A Review of the Office of Space Commerce’s Mission Authorization Proposal

Good morning. The Committee on, Subcommittee on Space and Air Noise 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 statement. Without objection, the chair is authorized to uh declare recess at any time. Without objection, it's ordered. 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. This year we made great strides as evidenced by the successful Artemis-two mission. which flew humans around the moon for the first time since nineteen seventy-two. 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 twenty eleven when we lost the shuttle. Also in the last five years we watched an- a number of launches in twenty twenty-one grow from forty-five to a hundred and ninety-two last year, and of course we're having a great year here. in twenty twenty six. 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. Today we will review the Commerce Department's proposal for a Mission Authorization Framework. Mission Authorization is how the United States government reviews and oversees 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 nongovernmental activities in space. Currently, 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 leadership. In the past, some have proposed a 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. Several aspects of this proposal aligned with legislation considered by this committee last Congress. This Commercial Space Act of twenty twenty three, sponsored by our good Chairman, Doctor Babin, offered a common sense path forward. Today we will review the Office of Space Commerce proposal in full with our witness Mister Taylor Jordan, the Director of Office of Space Commerce. I want to thank Mister Jordan 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 space. I want I now want to recognize our ranking member, Miss Fucci from North Carolina. Miss Fucci, welcome, and you are recognized.

Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Herodotpolis, 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 activities may seem far removed from the concerns of most Americans today. Families 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. Space 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. But 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 Artemis-two mission and the benefits it has already delivered. The growing commercial space economy can also create jobs and economic opportunity. But 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 guardrails. This is a governing challenge with which I'm deeply familiar through my work on artificial intelligence, as 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. Large satellite constellations, for example, can interfere with optical and radio astronomy due to their reflectivity and radio transmission inference. 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. We 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. We 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 stakeholders. Before I close, Mister Chairman, I want to note my disappointment that the committee was not provided with advance 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 NOAA's fiscal year twenty twenty seven request for the office of space commerce despite multiple requests this is not a transparency we expect as the committee of

Thank you, Miss Fusche. I now wanna recognize our Chairman of the full committee, Doctor Babin. Doctor Babin, you're recognized, sir.

Good morning and thank you, Chairman Herodotpolis, for holding this very important hearing and thank you, Director uh 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. As 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, as other nations, particularly China, under the Chinese Communist Party, seek to overtake us. we must ensure that American innovators are competing against our adver- adversaries, not against unnecessary government bureaucracy. 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. And while the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Department of Commerce each have statutory authority to regulate types of space activities, a growing number of nongovernmental space activities do not clearly fall within these existing frameworks. And 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. In twenty seventeen, 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. The bill sought to establish a clear, light-touch framework for the Department of Commerce to affirm that nongovernmental 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 twenty eighteen, but did not make it to the President's desk before the end of the hundred and fifteenth Cong- uh Congress. Just last Congress I introduced the Commercial Space Act of twenty twenty-three, which similarly gave the Department of Commerce authority to issue certifications for space object operations through a streamlined, minimally burdensome process. Many 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. And while Congress has continued to consider the appropriate path forward, President Trump took action last August by signing executive order one four three three five which directed the Department of Commerce to propose its own approach to mission authorization. Commerce 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. The 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. The 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 twenty twenty-three. It 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. I 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 uh what you have to say today and uh appreciate the time and I yield back, Mister Chairman.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee. Miss Lofgren from California, you are recognized.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, Ranking Member, and as well, Mister 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 nineteen sixty-seven to authorize and supervise nongovernmental activities in space conducted by US individuals or entities. Now, currently the US policy framework for authorizing and supervising spake 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. Uh, just last week, uh, the 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 satellite's 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 emissions. How we in Congress uh 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, uh, as the chairman has mentioned, companies and investors also need predictability in the regulatory landscape as they weigh, uh, business decisions. Now, as the chairman has mentioned, we've worked in multiple congresses, I've 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. I also believe that any solution must allow for some common sense rules for in-space 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, Mister Chairman, 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 wanna highlight one of the Office of Space's, 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, uh, operators of potential collisions. This effort, called TRAX, has reached a pilot, uh, uh, phase, yet inexplicably The administration's fiscal year twenty twenty seven budget request does does not propose funding to continue the TRAX project. Uh, don't we have to worry about the potential collision in space, especially as orbits become increasingly congested? Despite the importance of TRAX in a global space economy and the hundreds of billions of dollars, OMB requested just eleven million dollars for the Office of Space Commerce fiscal year twenty twenty seven, an eighty percent cut from the fiscal year twenty twenty six 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? It's not clear to me how the Office of Space Commerce would be able to take on the added responsibilities we're he- 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.

