▶ 0:09:59Good morning. The committee on subcommittee on space and aeronautics will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the subcommittee at any time. Welcome to today's hearing entitled a review of the office of space commerce's mission authorization proposal. And I will recognize myself for five minutes for the opening Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time.
▶ 0:10:27Without objection, it's to order. We can't be number one on Earth if we're number two in space. Under Jared Isaacman and President Trump's bold leadership, NASA is proving America belongs on top.
▶ 0:10:45This year we made great strides as evidenced by the successful Aremis 2 mission which flew humans around the moon for the first time since We also have a thriving commercial space sector and a dynamic ecosystem powering every corner of the space economy. In Florida alone, we've almost doubled the number of private sector jobs since 2011 when we lost the shuttle.
▶ 0:11:10Also, in the last five years, we watched a number of launches in 2021 grow from 45 to 192 last year. And of course, we're having a great year here in 2026. I trust we are all committed to ensuring America's space leadership will be innovative and lead with true direction as American uh moves forward with public safety and upholds our international obligations.
▶ 0:11:36Today we will review the Commerce Department's proposal for a mission authorization framework. Mission authorization is how the United States government reviews and overseas commercial space activities. This proposal will help the United States meet its obligations under article six of the outer space treaty which requires governments around the world to authorize and supervise non-governmental activities in space.
▶ 0:12:03Currently, the United States has a clear regulatory framework for activities like launch and re-entry, the use of spectrum and remote sensing of the Earth. But as our commercial sector pushes the boundaries of what is possible in space, and we must provide the regulatory certainty that companies need, failing to do so would slow investment, thus slowing innovation and undermining America's In the past, some have proposed
▶ 0:12:33a complex approach which created duplicate authorities across agencies and would have increased red tape of our commercial space sector. That's why President Trump issued several executive orders to ensure the United States dominates across all aspects of space. One executive order directed the Department of Commerce to develop an approach for authorizing novel space activities.
▶ 0:12:58Several aspects of this proposal aligned with legislation considered by this committee last Congress. This commercial space act of 2023 sponsored by our good chairman Dr. Babin offered a common sense path forward. Today we will review the office of space commerce proposal in full with our witness Mr. Taylor Jordan the director of office of space commerce. I want to thank Mr.
▶ 0:13:24Jordan for joining us this morning and I look forward to a productive discussion about how Congress can boost President Trump and NASA's mission to ensure the United States remains the world leader in commercial I want I now want to recognize our ranking member, Miss Fushi from North Carolina. Miss Fushi, welcome. And you are recognized.
▶ 0:13:50Good morning and thank you chairman Herodopoulos for holding today's hearing to review the Trump administration's mission authorization proposal. I want to welcome Director Jordan and thank you for being here to testify before the subcommittee. Mission authorization and a regulatory framework for novel space activities may seem far removed from the concerns of most Americans today.
▶ 0:14:16Families are focused on whether they can afford health care, groceries, gas, housing, and education costs and whether good paying jobs and economic opportunities will be available in their communities. Those concerns must remain at the center of our work and I am fighting to ensure that every American has affordable access to everyday essentials and the resources they need to build a secure and prosperous future.
▶ 0:14:45Space policy is connected to that work. Space-based technology and services support communications, navigation, weather forecasting, environmental monitoring, national security, and other systems that Americans rely on every day. In fact, if you use GPS or check the weather on your phone today, you relied on technology in space. Space is quite literally in our pockets.
▶ 0:15:12But space also inspires us to look beyond the everyday and creates opportunities to build the workforce and capabilities that move our country forward. Just look at the successful Aremis 2 mission and the benefits it has already delivered. The growing commercial space economy can also create jobs and expand economic opportunity.
▶ 0:15:36But those benefits must reach communities across the country, not just a select few. Like other emerging technologies, a mission authorization framework must strike the right balance between expanding economic opportunity and ensuring meaningful oversight, accountability, and appropriate guard rails. This is a governing challenge with which I'm deeply familiar through my work on artificial intelligence.
▶ 0:16:06As I have made crystal clear, technological process progress rather cannot come at the expense of other important US interests including national security, scientific advancement, foreign policy, safety, privacy, and the environment. That is why we must consider the implications, impacts and potential unintended consequences of any mission authorization proposal and process.
▶ 0:16:37Large satellite constellations, for example, can interfere with optical and radio astronomy due to their reflectivity and radio transmission Further, future commercial spacecraft that might land on the surface of Mars could bring contamination that could affect the search for life, a fundamental scientific pursuit.
▶ 0:17:02We must also carefully consider how new space technologies and mission proposals could affect orbital debris risk or threaten the sustainability of space environment. Let me be clear. Supporting technological progress and requiring responsible behaviors from commercial companies are not competing goals.
▶ 0:17:26We can do both and any mission authorization framework must reflect that principle. I look forward to hearing about the Office of Space Commerce's mission authorization proposal. And looking ahead, I also hope the subcommittee will seek input from other federal agencies, industry experts, scientists, and additional Before I close, Mr.
▶ 0:17:54Chairman, I want to note my disappointment that the committee was not provided with advanced notice of the Office of Space Commerce's release of their mission authorization proposal, a briefing on the proposal, or even a briefing on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Noah's fiscal year 2027 request for the Office of Space Commerce. despite multiple requests.
▶ 0:18:22This is not a transparency we expect as the committee of jurisdiction. And with that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
▶ 0:18:30Thank you, Miss Fushi. I now want to recognize our chairman of the full committee, Dr. Babin. Dr. Babin, you're recognized, sir.
▶ 0:18:37Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Herodopoulos, for holding this very important hearing. And thank you, Director Taylor Jordan, for being here today. We're looking forward to hearing what you have to say. Since the days of Apollo, America's leadership in space has been powered by innovative commercial sector that we have, the envy of the world. Uh while NASA and other government agencies remain indispensable partners, they increasingly serve as customers rather than operators.
▶ 0:19:05As private space activity continues to expand, America's commercial space industry has become more essential than ever before in maintaining our nation's global leadership. But we should not however take that leadership for granted.
▶ 0:19:19As other nations, particularly China under the Chinese Communist Party seek to overtake us in space, we must ensure that American innovators are competing against our ad adversaries, not against unnecessary government Today we will examine a topic that has been long of interest to me and the government and that is government authorization and supervision of private space activities.
▶ 0:19:45And while the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Department of Commerce each have statutory authority to regulate specific types of space activities. A growing number of non-governmental space activities do not clearly fall within these existing frameworks.
▶ 0:20:03And although the United States has long upheld its obligations under the Outer Space Treaty to authorize and supervise activities of its nationals in outer space, the commercial space industry has told us for years that the lack of a clear regulatory pathway has discouraged investment and slowed the development of novel space activities.
▶ 0:20:26In 2017, Representative Lamar Smith, who was then chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, a good friend of mine, introduced the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act to address this issue.
▶ 0:20:40The bill sought to establish a clear light touch framework for the Department of Commerce to affirm that non-governmental space activities not addressed by existing regulatory frameworks were consistent with the United States obligations under the Outer Space Treaty with respect to private actors. The bill passed the House in 2018 but did not make it to the president's desk before the end of the 115th Cong uh Congress.
▶ 0:21:08Just last Congress, I introduced the Commercial Space Act of 2023, which similarly gave the Department of Commerce authority to issue certifications for space object operations through a streamline, minimally burdensome process.
▶ 0:21:24Many of us have long argued that given its experience licensing private remote sensing activities and its statutory direction to quote foster the conditions for the economic growth and technological advancement of the United States space commerce industry, the Office of Space Commerce is the appropriate agency to exercise that authority.
▶ 0:21:47And while Congress has continued to consider the appropriate path forward, President Trump took action last August by signing Executive Order 14335, which directed the Department of Commerce to propose its own approach to mission authorization.
▶ 0:22:05Commerce published the latest version of its space commerce certification proposal in March outlining a voluntary process for authorizing novel commercial space activities that it calls space commerce certification. The proposal offers several benefits. First, it seeks to articulate specific light touch requirements for space activities.
▶ 0:22:29The Office of Space Commerce would then conduct due diligence on each application while coordinating the inter agency review process. The certification would not infringe on the existing authorities of other agencies. Instead, it is intended to provide a means for other regulators to satisfy portions of their own review processes, further streamlining the path to approval.
