Technical corrections only. The text of v3 is identical to v1, indicating no substantive changes to the bill's content. The difference reflects a change in legislative status, specifically its referral to the Senate.
Skipping v2 (ENGROSSED IN HOUSE). Those versions changed too little to need their own analysis, so they reuse INTRODUCED IN HOUSE's. Changes are measured from the most recent version analyzed on its own.
To make revisions in title 51, United States Code, as necessary to keep the title current, and to make technical amendments to improve the United States Code.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 14, 2026
This analysis was written for v1 (INTRODUCED IN HOUSE, Sep 8, 2025). REFERRED IN SENATE changed too little to need its own, so it reuses that one rather than a rewrite. The differences between the two are summarized above. View v1
Bottom line
H.R. 5174 is a substantial legislative overhaul of U.S. space law, combining technical updates with significant new policy mandates for NASA's future programs and operations.
What it actually does
This bill undertakes a comprehensive revision of Title 51, United States Code, which pertains to National and Commercial Space Programs. It reorganizes existing law, updates terminology, corrects drafting errors, and, significantly, enacts numerous new chapters and sections that introduce new policy directives for NASA's funding, operations, technology development, human space flight, and commercial space activities. Key new policy areas include a program to detect counterfeit parts, enhanced information security, a national space technology policy, a human exploration roadmap to Mars, and detailed directives for the International Space Station's future.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is essential for modernizing and clarifying Title 51, United States Code, ensuring that the legal framework for U.S. space activities is current and coherent. They contend that the new policy directives, such as the human exploration roadmap and enhanced commercial space partnerships, are crucial for maintaining American leadership in space, fostering innovation, and ensuring the safety and efficiency of NASA's missions. The bill's focus on STEM education, workforce development, and cybersecurity is also highlighted as vital for national competitiveness.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while technical revisions are necessary, embedding substantial new policy mandates within a broad recodification bill limits proper scrutiny and debate on individual policy changes. Concerns could be raised about the specific directives for NASA's programs, potentially limiting the agency's flexibility or imposing unfunded mandates. The provisions regarding international agreements on outer space could also be seen as overly restrictive or impacting diplomatic efforts. Furthermore, the detailed nature of some programmatic instructions might be viewed as congressional overreach into agency management.
The bill is extensive and highly technical, requiring significant time and expertise to fully comprehend its numerous revisions and new policy enactments. The estimated reading time is substantial, making it challenging for a casual reader to fully evaluate within typical legislative review periods.
Sec. 2
Purposes and Rule of Construction for Restatement
This section clarifies that the bill's primary purposes are to update Title 51, United States Code, and make technical amendments to the U.S. Code. It explicitly states that the restatement of existing law does not change the meaning or effect of that law, but rather reorganizes, conforms style, modernizes language, and corrects errors to remove ambiguities without altering precedential value. It also establishes a rule of construction for courts to consider revision notes in congressional reports when interpreting changes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this section is crucial for a comprehensive code revision, providing necessary legal clarity and preventing unintended changes to existing law. It ensures that the modernization of the code is a technical improvement, not a substantive policy shift, thereby reducing potential litigation and maintaining stability.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against such clarifying provisions in technical revision bills, as they are designed to maintain the status quo of legal meaning. However, some might argue that the explicit rule of construction could be seen as an attempt to influence judicial interpretation beyond standard practice.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff is between comprehensive modernization of statutory language for clarity and the potential for unintended substantive changes. This provision aims to resolve that tension by explicitly stating that the intent is not to change meaning, while providing guidance for interpretation.
Sec. 3(e), Chapter 301
Revision of NASA Funding and Budget Provisions
This section renames Chapter 301 of Title 51 from 'Appropriations, Budgets, and Accounting' to 'Funding' and significantly reorganizes its contents. It redesignates existing sections and enacts new ones, including requirements for annual reports on program costs and controls (Sec. 30105), consideration of decadal surveys in budget requests (Sec. 30122), and a two-year budget request with a third-year estimate (Sec. 30123). It also mandates 5-year budget details and life-cycle cost estimates for programs exceeding $200 million (Sec. 30104).
