one’s position on the controversial train, the DOT should follow the law, ensure taxpayer resources are spent wisely, and certify that the projects it endorses are safe for our communities.

Congressman Bill Posey, R-Rockledge, cites safety and environmental concerns as reasons he favors slowing down a financing plan for the All Aboard Florida rail project. The privately run enterprise proposes running 32 high-speed trains daily through Brevard communities.

In a letter to the editor, to appear Wednesday on FLORIDA TODAY opinion pages, Posey writes:

“All Aboard Florida (AAF) first presented their project as a high-speed train that would be privately funded — they said they didn’t need or want public funding. It wasn’t long before AAF’s proponents asked me to sign a letter endorsing the project as they pursued a $1.6 billion loan from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). In all my years of public service, I have not seen a taxpayer-financed passenger train that didn’t run large deficits.

“Because the loan came with a lengthy environmental impact study, AAF decided to pursue tax-exempt bonds as a faster way to get financing. These bonds require approval from the DOT, and despite AAF not qualifying under the law, DOT went ahead and authorized the bonds anyway.

“DOT is wrong to finance this project, especially without a completed environmental impact study. These trains will move through our small towns at 110 mph with virtuallyno buffer separating them from our communities. AAF envisions running 32 trains per day on the same track with 20 freight trains. Given how close this track is to adjacent roads and neighborhoods, there are serious safety considerations.

“AAF floats the idea of stopping in Brevard and elsewhere to gain public support, and I believe that might help our economy and also improve safety by slowing down these trains as they enter our communities. I have expressed this to AAF executives. However, AAF has no plans to do so. Slowing down their ‘high-speed’ train is not on their agenda.”

WASHINGTON, DC – On Monday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation (H.R. 944) to reauthorize funding for the National Estuary Program (NEP). 

Reps. Bill Posey and Patrick Murphy, two of four principle co-authors of H.R. 944, were able to secure the inclusion of their bipartisan plan (H.R. 573) to re-prioritize existing funding so more money is available for estuaries with critical needs like our Indian River Lagoon.

In July, Posey and Murphy introduced the Estuary Urgent Needs Priority Program Act to meet high priority needs across the nation’s 28 national estuaries.

“This common sense plan will help provide critical funding for our nation’s estuaries, and make available additional funding to estuaries that are experiencing urgent and challenging ecological problems, including our own Indian River Lagoon,” said Rep.Posey.

“I’m pleased to see this important legislation move forward in a strongly bipartisan manner.”

This year, toxic algae blooms have already threatened our waterways in the Treasure Coast,” said Rep. Murphy.

“This legislation provides additional financial resources to directly address the challenges we continue to face in the Indian River Lagoon.  I appreciate the House’s bipartisan work on this effort and urge the Senate to quickly take up this measure.”

In addition to providing strong funding for base NEP grants, the Posey-Murphy plan directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prioritize funding to provide additional awards for estuaries that are experiencing urgent and challenging ecological problems.

Some problems include: sea grass loss, reoccurring harmful algal blooms and invasive exotic species or jellyfish proliferation. These awards would be provided on a competitive basis and would be funded through funds already authorized for the NEP program. The base bill also secures higher levels of funding for each estuary’s base grant.

Under H.R. 944, the National Estuary Program is reauthorized for Fiscal Years 2016-2020 for $27 million.

The Posey-Murphy plan makes 15% of appropriated funds available for the additional competitive awards to estuaries with urgent needs.  The bill also gives direction to the EPA to ensure that no less than 80% of the funding is reserved for estuary base grants.

The National Estuary Program, which enjoys broad bipartisan support, was created in the 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments. It is run through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect and restore water quality and ensure ecological health of estuaries of national significance.

There are 28 “estuaries of national significance” that span multiple states and congressional districts all over the country.  Each estuary uses local input and local priorities to create a management plan that addresses the issues of water quality and ecological health.

WASHINGTON, DC – The House of Representatives passed Congressman Bill Posey’s (R-Rockledge) bipartisan, bicameral legislation to expand opportunities and legal protections for American space companies.

The Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015 (H.R.1508) was included as a provision of landmark commercial space legislation advanced by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the SPACE Act (H.R. 2262). Posey’s bill creates a legal framework to protect property rights for American companies that obtain asteroid resources in outer space.

“I am pleased to see this bipartisan, bicameral legislation move forward as a part of this historic space legislation,” said Congressman Bill Posey.

“Asteroids are excellent potential sources of highly valuable resources and minerals. Space technology has advanced to the point that the private sector is now able to begin exploring and developing resources in space. Americans are willing to invest in asteroid mining, but they need legal certainty that they can keep the fruits of their labor.”

Specifically, the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015 would clarify that resources mined from an asteroid are the property of the entity that obtained them, ensure U.S. companies can conduct their operation without harmful interference, and direct the President to facilitate commercial development of asteroid resources.

A bipartisan companion was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sens. Patty Murray and Marco Rubio.