▶ 0:22:54The office also anticipates rapidly iterating on the certification framework as it processes applications particularly for different categories of novel space activities. Today's hearing will allow us to learn more about this proposal and how it compares to past legislative efforts including the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act and the Commercial Space Act of 2023.
▶ 0:23:21It will also allow us to consider whether this proposed approach fully meets the needs of the commercial space sector or whether legislative action is needed to codify the Department of Commerce's authority over these activities. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, we will consider whether this proposed process, while thorough, avoids establishing unnecessary or burdensome requirements for operators and imposing barriers to industry innovation.
▶ 0:23:52I know that Director Jordan and his staff have put an extraordinary amount of work and uh thought into developing uh this proposed approach. So, I look very much forward uh to hearing what you have to say today and I appreciate the time and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:24:08Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Miss Lothkram from California. You are recognized.
▶ 0:24:13Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member as well, Mr. Jordan, for being a witness today. I think a lot of people in America don't realize that the United States has an international obligation under the outer space treaty of 1967 to authorize and supervise non-governmental activities in space conducted by US individuals or entities.
▶ 0:24:36Now currently the US policy framework for authorizing and supervising spa space activities uh pertains only to commercial launch and re-entry commercial space-based remote sensing and radio frequency communications. But we know much more is on the horizon. In fact, much more is going on already. It seems like almost every day we hear or read about a new planned commercial space technology or service.
▶ 0:25:02Uh just last week uh FCC approved a license for a space activity that will by design reflect sunlight back and alter the physical conditions on Earth. In a rare admission, the FCC said that addressing any concerns related to the satellites purpose was outside of their jurisdiction. That admission illustrates in part why we're here today. No federal agency has statutory authority to oversee novel space missions.
▶ 0:25:32How we in Congress consider which agency should have such statutory authority to ensure novel space space activities align with our international treaty obligations. It's not just an interesting policy question. There are real risks including potential financial liability for US taxpayers and as the chairman has mentioned companies and investors also need predictability in the regulatory landscape as they weigh uh business decisions.
▶ 0:26:02Now, as the chairman has mentioned, we've worked in multiple congresses, have seen many proposals over the years uh from the executive branch and the legislative branch, but we have not yet landed on a solution, and we need to do that. I believe we ought to advance a commercial space industry that contributes to the public good and a strong economy. Clarity about who regulates specific activities is needed.
▶ 0:26:28I also believe that any solution must allow for some common sense rules for inspace operations to address international obligations, national security, foreign policy, public health and safety and national interests like maintaining a safe and accessible space environment and not undermining our own scientific capabilities on the ground and in space. In that regard, Mr.
▶ 0:26:53Chairman, I would urge that we also consider the expertise and equities of other relevant agencies such as the Department of Defense, uh, FAA, and NASA. I also want to highlight one of the Office of Spaces, uh, Commerce's other activities that is of great importance, standing up a civil space situational awareness capability to monitor satellites and space debris and notify our operators of potential collisions.
▶ 0:27:22This effort called tracks has reached a pilot uh phase. Yet inexplicably the administration's fiscal year 2027 budget request does not propose funding to continue the tracks project. Uh don't we have to worry about the potential collision in space especially as orbits become increasingly congested?
▶ 0:27:47Despite the importance of tracks in a global space economy in the hundreds of billions of dollars, OM requested just $11 million for the Office of Space Commerce for fiscal year 2027, an 80% cut from the fiscal year 2026 appropriation. Should we conclude from this budget request that the administration does not prioritize ensuring that the United States remains the world leader in commercial space?
▶ 0:28:15It's not clear to me how the Office of Space Commerce would be able to take on the added responsibilities we're about to hear about today at the proposed funding level. We have a lot to discuss. Uh this hearing is an important one. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back.
▶ 0:28:33Thank you very much, Mr. Lorren. Let me now introduce our witness. Our witness today is the Honorable Taylor Jordan, who I'd like to welcome back to the committee. Mr. Jordan formerly worked as a staffer on our environmental subcommittee. Mr. Jordan serves as the director of the office of space commerce. I'd like to thank Mr. Jordan for joining us today and we are now recognized for five minutes.
▶ 0:28:56Chairman Heridopoulos, ranking member Fushi, Chairman Babin, and Ranking Member Lofrren and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I also want to thank the staff of the Office of Space Commerce for their tireless work on mission authorization which has created a tremendous work product that I'm excited to talk about today.
▶ 0:29:15The Department of Commerce and the Office of Space Commerce support one of America's greatest strategic advantages, the unparalleled strength of our commercial space sector, a sector defined by decades of flight heritage and technology advancement. a sector that also requires a regulatory structure and environment that can match its rapid pace of innovation. Today I am here to discuss our mission authorization proposal that meets industry where they are.
▶ 0:29:41We call it the space commerce This proposal delivers a streamlined approach for emerging space markets and technologies that our entrepreneurs need to move fast, attract investment and cement US space leadership for the next century. Our commercial space sector has moved beyond only providing services to government agencies and now directly supports our modern economy and way of life.
▶ 0:30:07Today, American companies are building entirely new economic domains from inorbit manufacturing of pharmaceuticals to energy infrastructure and even a lunar economy. It is now more important than ever for the government to get its regulatory house in order and unleash our American space ca cap industry is no longer focused simply on communications or remote sensing, but is joined by innovators conducting missions to the moon, developing private space stations, and building orbital data centers.
▶ 0:30:37We refer to these efforts as novel, and the current licensing regime is not designed to address them. Today, the FAA regulates launch and re-entry, the FCC regulates radio frequency transmission, and the Department of Commerce regulates remote sensing. Everything else is shoehorned into legacy processes never designed to handle them. US regulations simply do not offer a clear path to yes for novel activities. Instead, they risk trapping our industry in an endless maze.
▶ 0:31:05In executive order 14335, President Trump directed the office to propose a solution. In close consultation with industry stakeholders and inter agency partners, OSC developed a certification process that could provide more clarity for industry, protect core US government interests, and improve intragovernmental coordination.
▶ 0:31:26The cornerstone of our proposal is the creation of a certification that is intended to unify existing regulatory pathways into a clear, straightforward, centralized process. Rather than forcing companies to navigate multiple agencies independently, OSC would serve as a regulatory clearing house. Our certification would gather information from applicants and incorporate them into a single voluntary application and then circulate this application to the federal inter agency for review.
▶ 0:31:56Following this review, OSC could provide a space commerce certification to the applicants. The FAA and the FCC could then wave relevant sections of their own regulations or bypass their own separate inter agency review. As a result, commercial operators with novel space missions would have a clear path to government authorizations through a single entity utilizing a single process that's tailored to their needs.
▶ 0:32:24OSC intends to build this process dynamically through an extended pilot phase and by leveraging emerging industry standards. OSC's role would be to validate and clear industry-ledd norms in coordination with inter agency experts. A key pillar of our process is the presumption of approval for novel space activities. Regulatory ambiguity prevents the free flow of capital. This process would give investors the predictability they need that supports the growth of the industry.
▶ 0:32:53It would require the government to justify a no rather than forcing industry to beg for a yes. Over the years, industry has asked for greater transparency in our federal space regulations. The lack of a process for novel space activities is bad for business, bad for innovation, and ultimately bad for the American taxpayer.
▶ 0:33:14Our certification process would hold the government to a higher standard to to be to be clear about the questions we ask, the reasons we ask them, and the decisions we make. OSC's proposal has been informed and shaped through deliberate transparency. The office continues to engage with industry and stakeholders on the best approach to streamline this authorization process. We also continue to work with the White House and our inter agency colleagues to coordinate the executive orders direction.
▶ 0:33:42America's space entrepreneurs deserve a framework that moves at the speed and scale of their ambition. The office of space commerce stands ready to work with this committee, the US inter agency and our industry partners to deliver that solution. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.
▶ 0:33:59Thank you, Mr. Jordan, very much. And I'll now recognize myself for five minutes for questions for Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jordan, as you know, my district is home to the world's most active space launch facilities. Launches and re-entries go through a rigorous FAA licensing process under the Department of Transportation. As the Office of Space Commerce develops this new certification framework, I would like to know more about how this will fit alongside regulatory authorities, not duplicate them.
▶ 0:34:28And so in my question, the the Office of Space Commerce has said that the Space Commerce certification would not replace the CR, SR, FAA, or FCC statutory responsibilities, and companies would still need to obtain the requested approvals from these agencies. So my question, will there be missions that require both an existing federal license and an OSC certification? If so, how do we prevent duplicate reviews and unnecessary delays?