Sec. 3(g), Section 30311
Counterfeit Parts Program for NASA Supply Chain
This new section mandates that the NASA Administrator plan, develop, and implement a program to detect, track, catalog, and reduce counterfeit electronic parts in the agency's supply chain. The program must include counterfeit part identification training for employees, an internal database to track suspected and confirmed counterfeit parts, and a mechanism to report information to law enforcement and industry databases. It also requires amending procurement policy to prioritize purchases from trusted or approved manufacturers based on established criteria.
Sec. 3(h), Sections 30505 and 30506
Information Security and Workforce Development for Underrepresented Groups
This section enacts two new provisions. Section 30505 mandates NASA to monitor information infrastructure risk biennially, implement an information security awareness and education program for all users, and ensure access is granted only to those who satisfy program requirements. Section 30506 directs the Administrator to address impediments to space science and engineering workforce development for minority and underrepresented groups, based on a prior independent assessment.
Sec. 3(j), Section 30705
Limitation on International Agreements Concerning Outer Space Activities
This new section imposes significant limitations on the Executive Branch's ability to enter into international agreements concerning outer space activities. It requires Presidential certification that non-legally binding agreements (like an International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities) have no legally binding effect or basis for limiting U.S. activities. It also requires joint certification from the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Director of National Intelligence that such agreements enhance national security and have no militarily significant impact on U.S. space activities. Furthermore, it mandates regular briefings to Congress during negotiations and 60-day notifications before any action that would obligate the U.S. to reduce or limit its Armed Forces or armaments in outer space.
Sec. 3(l), Chapter 315
NASA Facilities and Infrastructure Policy and Plan
This new chapter establishes a policy for NASA to maintain reliable and efficient facilities and infrastructure, with decisions on disposal, maintenance, or modernization tied to future needs. It mandates the Administrator to develop a comprehensive facilities and infrastructure plan, identifying current and future needs, strategies for disposal and modernization, criteria for prioritizing maintenance, and an assessment of modifications to maximize unique facilities. The plan must be submitted to Congress.
Sec. 3(o), Chapter 409
Aeronautics and Space Technology Goals and Programs
This new chapter establishes specific aeronautics research goals for NASA, including increasing airspace capacity, environmental sustainability (noise, emissions, fuel, alternative fuels), and aviation safety. It mandates coordination with the Department of Defense and Federal Aviation Administration. It also sets a goal for NASA's space technology base to align mission directorate investments and support long-term needs, and establishes a national space technology policy through 2020. A Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research Program is established within the Space Technology Program to fund payload development and flight opportunities.
Sec. 3(t), Chapter 517
Commercial Cargo and Crew Transportation Capabilities
This new chapter mandates continued support for the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program and outlines conditions for supporting follow-on commercially developed crew transportation systems. It requires NASA to develop human rating requirements, review procurement systems for cost-effectiveness and safety, assess government contributions to commercial development, and establish flight demonstration and readiness requirements. It also sets objectives for the Commercial Crew Program, emphasizing safety and cost minimization, and establishes a policy for fair and open competition for space transportation services.
Sec. 3(w), Sections 70908-70912
Continuation and Utilization of the International Space Station
This section establishes U.S. policy to support full utilization of the International Space Station (ISS) through at least September 30, 2030. It directs NASA to maximize ISS logistics, reduce risks, and utilize the ISS for developing capabilities for human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and for Science Mission Directorate missions. It mandates that the U.S. segment, designated as a national laboratory, be managed by a non-profit organization via a cooperative agreement, ensuring at least 50% of U.S. research capacity is allocated to national laboratory managed experiments.
Sec. 3(y), Chapter 715
Human Space Flight and Exploration Policy and Programs
This new chapter establishes U.S. human space flight policy, including limitations on acquiring human space flight transportation services from foreign entities and reaffirming the need for uninterrupted U.S. human space flight capability. It sets long-term goals for expanding human presence beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) to the solar system and key objectives like sustaining LEO presence, determining human viability in space, and maximizing exploration's role in knowledge and security. It mandates the development of the Space Launch System (SLS) as a follow-on to the space shuttle and the Multipurpose Crew Vehicle (Orion), with minimum capability requirements and a focus on utilizing existing workforce and assets. It also authorizes development of in-space technologies for beyond LEO missions and outlines policies for space science, including suborbital research, in-space servicing, radioisotope production, and near-Earth object surveys.