Also included in the SPACE Act is Posey’s Amendment to streamline the regulatory process, encourage cooperation between government agencies, and eliminate red tape and bureaucracy impeding development of the commercial space sector.

The Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other agencies oversee different aspects of commercial space launches, and sometimes there is overlap between agencies.

“By streamlining the regulatory process, the SPACE Act can cut costs to both the federal government and commercial companies, make U.S. companies more competitive in the global marketplace, and attract more commercial launches to Florida,” said Posey.

The SPACE ACT passed the House with a bipartisan vote of 284-133, with 48 Democrats supporting the bill.

WASHINGTON, DC – On Wednesday, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology approved bipartisan, bicameral legislation filed by U.S. Representative Bill Posey (R-FL) to expand opportunities and protections for private space companies looking to explore space.

The Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015 (H.R.1508) establishes and protects property rights for commercial space exploration and utilization of asteroid resources.

“Asteroids are excellent potential sources of highly valuable resources and minerals,”said Rep. Bill Posey, a Member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

“Our knowledge of asteroids – their number, location, and composition – has been increasing at a tremendous rate and space technology has advanced to the point where the private sector is now able to begin planning such expeditions. I am pleased to see this bipartisan, bicameral legislation move forward which will help advance this industry.”

Currently, rare minerals used to manufacture a wide range of products are found in a small number of countries. This has left the United States dependent on foreign nations for these resources.

The limited supply and high demand for these materials, alongside major advances in space technology and a deeper understanding of asteroids, has led a number of private sector investors to begin developing plans to identify and secure high-value minerals found on asteroids and transport those resources here for us to use on Earth.

Some rare minerals that could be found within asteroids include: platinum group metalssuch as platinum, osmium, iridium, ruthenium, rhodium, and palladium in addition to nickel, iron and cobalt.

Specifically, H.R. 1508, the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015,would:

• Clarify that resources mined from an asteroid are the property of the entity that obtained them.
• Ensure U.S. companies can conduct their operation without harmful interference.
• Direct the President to facilitate commercial development of asteroid resources.

Bipartisan legislation (S.976) has been introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mark Warner (D-VA).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Gwen Graham joined Florida Representatives Patrick E. Murphy (FL-18) Bill Posey (FL-08), Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20), Lois Frankel (FL-22) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23) in filing legislation to prohibit seismic testing for oil drilling along Florida’s Atlantic coast. Seismic testing is the first step in an effort to begin offshore drilling along the coasts of Florida.

Under current law, offshore drilling is prohibited off the Gulf Coast only. Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) has introduced the companion legislation the U.S. Senate.

“North Florida felt first-hand the devastating effects an oil spill can have on our coast’s beaches, economy and way of life,” Rep. Graham said. “I’m committed to working with Republicans and Democrats in Florida’s delegation to ban offshore oil drilling and protect our state’s most important natural resources.”

The bill would reverse a July, 2014, decision by the Obama Administration to open the Atlantic Ocean, from Virginia to Florida, for seismic testing for future drilling sites.

“I was involved in the cleanup efforts following the BP oil spill in the Gulf Coast, and I refuse to sit by while Florida’s east coast could potentially be threatened from the devastating effects of offshore drilling.” said Rep. Murphy. “There is near-universal agreement in Florida that Atlantic offshore drilling is a bad idea. I will continue to work with members of our Congressional delegation, as well as state officials, to prevent protect our coastline and way of life.”

“There are strong concerns that these seismic activities can be harmful to undersea mammals like dolphins, disrupting their ability to communicate and navigate. This legislation enacts a moratorium off Florida’s coast so we can study the effects of seismic testing on our sea life,” said Congressman Bill Posey.

WASHINGTON – Only one other House Republican voted against President Barack Obama’s agenda more than Bill Posey in 2013.

The next year, Posey slipped from No. 2 to No. 7, according to CQ Weekly‘s analysis of voting patterns.

But that doesn’t mean the Rockledge Republican is going soft on the commander in chief. The percentage of votes Posey cast against the president actually rose from 93 percent in 2013 to 95.4 percent last year.

The 2014 study examined 66 House votes in which the president took a clear position based on his statements or those of an authorized spokesperson, according to the analysis.

Those votes included matters involving foreign policy, spending and government regulations.

“Rep. Posey is simply representing his district and he votes according to principle,” his spokesman, George Cecala, said.

Voting against the president at a 95.4 percent rate isn’t all that striking given that House Republicans on average opposed the president 88 percent of the time last year, matching the record set in 2013. CQ has been tracking presidential opposition since 1953.

The magazine said polarization in the House was the result of House Speaker John Boehner bringing to the floor “bill after bill designed to please the GOP’s base and pressure moderate Democrats to pick sides.”

Not many of those House bills passed the Democrat-controlled Senate, but Boehner’s strategy did help boost GOP control of the House on Election Day last year.

Utility regulator: EPA rule would cost Florida

The head of the agency that regulates state utilities told a congressional panel last week that an Obama administration plan to lower carbon emissions from power plants is “unfair” and would drive up electric bills for Florida consumers.