▶ 0:34:57and what should the coordination look like?
▶ 0:35:01Thank you for the question, chairman. So, to answer your question, the short answer up front is yes, there are missions which will likely require existing uh licenses through those existing statutory obligations, whether it's launch re-entry or radio frequency transmission. So, what we're doing with the Office of Space Commerce's mission authorization proposal is focused on inspace activities for novel activities, things that do not really exist today.
▶ 0:35:26Um in our process we have developed uh questions that we will ask the inter uh the the applicants and also on behalf of the inter agency. So as as a as a company seeks a license for the novel space activities we can then deregulate and reduce uh the the burden on industry to provide questions that could supplement uh existing statutory obligations for the FCC and the FAA.
▶ 0:35:55That's a that's a secondary nature of the deregulation, but the first one is really to fill those uh those gaps that exist today in regulations for things that that don't quite exist.
▶ 0:36:06Well, thank you. Uh the proposal also suggests that other agencies could rely on an OSC certification to satisfy some of their own regulatory requirements. What factors should determine when another agency can rely on that certification instead of conducting its own separate review?
▶ 0:36:22Thank you for the question. So uh that will come down to the inter agency as we move forward with this process. Um we have submitted our proposal to the white house and we we anticipate and hope for uh our ability to move forward with that. So through the in through that process the inter agency we sat down with them and we had many conversations about how this would look with the existing regulations as they exist today through KRISA through the FAA and through the FCC.
▶ 0:36:49So there there could be questions that we could ask on behalf of our inter agency colleagues that could satisfy portions of their own regulations and that could be something like a payload review question on behalf of the FAA or an orbital debris mitigation question on behalf of the FCC allowing OSC to become the clearing house for novel activities could then streamline the process and provide the certainty that industry has been asking I I I think I I think one question I like to ask just broad is, you know, you're
▶ 0:37:19you're dealing with these different commercial companies every day and and the innovations have been pretty dramatic. What what is what kind of keeps you up at night? What are you most concerned about as the industry speaks with you back and forth and and what suggestions would you have for us as we make this proposal?
▶ 0:37:34So that that's a great question and it's uh it's quite difficult to answer but I would say what the ranking member mentioned in her opening statement about uh new novel use cases that are coming out and we see different approvals from from US regulators but they they were clear in in their their own press about it that they are are only regulating what they have existing authority to do like radio frequency transmission and we talk about uh the space mirror question that ranking member Lorren answered.
▶ 0:38:02They do not answer the question about inspace activities and that is what needs uh to to be authorized and supervised by the federal government to ensure that we have those core US government interests satisfied and that space safety, international obligations, national
▶ 0:38:17Well, I appreciate your testimony today and building on the good ideas that our chairman proposed back in 2023 and I look forward to a good conversation today. And I'd like to now recognize our ranking member from North Carolina, Miss Fushi, for five minutes of questions.
▶ 0:38:30Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Director Jordan, the department's fiscal year 2027 budget proposes just $11 million for the Office of Space Commerce and does not identify continued funding for the traffic coordination system for space or tracks as it's known, the government's civil space traffic coordination system, which now supports 62 pilot users and more than 11,000 satellites.
▶ 0:39:00If the department is not supporting continued federal funding for tracks, how does the Office of Space Commerce propose to provide operators and regulators with independent and reliable collision warnings or orbital debris data before and after a mission is certified?
▶ 0:39:20Thank you for the question, Ranking Member Fushi. So in in the FY27 uh president's budget request uh for the office of space commerce uh we do continue the work of our track system we containerize the code and we are we are building internally uh the the trade space of how that program will move forward in the future whether that's relying on user fees or collaboration with industry to look at the process moving forward.
▶ 0:39:46Um there are there that is also an executive order uh deliverable and uh is mentioned in the executive order for the ability for the track system to to utilize partnerships with industry for user fees. So I just I just want to be clear that the question is not should we provide SSA data. It's how do we do that as a federal
▶ 0:40:06since the certification process in the office's mission authorization proposal is voluntary. If a certified mission causes damage, who is legally and financially liable, the operator, the department, or the American taxpayer? And what enforcement authority does the office have when something goes wrong?
▶ 0:40:30Thank you for the question, and that that's a great one. So, the the liability and dimmnification question has been a long issue in the uh the space sector. Um, currently because it's a voluntary process, we would rely on the statutory uh obligations of other agencies uh to help carry that out. And I believe the FAA through DOT has some some statutory obligations for liability. Um, but this is a question that has been percolating for many years.
▶ 0:40:58We we absolutely want to address that in an iterative process with industry. We want to have uh to be cognizant of impacts to industry for those things that you just said and move forward collectively uh with with the inter agency with industry and with Congress as well.
▶ 0:41:14Thank you for that response. While the department is proposing to cut the office of space commerce's budget for fiscal year 2027 by 80% from 2026 enacted levels. The department is also proposing to add responsibilities with this space commerce certification proposal. That sounds like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
▶ 0:41:41Does the $11 million proposed in FY2027 include funding to carry out this certification proposal?
▶ 0:41:51Thank you for the question. So in our FY27 proposal that has come before we actually have approval to move out on our proposal. So we have we have created the proposal. We have submitted it in response to the executive order deliverable and now we are waiting for the next steps. So we have not built in to our budget if we need additional staff for that. But I will say we do envision envision this being a a light touch administratively.
▶ 0:42:16We will rely on our inter agency partners who have expertise in many of these new technologies and missions and and we are also looking at the options for bringing in details to provide that expertise inhouse to create our certification questions and application. Will Congress be seeing an updated budget proposal that reflects the actual personnel and financial resources you would need to carry it out? And what are the funding and personnel needs for implementation of your strategy?
▶ 0:42:46Thank you for the question and and I'm happy to take that back and and work with [clears throat] you on that. U at this point we are working with with our FY26 funds. look forward to congressional action on FY27 and happy to work with you to to discuss the different uh activities that the Office of Space Commerce is carrying out.
▶ 0:43:06Thank you for that and I yield back, Mr.
▶ 0:43:08Thank you, Mr. Fishy. Next, we'll recognize our chairman, Dr. Babin, for five minutes. You're recognized, sir.
▶ 0:43:13Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh and again, uh thank you for being here. We appreciate this. You describe the proposed space commerce certification as voluntary. If commercial space operators do not participate in the certification process, will other agencies prohibit their missions or operations?
▶ 0:43:36Thank you for the question. So in developing this proposal, we worked handin glove with the inter agency to get their feedback to be able to to say yes to how this works and and our submission to the White House is is to me that means that we have the inter agency in a good place to use our our framework that we have proposed and it is voluntary right now.
▶ 0:44:00We are leveraging existing authorities that we that we have from the office and and others to create this as an opt-in program. But the one thing I would say is there doesn't exist anything right now. We kind of hobble together and in an ad hoc fashion different different obligations and statutes to create a system. But this would provide the clarity to industry. And if we can provide the additional confidence and streamline effort that industry is looking for, we are we are confident that they will use this voluntary
▶ 0:44:31Are you confident and how will you ensure that this voluntary process does not turn into just a vast expansion of regulatory authority?
▶ 0:44:39That that's a great question and it's obviously top of mind. So we want to be able to play in the swing space between regulatory authorities as they exist today because it's voluntary. Obviously with congressional action you all have the capability to make that uh not voluntary. Um but in in that process again we have to utilize the inter agency their expertise and make sure that it is it it is a voluntary program that people can opt out if they want to.
▶ 0:45:08They do not have to use this program, but we need to show the value in it for industry to want to use it and to show
▶ 0:45:15Absolutely. Currently, the commercial remote remote sensing regulatory affairs office issues licenses for private remote sensing activities. Uh the department of commerce is also the only agency with clear statutory authority to review endof life operations. How will the office of space commerce leverage your experience with licensing private remote sensing operations to inform the space commerce certification
▶ 0:45:44That's a great question. So the office of space commerce is uniquely positioned because they have such a strong vantage point with industry and that's actually in our man in our mandate and that's to be the industry advocate on behalf of the US government. We also have uh our krisra experience that you mentioned where we are a space regulator as well. So that provides us a number of different opportunities to to go into how uh regulations act actually work and have that experience under our belt.
▶ 0:46:14In addition to that as uh as as discussed before you know we're also creating an operational system through our space situational awareness capability. So really we hit three things that give us a quite a unique vantage point over other agencies to provide this type of novel activity.