Sec. 3(z), Chapter 717
Advancing Human Deep Space Exploration and Space Technology
This new chapter reaffirms the policy and requirements for the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion, mandating continued development of a fully integrated SLS and exploration missions, including an uncrewed demonstration by 2018 and a crewed mission by 2021, leading to Mars. It requires the Administrator to develop a human exploration roadmap to Mars, including critical decision plans, international partnerships, and technology identification. It also establishes policy for a balanced space science portfolio, mission priorities for planetary science, and strategies for extrasolar planet and astrobiology exploration. Furthermore, it mandates a space technology program, information technology governance and strategic plans, and encourages collaboration across NASA mission directorates.
Sec. 3(aa), multiple sections
Technical Amendment: House Committee Name Change
This section makes numerous technical amendments throughout Title 51, United States Code, and related public laws, to update references from the 'Committee on Science and Technology' or 'Committee on Science' of the House of Representatives to the 'Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.' This reflects a formal name change of the committee.
This section explicitly states that the restatement of existing law enacted by this Act does not change the meaning or effect of the existing law. It clarifies that changes are for reorganization, style, modernization, and error correction, not substantive alteration. It also includes a rule of construction for courts to consider revision notes.
Sec. 2(b), 'Restatement Does Not Change Meaning or Effect of Existing Law'
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for recodification bills, designed to prevent unintended legal consequences from extensive textual revisions. It's a necessary safeguard, not an evasive tactic.
Case for: Proponents argue this clause is crucial for legal certainty, ensuring that the modernization of Title 51 does not inadvertently alter established legal interpretations or precedents, thereby maintaining stability in space law.
Case against: No specific case against this provision exists, as its purpose is to preserve the status quo of legal meaning. Some legal scholars might debate the extent to which such a clause can truly bind future judicial interpretation, but its intent is clear.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the legal and regulatory landscape governed by Title 51 remains consistent despite extensive textual updates, impacting all entities operating under these laws.
This new section imposes strict certification and notification requirements on the Executive Branch regarding international agreements on outer space. It mandates Presidential certification that non-legally binding agreements have no limiting effect on U.S. activities and requires joint certification from defense and intelligence leaders that such agreements enhance national security and have no militarily significant impact. It also requires regular congressional briefings and 60-day notifications for actions limiting U.S. armed forces or armaments in space.
Sec. 3(j), Section 30705, 'Limitation on international agreements concerning outer space activities'
Why it matters:While related to space, this provision is a clear policy rider that significantly curtails executive authority in foreign policy and national security. Its inclusion in a technical revision bill might be a tactical maneuver to ensure passage without the intense scrutiny a standalone bill on this sensitive topic might attract.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision is a necessary check on executive power, ensuring that any international agreements affecting U.S. space capabilities or national security are thoroughly vetted by Congress and key defense/intelligence officials, preventing potential concessions that could harm U.S. interests.
Case against: Opponents would argue this provision severely limits the Executive Branch's ability to conduct foreign policy and engage in international negotiations on space governance. It could be seen as an overreach of legislative power, potentially undermining diplomatic efforts to establish norms of behavior in space and making the U.S. appear inflexible on the global stage.
Estimated impact: High impact on U.S. foreign policy, national security, and international relations concerning outer space. It could alter the U.S. negotiating posture and the types of agreements it can enter into.
This section mandates a detailed program for NASA to detect, track, catalog, and reduce counterfeit electronic parts in its supply chain. It specifies requirements for employee training, an internal database, reporting mechanisms, and amendments to procurement policy to require purchases from 'trusted or approved manufacturers' based on specific criteria.
Sec. 3(g), Section 30311, 'Counterfeit parts'
Why it matters:The detailed nature of these requirements is likely intended to ensure robust implementation and leave little room for agency discretion, reflecting a congressional desire for specific action on a critical issue. Its inclusion in a technical revision bill ensures it becomes law without extensive standalone debate on each programmatic detail.
Case for: Proponents argue that the specificity is necessary to effectively combat the pervasive threat of counterfeit parts, which can compromise mission safety and national security. The detailed requirements ensure a comprehensive, standardized approach across NASA.
Case against: Some might argue that such highly prescriptive mandates can limit an agency's flexibility to adapt its programs as threats evolve or as new technologies emerge. It could also be seen as micromanagement, potentially increasing administrative costs and slowing down procurement processes.
Estimated impact: Requires significant new operational and policy changes within NASA, affecting its procurement processes, supply chain management, and employee training. It will have a substantial impact on the aerospace supply chain.