The Clean Power Plan rule the EPA proposed last year aims to cut power plant emissions overall by 30 percent from 2005 levels, starting in 2020. The rule sets state-specific goals and promotes energy efficiency. Florida would have to cut carbon emissions by 25 percent.

Art Graham, who chairs the Florida Public Service Commission, told a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee Tuesday the EPA plan “threatens the affordability and reliability of Florida’s electric power.”

To comply, the state would have to shut down a number of coal-fired power plants, including some that could be productive for many more years. Consumers, who already are paying off the costs of those plants, would have to finance utilities’ cost of converting them to cleaner-emission energy sources.

Graham said the price tag would at least be $27 billion. That works out to about $2,800 per utility customer or an average increase of roughly 15 percent by 2020, he said.

Graham also said the rule doesn’t take into account Florida’s progress over the past decade to increase power generation through natural gas, a much cleaner energy source. About 65 percent of the state’s electricity came from natural gas in 2013. The EPA rule would require that to grow to 85 percent in 2020.

Some states that are worse polluters don’t have to do as much because their baseline is much lower, Graham said

“It’s unfair to punish early efforts with bigger and more expensive requirements,” he told lawmakers.

But Florida Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Tampa, told Graham that not reducing emissions contributing to climate change will cost consumers much more in the long run.

“What are consumers going to have to pay in storm-water damage (or) the cost to renourish beaches?” she asked. “What if we have a more powerful storm?”

Posey eyeing space panel’s top job

The chairmanship of a panel overseeing NASA is opening up, and Rep. Bill Posey of Rockledge is one of eight Republicans on the panel who could vie for it. But it’s not clear he will.

Mississippi GOP Rep. Steve Palazzo is giving up the gavel of the House Science, Space and Technology’s Subcommittee on Space to take a seat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

No one has been announced as his successor.

Posey isn’t next in line, based on based on seniority. George Cecala, a spokesman for Posey, said “it’s too soon to know what the next steps are.”

Florida’s middle class shrinking

Like the rest of America, Florida’s middle class shrank between 2000 and 2013, according to a new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

The analysis shows that in all 50 states, the percentage of “middle-class” households — those making between 67 percent and 200 percent of the state’s median income — got smaller. The change occurred even as the median income in most states declined when adjusted for inflation.

In Florida, the share of middle-class households dropped from 48.8 percent in 2000 to 45.9 percent in 2013, according to Pew. Over the same period, inflation-adjusted median income fell from $53,493 to $46,036.

“In most states, the growing percentage of households paying 30 percent (the federal standard for housing affordability) or more of their income on housing illustrates that it is increasingly difficult for many American families to make ends meet,” the analysis concluded.

WASHINGTON – While most of his Republican colleagues voted for a $1.1 trillion federal spending bill Thursday, Rep. Bill Posey would have none of it.

For Posey, it was an easy call. In his view, the bill would spend too much, doesn’t follow the proper budget process, and wouldn’t undo President Barack Obama’s executive order last month that protects millions of undocumented immigrants — including an estimated 253,000 in Florida — from deportation.

The president’s order infuriated congressional Republicans, who called it unconstitutional and have vowed to neutralize it by withholding funding for the Homeland Security program that processes those immigrants.

The bill, which passed with 162 Republican votes, would fund the government through the end of fiscal 2015 on Sept. 30, except for the Homeland Security Department, which would receive only enough money to operate through February. Most House Republicans believe that, by February, they’ll he able to undo Obama’s executive order.

“We’ll have control of the House and Senate, and (Obama) won’t be able to threaten to take away Social Security payments, withhold military pay, or shut down the national parks if he doesn’t get his way,” said GOP Rep. Tom Rooney of Okeechobee, who voted for the spending bill. “We’ll have this fight on our terms, with clear majorities, and with the support of the American people.”

But Posey, R-Rockledge, and other Republicans who voted against the measure aren’t willing to wait.

“Congress should not fund the president’s efforts to circumvent Congress and rewrite the (immigration) law,” he said in a statement issued Friday.

“I strongly believe that the first step in reforming our immigration system is to secure our borders and achieve operational control over them,” Posey continued. “Anything else will continue to bring chaos to our borders and jeopardize the security of our nation.”

“Three-term Republican Bill Posey of Rockledge is seeking another two years representing this district, which covers the coast from Mims to Vero Beach, plus Christmas and Bithlo.

Posey is a staunch conservative who made news during his first term by sponsoring a bill to require presidents to release their birth certificates. He has worked with Democrats on other issues, however, and made government reform one of his priorities. A former Kennedy Space Center worker, Posey is a strong advocate for the space program, including its expanding commercial element.

Posey’s Democratic opponent, Gabriel Rothblatt of Melbourne Beach, takes a contrary, progressive position on almost every national issue, though he’s also a big believer in the space program. But Rothblatt, at 32, doesn’t approach Posey’s decades of government and community service in the district. Posey’s still a better bet for its voters.”

Read the full article on the Orando Sentinel