▶ 0:46:30Well to follow that up the remote sensing licensing process was plagued by neverending inter agency reviews and uncertain conditions that resulted in companies and technologies and expertise going overseas uh to more favorable jurisdictions. What lessons have the office of space commerce and have you learned through that process and now uh how have those lessons informed the development of the space commerce certification process?
▶ 0:46:59So our work through Charis has informed how how we established uh kind of our our certification process. So obviously um through things like dispute resolution we have different mechanisms to elevate uh disputes of national security or international obligations or commercial interest interests uh from multiple levels to to make sure we get to conclusion on a fast timeline in our certification.
▶ 0:47:25We've also built in uh some some timelines into that that are again informed from our experience with Chrissa. Uh, and then we also have uh some some very short timelines for re-review if needed. So, we're trying we're trying to give that confidence to
▶ 0:47:41Okay. And I've got time for one more. The FCC re recently scheduled a meeting to consider a new order that requires applicants to respond to certifications regarding various space sav safety information including trackability, satellite size, collision risk, casualty risk, and post mission mission disposal.
▶ 0:48:03When the FCC proposed similar requirements in the past, this committee sent letters outlining FCC's lack of authority over space activities beyond those related to spectrum and communications. Under the first Trump administration, the Office of Space Commerce also submitted comments to the FCC docket urging reconsideration. I asked unanimous consent to enter these letters into the record.
▶ 0:48:26Ultimately, the FCC withdrew uh those proposals under significant criticism from Congress and other agencies in the public.
▶ 0:48:34Without objection.
▶ 0:48:35Amen. Uh how would the Department of Commerce's proposal address the regulatory gaps that other agencies have attempted to fill and would it reduce the need for other agencies to test the limits of their statutory authority?
▶ 0:48:48That's that's a great question
▶ 0:48:49and I think we'll from there we'll we'll yield back and uh we'll get to that question a bit later. All right. Thank
▶ 0:48:55All right, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Next, I'd like to recognize Miss Gillan from New York for her five minutes. You are recognized.
▶ 0:49:02Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member, and thank you, Director Jordan, for testifying here before us today. So, I I want to build a little bit on Chairman Babin's questions to you. Um, he I share his concerns about this just being another regulatory uh burden for companies to have to overcome, and you mentioned that the process is voluntary. what what is the real incentive for for companies to get this certification?
▶ 0:49:27Thank you for the question and that's a great one that is at the core of why we did this. So there are gaps in regulations right now. Why we did this is because an an industry uh a company who has a novel mission can put a license into the federal government either through us FAA FCC and it's no guarantee that they'll get an answer. So what we're trying to do is to actually first get an answer and that's step one for us. Step one is closing the regulatory gaps. Now the second part of that is the voluntary nature.
▶ 0:49:57Um we want to provide incentive for companies to to use this new system. And the incentive that we've come up with is if we can provide a streamlining of the different regulations where they a company would put in one application to us, it could help satisfy portions of the FAA and the FCC's obligations for their own work.
▶ 0:50:16We we do not see us as duplicating their efforts and and do not want their statutory obligations, but we will work with them to help make uh the process way more streamlined so companies can get to Yes.
▶ 0:50:29So, is there a role that we can play to make the process even more streamlined and more efficient?
▶ 0:50:35Absolutely. So what we would love to do assuming uh in the future that we have the approval to move forward with implementing this structure uh we anticipate being able to to to work on some easy use cases first directly with companies either through a tabletop exercise or directly with some like uh novel missions that are closer and mature uh to becoming reality and iterate with with Congress with the inter agency and with industry on what that looks like and obviously at the end of the road here um
▶ 0:51:05making it nonvoluntary has its merits as well and that that takes congressional action, but we would love to get a few uh use cases under our belts to make sure the system we've created uh has no uh unintended consequences.
▶ 0:51:17Okay. Thank you. Um and as you're vetting the companies that are putting in uh for the certification, what kind of guard rails have you put in there to protect national security?
▶ 0:51:26Absolutely. So through the inter agency we will have the department of war uh and uh NASA FAA FCC state department all with the core US government equities and that's in addition to national security there are international obligations space safety we we need their expertise to be able to have those conversations ask the right questions with us when there is a dispute over something through the inter agency we feel like we have built in a dispute resolution elevation process that we've modeled after our license as well
▶ 0:51:56our kris work. Um, so we feel like we will have the ability to seek resolution, but national security is extremely important in the department of war will absolutely be in the inter agency process.
▶ 0:52:07Okay. Thank you so much. I yield back.
▶ 0:52:10Thank you, Miss Gillan. Next, we want to recognize the representative from Florida, Mr. Webster, for his five minutes to question. Mr. Webster, you're recognized, sir.
▶ 0:52:19Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Jordan, uh, how critical is it for the OS, uh, OSC to establish a voluntary opt-in framework to address potential liability in commercial space activities.
▶ 0:52:36Thank you for the question. So, the issue of liability um is is a difficult one. I I believe at this point uh no US regulator uh requires uh the indignification uh from for the US government for activities. Uh but this is something that we absolutely will take into account as we build this system. We understand that liability uh will increase over as as the space sector increases uh its cadence of missions and operations.
▶ 0:53:05But this is something that we we definitely want to take uh take a look at and uh work with you on. Okay, thank you. Uh to what extent will the OSC ensure that its missions are uh mission oper authorization proposal pro protects US financial interest if as it relates to potential liability issues.
▶ 0:53:30So thank you for the question. So important to us is is listening to industry and understanding their pain points. And if liability issues become a a pain point that they cannot live with. That is something that we're going to have to take into account as we build this system. Again, it's it's voluntary to start uh and looking forward to to building that out. But um this process has been built on transparency and in conversation with industry and we will continue that.
▶ 0:54:01Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the record a copy of my November uh letter to the CRS uh memo on the topic of space object space object liability.
▶ 0:54:16Without objection.
▶ 0:54:18Thank you very much. Okay. And also um Mr. Jordan, the OSC mission authorization uh proposal does not seem to address space nuclear systems. Meanwhile, the FAA recently approved the first commercial nuclear payload, demonstrating its expertise.
▶ 0:54:42Does the OSC need or see a need to uh include space nuclear uh technologies under a mission authorization? And if that if it does, how does it work to avoid duplicative kind of inter interaction between you and the FAA?
▶ 0:55:06So that that's a great question. Um, and it highlights the the uniqueness of novel activities, if you'll if you'll allow that one. Um, so for for nuclear technologies, the FAA has uh the obligation for public safety um, especially as it as it comes to launch and re-entry.
▶ 0:55:24So I I believe they've recently uh uh looked at this issue and are handling the public safety aspects especially for the payload review to make sure that uh what is being launched into orbit is safe uh pertaining to nuclear once it gets to space in the future if there's a novel activity for something that in space happens through our process OSC would would be the regulatory clearing house to ensure that uh safety remains uh intact.
▶ 0:55:53act throughout the life of that mission. So FAA is going to handle it for launch and re-entry and once it gets to space we we will then provide our expertise through the reg through the uh the certification and the authorization process. And again as I mentioned earlier there are potential questions that we could ask in our application on behalf of the FAA for them to do their job even faster and even easier.
▶ 0:56:18And that's that's one of the the the the impacts that we envision having on industry, giving them that confidence that it's one application, we can help satisfy other things through other
▶ 0:56:31Can you um confirm that the OSC uh can directly adopt FAA findings and issue mission authorization for nuclear applicants without uh redoing their So that's a great question that is going to uh rely on the inter agency's willingness to see our certification process through.
▶ 0:56:53Uh at the moment once we have submitted this proposal to the white house we have uh reached uh consensus with the inter agency and they they they have said that you know in the future this could help supplement or offset some of their work and obligations. But, you know, the proof is in the pudding and as we get some of these use cases under our belt, it's going to rely on continued inter agency
▶ 0:57:17Thank you very much. I yield back.
▶ 0:57:18Thank you.
▶ 0:57:19Thank you, Mr. President. Next, we're going to recognize from the state of California, Miss Selenus, you're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 0:57:25Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm actually from the state of Oregon, but thank you. Uh, thank you to Chair Heridopoulos and rank ranking member Fushi for holding this hearing. Um, I know we've gone over the budget a little bit, but I want to dive into the staffing um that underlies this budget. Um, president's budget request proposes eliminating tracks entirely.
▶ 0:57:49Uh, would it be fair to assume that you would lose half of OSC's current staff if tracks is
▶ 0:57:58So, thank you for the question. Um, as far as the FY27 budget request, uh, we do continue the work of Tracks. Again, as I I tried to articulate earlier, we it's not a question of if we should do it, but how should we do it? Is that through a contractor-owned model or a data as a service solution or a government system only? So, we are having those conversations, but we are not we are not stopping the work on tracks through the FY26 appropriation process. Congress continued to fund the office at the sustained level.
▶ 0:58:26I think a couple million dollar uh cut. Um but that work is continuing. Um as the ranking member mentioned in her opening statement they we have we are continuing in the pilot phase. We are we are working on uh integrating uh operators into our platform to see how we can create the whole system of where the satellites are. Um as far as as moving forward we look forward to having those options on the table for how the government will do this work.
▶ 0:58:54Again, I I I like to say that it's not a question of if, but how we we propose this in the future because uh SSA data is in SPD3 uh from President Trump in
▶ 0:59:05Okay. So, going back to kind of the staffing levels, what does that mean for the number of people you will have on
▶ 0:59:12That's a great question and I and I don't have an answer for you today sitting here today, but I'd be happy to take that back and to work with you on
▶ 0:59:18Okay. Thank you. And if you could um discern between what could be contracted and what could be in-house that would be helpful as well. So I too um worry that the proposal to allow OSE certification to satisfy other agencies requirements could serve as a loophole for you know certain companies to skip that rigorous analysis by experts at the FAA, FCC and Noah. And it sounds like some of that work is still being negotiated as well.
▶ 0:59:45Um, if this proposal moves forward, how do you ensure from the OSC side that you have the administrative capacity, the actual staffing, the technical expertise necessary to conduct your side of that rigorous analysis that would meet the statutory obligations of these partner
▶ 1:00:03Thank you for that. And uh, our expertise in house relies on the on the years of work that we have done through our commercial remote sensing licensing efforts through Chris. So we have that expertise. We have done this before. We do it constantly. And really the beauty about our certification process is that we will rely on the experts through the inter agency. The breadth and scope of novel missions and technologies is going to be a lot right. It's we're talking about space mirrors.
▶ 1:00:30We're talking about lunar landers, asteroid mining, orbital data centers, like you name it. No one agency has all that expertise. So I think it it really does rely on on the expertise of the inter agency when we we and we will actually bring in new partners. I think one of the things I mentioned in my opening statement was there there are companies out there looking at pharmaceuticals in space. So we're going to have to get the FDA involved on how we would certify something done in space. Uh so that's it's new and interesting and exciting.
▶ 1:00:58But again, you know, we're interested in a light touch administratively leveraging the existing people within the federal government. And if we need to bring people more in-house within OSC, we would be happy to look at detail opportunities, but we also have the expertise through Krisa in our in our years of remote sensing licensing.
▶ 1:01:17Thank you. Um, thank you, Mr. Jordan. Your proposal does not make any mention of informing or consulting with the public as part of that certification review process. Inspace activities could have the potential to provide positive benefits or harmful impacts for the public. It appears proposed certification approach would not include any means of public input or review of inspace activities with implications for the public.
▶ 1:01:42What is the plan to incorporate a means for public review and or comment um and considerations in the future?
▶ 1:01:50Yeah. So, thank you for that and and public comment is important and we look forward to to working on mechanisms we can put into our proposal to allow for that to happen. Obviously inter agency expertise is extremely important, scientific expertise is important and and obviously you know public input and comment is important. So we will work to to be able to have that opportunity for folks to comment.
▶ 1:02:10And when can we see that proposal?
▶ 1:02:12Happy to to work with the staff internally and get back to you on that.
▶ 1:02:16Okay. Thank you. I'm just my time is expired and I will yield back.
▶ 1:02:20I want to thank the represent from the great state of Oregon for her thoughtful questions. Outstanding work.
▶ 1:02:25Thank you.
▶ 1:02:26Mistakes were made. I want to now recognize a Congressman Cell from Texas. You are recognized, sir, for five
▶ 1:02:31You got it right, chairman. Thank you.
▶ 1:02:34Uh Mr. Jordan, I'm trying to reconcile some uh it looks to me like internal in your written and your verbal testimony. Uh you talked about we need to get our house in order, the government house in order. You talked about the commercial innovation is moving at the pace of innovation. You talked about the current regime being bad for innovation. So I'm trying to figure out, are we trying to catch up?
▶ 1:03:04So the current regime as it stands today, are we trying to catch up with commercial innovation or are we holding commercial innovation back? because it looks to me like in your written and verbal testimonies you tried to make both cases.
▶ 1:03:26Thank you for the question and I and I will be more clear. So we are trying to catch up
▶ 1:03:33but the the truth of the matter is we will never catch up to what industry is doing and how fast they are going. Creating a system today that is modular is the best way to move forward because industry is going to do what industry does and that's move fast and provide capabilities that the US federal government relies on. We need to give them the confidence and the clarity to keep doing what they do. Now we also need to catch up if you'll allow me uh on the international front.
▶ 1:03:57We have today cobbled together our our uh ability to respond to the outer space treaty through existing regulations. And sure we meet we meet the bare minimum requirements for our our treaty obligations but we need to meet the moment and meet industry where they are. So to be clear we need to catch up because we are not uh we are not meeting industry where they are at today.
▶ 1:04:21Okay. So followup you you uh kind of address this with Mr. Weber Webster but we live in a latigious society. So this new certification, can you tell me exactly the legal protections or the legal aspect of what this new certification does? Is it going to require consensus?
▶ 1:04:43One thing amongst the different agencies, um, if it does, anytime you start reaching consensus across multiple government agencies, you you make the bar higher. So what what exactly do you consider the legal both protections and and authorities that you're giving the
▶ 1:05:06So thank you for the question. We do have we are we are relying on some existing statutory uh obligations that we have under title 51 uh to seek the removal of policy and legal and and uh institutional impediments to growth for the commercial space sector.
▶ 1:05:24when it comes to liability as as I had mentioned before this is this is a question that will that we will have to address moving forward because again we're going to increase the the amount of things in space launch applications missions uh so it's something that we we have to to work on I don't have a great answer for you today I know that other uh departments have some uh ability to uh either have statutory obligations for liability through launch and re-entry for public safety but that's something that we're going I have to
▶ 1:05:54address.
▶ 1:05:55Okay. And uh I think my last question is going to be how are we going to make sure that we're that China is not hiding behind shell companies because that's their modus operendi today. Shell companies multiple companies deep. Uh how is this new certification going to make sure that we are not uh certifying basically a Chinese operation?
▶ 1:06:20So thank you for the question. In our certification application, we envision asking uh the right questions to address exactly that issue. So in addition to what type of mission or what type of technology or what type of orbit, we are going to ask some some basic government uh business structure questions and not just you know uh where are you located but you know who are the folks in your uh in your company and and things like that just to just to get to the heart of that issue.
▶ 1:06:49Uh I think those questions that you just outlined will be uh not sufficient uh because we we know that China uses three or four shell companies deep. Uh this this is a major issue uh and particularly I would think when it comes to space because uh we know that they hide the actual uh ownership and control deep within multiple layers of shell companies. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 1:07:19I'd like to return to Dr. Babin if we could for a question. As you know, we didn't get the all those questions in the the record. Dr. Babin, you'll recognize for five minutes.
▶ 1:07:27Thank you. Uh you may not remember, Mr. Jordan know what that question was, but it was a proposal uh and and how would the Department of Commerce's proposal address the regulatory gaps that other agencies have attempted to fill and would it reduce the need for other agencies to test the limits of their statutory authority?
▶ 1:07:49So, thank you for that question and reminding me of it. Um so for filling uh filling regulatory gaps that is that is a question that we uh we we we would probably want to work with Congress on uh because you know those would require new statutory authorities that we do not currently have. Um understanding that as it exists today uh different space regulators attempt to fill those gaps but the clarity on that would be extremely helpful.
▶ 1:08:20Absolutely. Maybe we need to clarify that thing through cotification. Uh the commercial space act of 2023 focused on establishing a clear process for the United States carry out its obligations to authorize and super supervise non-governmental actors under the outer space treaty. Uh the review process in that legislation was closely tailored uh to the United States's international obligations as they pertain to non-governmental actors.
▶ 1:08:48How did the Office of Space Commerce approach the review process proposed under the Space Commerce certification?
▶ 1:08:56So, thank you for the question and and as I said um in my in my testimony and and questions, we we do meet the outer space treaty today, but we we do it with the bare minimum and I think that will change in the future when we have new and novel things in space that we can't we can't even imagine. So, how can we as a government authorize and supervise things to to meet our treaty obligations that we don't have a regulatory system to to even review?
▶ 1:09:24That's what we're offering is our ability to meet the moment with industry to be able to authorize and supervise anything that comes our way and we would still meet our international treaty obligations.
▶ 1:09:34That's kind of information exactly we need to find out today. Thank you. Follow up one thing. How much of the proposed review process is derived from the United States's international obligations compared to other federal governmental uh interests?
▶ 1:09:49That's a great question and I'd actually love to to work with my staff and get back to you. But we do we but we do review our international obligations through the outer space treaty and I'll I'll I'll get back to them on uh on any other things.
▶ 1:10:01Okay. Still a couple of minutes here. The Office of Space Commerce developed this mission authorization proposal in response to President Trump's executive order 14335 using among other statutory authorities its direction under Title 51 to foster the conditions for the economic growth and technological advancement of the United States Space Commerce Industry.
▶ 1:10:23Last Congress, I introduced the Commercial Space Act of 2023 to formally grant your office authority over space object authorizations. Can you describe how additional legislative authority could help the Office of Space Commerce better carry out those objectives of mission authorization?
▶ 1:10:42Yes, sir. Thank you. Um so as we have set up our our certification today, it has to be voluntary because we are leveraging existing authorities uh that you mentioned and also part of that as well is our authority to seek the removal of of legal policy and institutional impediments to the growth of the commercial space sector. So we feel like that uh additional action from Congress would would only uh assist in making uh our voluntary program more
▶ 1:11:10Yeah. Excellent. Uh while the space commerce certification framework applies to all space activities not covered by existing statutory authority, it places particular emphasis on providing a clear path for operators who seek to conduct novel or non-traditional space activities.
▶ 1:11:29The Office of Space Commerce provides several examples of such activities including inspace manufacturing, orbital computing, satellite servicing, lunar operations, and commercial inhabitable uh stations. How do you anticipate applying the same certification process to such a wide range of activities?
▶ 1:11:49So that that is a great question that we have thought through within the office and it does rely on the expertise through the inter agency of the federal government. So different agencies are going to have different expertise whether that's uh DOE uh or department of war for for new space nuclear or or FDA uh for pharmaceuticals in space.
▶ 1:12:08We will rely on the expertise from the inter agency and those we will have core basic questions that we ask everybody but we need to tailor the requirements for those missions and we want to do that iteratively with with in the inter agency and with industry.
▶ 1:12:22Absolutely. With that I'll yield back Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:12:24Thank you Mr. Chairman. Next, we're going to move to the Congress from California, Mr. Fong. Mr. Fong, you're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 1:12:30Uh, uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you for your testimony. This is a very important effort uh, that's underway. Um, my first question, uh, the administration's proposal suggests that existing regulators, the FAA, FCC, and OSC uh, uh, would utilize the space commerce certification to wave certain elements of their regulatory view. What are some of the examples of administrative burdens that may be
▶ 1:12:53Sure. So um through the certification process uh for novel space activities, it would allow industry to have that confidence because the we we integrate the presumption of approval, we integrate a light touch, we integrate industry standards and we integrate uh some strict timelines to get to yes on that. And that is always step one in this process uh for for why uh we're we're moving forward with this. It's it's to fill the gaps in the regulations.
▶ 1:13:21And the second part of it which is quite interesting is the deregulatory nature that we are allow we're putting into this where we could ask questions on behalf of uh of the inter agency to satisfy potentially some of their questions that they would ask. though instead of asking it twice, you could ask it once through us and that would be the deregulatory or the streamlining nature that we hope would be uh able to to fit into this
▶ 1:13:45and this framework for the industry to voluntarily seek mission approval from from the Department of Commerce. Does this proposal require congressional action to implement?
▶ 1:13:54So, thank you. So yes, we are relying on uh the the system itself is voluntary and it's an opt-in because we're leveraging existing authorities, but additional authorities from Congress would make our system more robust.
▶ 1:14:06What type of new authorities or additional authorities would you need?
▶ 1:14:09Uh probably something along the lines of enforcement mechanisms to to either uh allow companies to utilize this system and if there's a uh a a bad behavior or an nefarious actor in the future, there's an enforcement mechanism that can that can draw that out in the
▶ 1:14:23Okay. Um uh many commercial space activities are done under contract with the government. Uh for example, NASA's commercial LEO um LEO destinations program uh and the commercial lunar payload services programs are both commercial activities for which NASA is a customer.
▶ 1:14:40How are discussions going with your fellow space agency leaders on what activities should go through the office of space commerce uh and that process versus what activities would be purely overseen by governor purch government purchasers and how do we ensure that um that that bureaucratic back and forth doesn't hold back our prior our priorities like returning to the moon.
▶ 1:15:01Thank you for the question. So our ability to reach consensus with the inter agency and submit this proposal to the White House in response to the executive order is a testament to the inter agency actually reaching that consensus. So we're we're excited that we've worked with all of our partners, Department of War, state, NASA to to ensure that their equities are are heard and met through our certification process. And that's human space flight, that's public safety, that's national security, that's international obligations.
▶ 1:15:29We have had many of those conversations uh over the last few months and we feel like we're in a good
▶ 1:15:36What are I guess from a short-term near-term what are the next steps? I mean what's what's next on the on on the on the checklist that needs to be done?
▶ 1:15:44Thank you for that. So um next on this is uh assuming uh that we that we get kind of the green light to to implement our certification. We would love to put a call out for applications. We would love to then uh you know receive applications, ask questions [snorts] of the companies uh through a tailored approach uh review the the the application and put it into the inter agency for review at which point we could ask those questions uh along with the inter
▶ 1:16:14agency and then finally seek uh seek an approval. Okay, my last question. An important element uh of the OSC's work is to provide public information u about space traffic, possible collisions in space. Certainly uh a lot more attention is going on in space on on the on the on the commercial side as well as on on the national security side um in order to preserve the space environment for years to come. Can you provide us an update on the OS's space traffic program and are there additional resources or authorities you need to move forward um in this arena?
▶ 1:16:44So, thank you for the question. The work on our uh on our uh track system, our SSA uh uh issue is is ongoing uh in FY26 through congressional appropriations. We received funds and we are continuing that. It is in a pilot phase. We are in a production environment where we are onboarding satellite operators and that work continues and is going well.
▶ 1:17:06Okay. Well, look forward to working with you. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, for uh for this hearing. And with that, I yield
▶ 1:17:12Thank you, sir. Next, I want to recognize Miss Fucci again, our ranking member. You're recognized for five
▶ 1:17:18Thank you. Um, I'm pleased to see that your proposal includes an inter agency review. That proposal, however, states that, and I quote, "The inter agency review shall include a voluntary opportunity for input from all departments and agencies with interest in the novel space activity under review." End quote.
▶ 1:17:46If such a review is merely voluntary, how would we have confidence that an application has been appropriately vetted for any national security, foreign policy, international safety or other US interests? Similarly to what extent would the secretary be obliged to adopt any agency input?
▶ 1:18:09So thank you for the question, ranking member Fushi. So you raised the point that the inter agency review is also voluntary but we view that as having the experts in the room to to answer those questions around national security international obligations that you mentioned and we we we have set strict timelines within our re our application review process that are going to hold our inter agency partners to a high standard
▶ 1:18:40to put in the work to to meet uh the the timelines of of the application. But you you do raise a good point and some of these things again it's a voluntary program and and new authorities to to to to force uh that inter agency collaboration would have to come through through new authorities.
▶ 1:19:05The brightness of large satellite constellations increasingly interferes with space-based astronomical observations and environmental monitoring for Earth observing satellites. Just last week, the FCC approved a license for a space-based mirror designed to reflect sunlight back to the Earth, as we heard from the ranking member earlier, raising additional concerns for not only astronomy, but also to wildlife.
▶ 1:19:36These types of novel space activities highlight the need for a mission authorization framework and one that considers potential impacts to our science. Will your proposed process review the scientific impacts of certification applications and how will it protect federal investments in earth and space science while mitigating potential harm?
▶ 1:20:00So, thank you for the question. Our certification will include the scientific uh observations and discourse in the applications and part of that is going to be through our reliance on the the experts and I know I've said it a few times but the inter agency. So for for astronomy specifically for the example you mentioned working with the NASA experts to understand uh how different applications or novel missions will impact downstream some other things like light pollution and astronomy.
▶ 1:20:29So we again would rely on experts uh such as those for NASA and as I mentioned as well you know we want to be able to have a mechanism for public comment as well. Your proposal seems to state that NASA could only impose conditions or deny certification in the case of unacceptable dangers to the safety of space operations. Does that mean that the OSC proposal would not consider the science impacts of certification
▶ 1:21:00No, ma'am. Our intent would be to to have scientific impacts as part of that review process. Yes, ma'am.
▶ 1:21:07I yield back, Mr. Thank you so much. Next, Mr. Gallagher from California is here recognized for five minutes for questions, sir.
▶ 1:21:18Okay, no problem. Well, with no other um I'm going to take my uh five minutes. Uh I want to get into the question about rulemaking if you could. Um the Office of Space Commerce notes that that implementation of this framework may not require typical rulemaking processes. What is your intended plan to move forward with this idea?
▶ 1:21:37So our our intended plan and next steps uh assuming we have a a a green light from the White House on implementation of this would be to again put out a call uh for applications uh and then ask questions and and and tailor our our uh application to first some basic questions uh around things like international obligations, national security as well as uh basic business structure and how those things look.
▶ 1:22:06um we will review those applications and I should say as well is we have no uh opinion about which application should come first different technologies the the novel uh nature of of what we're talking about here means we we would probably get applications from a whole host of different uh uh technologies at one time. So we we intend to look at mature technologies and mature missions and really focus in on what is near to operations in space.
▶ 1:22:34Uh from there we will put our our application into the inter agency. We will work with them uh on on h how we how we get to yes uh through that process and then at the end of that we we anticipate being able to certify and authorize these missions. And again we have built into our certification some some strict timelines and this is what industry has needed. They need that clarity and that confidence that this will not be an endless maze uh that kind of exists today.
▶ 1:23:02So we have built in I believe 120 days into the certification. We have some ability for extensions but we we need to cut it off at some point and we need to give the industry uh the the ability to to get to yes to attract capital and to continue continue to do the things that they do best.
▶ 1:23:19And and with that idea in mind the FAA has some of these opportunities to make this flexibility with rulem and I would hope are you using them as a guideline to do this or are you looking a little bit a little bit different? Uh so we're looking at everything on the table at the moment because this is voluntary and we do not have an official next step. Again, this was a proposal from the executive order. We are we are kind of sitting and waiting, but we are looking at all options on the table as well.
▶ 1:23:46And one last question. I see Mr. Whiteside is here as well. We actually propose the one giant leap act. The the goal we've all had, as you know, is to go kind of one-stop shopping and making sure we stay number one in commercial space activities. Uh with that in mind is [clears throat] where what how do you envision that one stop in time what because that's our whole goal is that as you know the Chinese are are nipping at our heels on a lot of fronts. We want to re reduce those that bureaucracy. That's what the whole meeting uh today is about.
▶ 1:24:15How do we move towards one-stop shopping because of the the different agencies that are involved today.
▶ 1:24:21So that's a great question and I and I do want to be clear in this process for the office of space commerce. We are not looking to um to take away any statutory obligations or regulations from other from other uh space regulators like the FAA or the FCC. The one-stop shop is a great idea and we want to make sure that we have the ability to ask questions on their behalf, but we need a process that works.
▶ 1:24:46And we're really excited to test out our framework and our process with some great use cases uh to to work out any kinks in the system and then deliver that back and showcase how the one-stop shop can work. But again, I just want to be very clear. We're not going to be taking away any statutory obligations from others.
▶ 1:25:02No doubt. And that our goal is that one stop, but again with the safety ideas in mind. I'll yield now to uh the congressman from California, Mr.
▶ 1:25:09Mr. White, you're recognized for five minutes. Welcome to the committee.
▶ 1:25:12Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leadership and uh appreciate uh you director Jordan for coming today. I wanted to start out with one of the office of commercial office of space commerce's existing uh responsibilities which is licensing private remote sensing systems. These systems support everything from agriculture to disaster response to infrastructure monitoring and national security.
▶ 1:25:35Congress supported the 2020 reforms because they were intended to make the licensing process clearer and less burdensome while still protecting important national security interests. I understand your office is now considering further updates to make those rules work better in practice. Can you update the committee on your efforts to modernize and streamline remote sensing licensing and explain how those changes could better support American innovation and competitiveness?
▶ 1:26:00Thank you for the question. Um so yes so uh since the 2020 update of the Chrisra uh regulations uh we want to ensure that there have been no unintended consequences since that time. Uh six years have passed and we want to ensure that industry is still able to do the things it does best. Part of that is re-evaluating the tiering structure. Are there unintended consequences? Do we accidentally pit uh international uh competitors uh and then put them at an advantage to American companies?
▶ 1:26:29Those are things that we want to take a look at and we we have not uh uh officially moved forward with with opening that back up but it is on our minds. We obviously have a lot on our plates through tracks and mission authorization and the advocacy work that we do but it is something that we we feel strongly to to take a look at and how we can ensure that uh American businesses are able to do the things that they do best.
▶ 1:26:52That's great. um certainly something that we support and I think your the point that you alluded to there in the middle is is absolutely something that I think is happening where we're where we're hurting domestic companies at the expense of uh Chinese competitors in particular. Um second question that I want to ask uh is uh around the the basic task of managing the rapid growth of the number of satellites in orbit. As more satellites are launched, operators face more close approaches and a greater risk of collisions.
▶ 1:27:20Commerce is obviously working hard on a civilian system to track satellites and debris and warn operators when objects may come too close. You've given a few updates on where that stands today. Um can you just speak a little in a little bit more detail what can the system do now? What still needs to be built and when would commerce be ready to fully take over uh that space safety role? You also mentioned the word containerization which I was not familiar with but I looked it up. uh maybe you can talk about uh what that means and what's motivating that containerization.
▶ 1:27:51So thank you for the question. Um so first to there's a few of them in there. Let me bite off a couple of them at a time. Um so for for what the system is doing today and what could it do tomorrow type of type of question. Um we are focused on the collision avoidance mission and I think that's paramount and that that is safety that is you know the air traffic control of space. let's not have our satellites run into each other, create uh debris uh which will impact others.
▶ 1:28:19So the the basic function of the system we're creating is collision avoidance. Are there other capabilities that could be built on top of that? Sure, there could be and that's a question that I would I would love to have with with industry as well as the inter agency and others are are should the the federal government provide additional services on top of the basic safety services or should that be left to the private sector as well to provide those capabilities on top of the existing platform that we're creating.
▶ 1:28:46Uh when it comes to containerization, uh that just uh for us that's our ability to take the take the progress we've made and make sure that it is stable and that is in a good place as we consider uh the ability to to work on uh different constructs for financing for our track system whether that's through uh user fees or some type of partnership with industry and how that looks going forward. And again, the the the answer that I gave earlier in in the uh in testimony was it's not a question of like if we should do this.
▶ 1:29:16It's how should the government go about doing this? Is that through an instilled government program or is it relying more on commercial partners to assist us in that basic safety mission of collision avoidance? So, those are questions that we're obviously asking ourselves and working on internally and would love to uh to have those conversations.
▶ 1:29:32Thank you. I think my closing comment would basic basically be this work is super important and we appreciate you taking um a big crack at it. uh in in many ways it's kind of the wild west in in orbit right now and people are surprised at how true that really is and that's why I think however we solve these problems that's why we got to get on top of it especially in a world where we're heading towards potentially as many as 50,000 active satellites
▶ 1:30:02in orbit which is a mind-boggling number for someone who's been in the space industry as long as I have thanks for all you're doing
▶ 1:30:10thank you and next we recognize a congressman from Georgia. Mr. McCormack, you're recognized, sir.
▶ 1:30:14Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate you being here, Mr. Jordan. Uh, one of the things I was really concerned with is China's obviously aggressively pursuing a commercial space program. They don't have the regulatory burden we have. Obviously, they have a streamlined system because one guy gets to call all the shots. We obviously have a procedure that kind of can hamper us, but also make it safer and more fair. Uh what do you think this administration is doing to make sure that we're still attractive in the commercial sector and developing and being competitive on a world scale?
▶ 1:30:44Obviously, we have people, some of the best entrepreneurs in the world, putting more spaceships in outer space than all the other countries combined, but we can lose that edge very quickly if we're overly regulated and burdened. Uh what are we doing to make it attractive for people to still invest in the space programs here in the United
▶ 1:31:00That's a great question and it's a big question. So we are doing a lot to ensure that we can unleash the capabil our American space capabilities. I do think there is an opportunity before us today where uh other countries in the world and our and our uh especially in NATO are increasing their defense budgets and part of that is going to be a space capability portion of that. So there is more money going into space than ever before. Every week we see a new IPO or a new raise and we see hundreds of millions of dollars and billions of dollars going going into the space sector.
▶ 1:31:29This is an opportunity for American companies to compete internationally as well and provide those capabilities and systems internationally. But part of that is we're going to have to ensure that our export controls are aligned to make sure that those things can be sold at the appropriate time in the appropriate place. But back home, I think what we're talking about today for our mission authorization framework is to give uh give the private sector the clarity and the confidence that they can do to keep innovating as fast as they do.
▶ 1:31:55One thing I love to say um is that all of our uh capabilities here even for the government are built on industry capabilities. So we have to support the industry that provides the capabilities that we as a government rely on.
▶ 1:32:10One of the things that that worried me last administration, I was very vocal about this in these same hearings, was that for each space launch, if they made a minor modification, there was a reapproval process that was really burdensome and that could actually slow down the launch processes, get us way behind, once again regulatory burden that that could put us at a competitive disadvantage. What have we done to correct that course?
▶ 1:32:30So, you're spot on. as as capabilities improve and the and the cadence uh increases we will have more launches and we will need more launch facilities and we will need more capability to to meet that demand. So working with our partners in the department of transportation and department of war and NASA to ensure that we have the facilities we need to put things up when we need them so we have the capabilities on orbit.
▶ 1:32:54Yeah. The one thing I meant is like the approval process. So every time you do made a modification, let's say you you said, "Oh, we could do this better." Then your modification, it requires additional paperwork and an approval process. The paperwork's not the
▶ 1:33:05but the approval process streamlining a rapid response from the government, which is contradictory in my mind, uh making sure we get that rapid that we have a timeline that's very quick uh to to reapprove the process of launch.
▶ 1:33:18Yeah. So I mean that's a great point. So the paperwork that's required of course paperwork is fine but the modifications themselves require more time and more effort can we internally look at using uh new systems electronically to even speed that up. That's something that we want to look at eventually in in in house is how do we how do we speed up those processes because the modifications are going to happen. Capabilities on orbit do do have new capabilities. They do have new things that they need to do.
▶ 1:33:45They need to be able to modify their request to a regulatory agency. But how we do that in a fast nature is I think what's most
▶ 1:33:52I hope we continue to review that process and make it more speedy. I want to take just my remaining time to kind of pick on a NATO ally for a second. Uh the most lucrative nation in the world per capita is Luxembourg. Now we've criticized other countries for not getting the 2% and now 5% of GDP investment in their military. Luxembourg is like, "Well, you guys got more janitors than we have people in the military." Uh and that's just in the military.
▶ 1:34:16But one of the things I always said, they they make more per capita for GDP cap per capita than any other country in the world. And yet they impose the least of any NATO country in the military because we're too small. They were at 6% GDP. Now they're up to 0.9%. We really got to get them past two and actually eventually 0.5. The thing I always say is invest in space. Yeah, you're not going to have tanks and airplanes. I understand you're not going to overtake anybody with your artillery, but you are very good at space. Invest in that right there.
▶ 1:34:45and you can get up to 2% GDP and you're going to make a difference in the way we look at even the military application of space exploration and technologies and communication amongst NATO countries. Would you agree?
▶ 1:34:56I Yes, sir. I would agree.
▶ 1:34:58Fantastic. With that, I yield.
▶ 1:34:59Thank you very much. Next, we have Dr. Foster from the state of Illinois recognized for five minutes, sir.
▶ 1:35:04Yeah. Thank you. And I'd like to talk a little one of the key elements in getting successful commercialization going is getting a successful insurance industry. And it's my understanding that launch insurance is pretty well established and fairly successful. Is that a fair impression?
▶ 1:35:21Uh yes sir, that's my understanding.
▶ 1:35:22Yeah. And it it's very valuable and it's been crucial for a lot of um the economics of a lot of um now I'm more worried about actually terrorist insurance here. And you know this there recently I think the Reuters uh published some leak papers about Chinese Russian collaboration on simple schemes to wipe out Starlink. All right. And you can imagine if things continue to go downhill for the Russians, it will be very attractive for them to decide uh to do something in in a way that might be very hard even to attribute to them.
▶ 1:35:53Uh but it's not just China and Russia that we have to worry about. It is terrorist. You know, I like a lot of people these days, I'm having Claude Code do uh interesting projects. One of the things I did not long ago was ask it uh to calculate the debris field if someone accidentally detonated a starship when it was fully fueled in low Earth orbit and the debris field from there and how destructive that would be. Okay.
▶ 1:36:16And that's something where you're talking about, you know, one rogue nation with one old Russian fighter jet going launching an air-to-air missile and and taking out a fully fueled um starship. And so there are many other scenarios. Just roughly speaking, anyone who puts a bucket of gravel in a counterrotating orbit is going to wipe things out. And so the cost, the damage that can be done with a very cheap mission is enormous. And so how is that an insurable risk?
▶ 1:36:44And and what is the way forward on on eliminating that risk? So that's a good question that I think we all are asking ourselves because as you as you stated that you know Department of Transportation through their launch and re-entry they have established uh some some liability and some insurance needs for that. Um I'd be happy to work with with you and uh and and industry on that because I think one of the issues that we want to make sure that we are cognizant of is the burden on industry for that because it there is not a level playing field.
▶ 1:37:14you have big companies and you have small companies and and the the requirement of insurance could negatively impact you know startups over over the larger companies.
▶ 1:37:22Oh yeah. No, it's very analogous to uh requiring um uh cyber security insurance of a small startup. A small startup that's handling a very valuable data set that can do you know tens of billions of dollars of damage if that data set's leaked. Uh you know it's very hard you know one simple mistake.
▶ 1:37:40you can be doing everything right and misconfigure one database and kaboom uh you've done you know billions of dollars of damages no startup has the capital to do that and I don't I don't see any easy way that's an insurable risk so what what are the best thinking what's the plan and when are we going to see a detailed plan out of industry of how to get this
▶ 1:38:00so I think I think you rais a good point and I think we internally at OSE as the as the industry advocate inside the US government we need to have those conversations with industry. Maybe that's a series of listening sessions or just planning on on what does that look like for them. Because again, I do want to be cognizant of the burdens we place on industry. And what we're here to talk about today with with our mission authorization framework is is is ensuring that industry has the confidence they need to do the things they do best, and that's to innovate
▶ 1:38:28That's right. But everyone wants the government to provide free insurance. You know, you see it in flood insurance. You see it everywhere you look. You see it in Florida in spades. Um and and so this is a you know it's a problem and you have to ultimately if you're looking at the commercial viability of space they have to pay for the cost that they impose on the taxpayer if the taxpayers is going to be required to um to backs stop insurance.
▶ 1:38:54So um so this is does is there a general appreciation inside industry of just how fragile these systems in low earth orbit are against terrorist type attacks? I I think there are uh depending on the the different sector within the space sector whether that's a a more national security focused uh space company but I I believe they're you know they take this seriously and we need to to understand uh where those limitations lie and and what needs to be done if anything at the federal level.
▶ 1:39:22Yeah. And it's a no, it's a huge problem because you're talking about small rogue nations that can do this. And a small rogue nation that's, you know, about to lose a military conflict, uh, has a tremend, you know, they their lives would be much easier if they could just knock out Starlink or the GPS system or orbital data centers for that matter. Anyway, when you figure this out, let me know because this is something I've been worried about for quite a while.
▶ 1:39:46Yes, sir. Thank you.
▶ 1:39:47Yield back.
▶ 1:39:48Thank you, Dr. Foster. With no other members for questions, I'd like to thank our our uh witness today, Mr. Jordan, for your time and thought today. I know there are some questions you're going to follow up on as well. Thank you very much. And the members for their questions. Uh the record remain open for 10 days for additional comments and written questions from members. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.