Thank you very much, Ms. Lofgren. Let me now introduce our witness. Our witness today is the Honorable Taylor Jordan, who I'd had 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.

Chairman Herodopoulos, Ranking Member Foushee, Chairman Babin, and Ranking Member Lofgren, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I also wanna thank the staff of the Office of Space Commerce for their tireless work on mission authorization, which is creating a tremendous work product that I'm excited to talk about today. The 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 we call it the space commerce certification 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. Today, American companies are building entirely new economic domains, from in-orbit 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 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. We 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 shoe-horned 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. In executive order fourteen three three five, 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 intergovernmental coordination. The 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 clearinghouse. Our certification would gather information from and incorporate them into a single voluntary application, and then circulate this application to the federal inter-agency for review. Following this review, OSC could provide a space commerce certification to the applicants. The FAA and the FCC could then waive 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. OSC 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-led 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. It 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. Our certification process would hold the government to a higher standard to c- to be c- 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. America'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.

Thank you, Mister Jordan, very much, and I'll now recognize myself for five minutes for questions for Mister Jordan. Mister 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. And so, in my question, the the Office of Space Commerce has said that the Space Commerce certification would not replace the CR SRA FAA or FCC's 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? And what should the coordination look like?

Thank 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 in-space activities for novel activities things that do not really exist today. Um, in our process we have developed, uh, questions that we will ask the int- 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 re 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 that'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.

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 an- another agency can rely on that certification instead of conducting its own separate review?

Thank 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 CRISRA, through the FAA, and through the FCC. So 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 clearinghouse for novel activities could then streamline the process and provide the certainty that industry has been asking for.

I I I think uh I I think one question I like to ask since it's broad is, you know, you're you're you're dealing with these different commercial companies every day and and where the innovations are 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 and what suggestions would you have for us as you pro- make this proposal.

So that that's a great question and it 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 tr- transmission. And we talk about uh the space mirror question that ranking member Lofgren answered. They do not answer the question about in-space 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's space safety, international obligations, national security.

Well, I appreciate your testimony today and in building on the good ideas that our chairman proposed back in twenty twenty three, and I look forward to a good conversation today and I'd like to now recognize our ranking member from North Carolina Miss Foushee for five minutes of questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Jordan, the department's fiscal year twenty twenty seven budget proposes just eleven million dollars for the Office of Space Commerce, and does not identify continued funding for the Traffic Coordination System for Space or TRACS as it's known, the government's civil space traffic coordination system, which now supports sixty-two pilot users and more than eleven thousand satellites. If the department is not supporting continued federal funding for TRAX, 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 emission is certified?

Thank you for the question, ranking member Foushee. So in in the FY twenty-seven uh President's budget request uh for the Office of Space Commerce, Uh we do continue the work of our TRACKS 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. Um there are there that is also in executive order uh deliverable and uh uh is mentioned in the executive order for the ability for the TRACKS system to to utilize uh partnerships with industry.

Since the certification process and 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 when something goes wrong.

Thank you for the question, and that that's a great one. So the the liability and indemnification question has been a 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

Thank you for that response. While the department is proposing to cut the Office of Space Commerce's budget for fiscal year twenty twenty-seven by eighty percent, from twenty twenty six 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. Does the eleven million dollars proposed in FY twenty twenty seven include funding to carry out this certification proposal?

Thank you for the question. So, in our FY twenty seven 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 envis- envision this being a a light touch administratively. We will rely on our inter-agency partners who have expertise in many of these new technologies and missions and

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?

Thank you for the question, and and I'm happy to take that back and and and work with you on that. Uh,

Thank you for that, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Miss Fisher. Next we'll recognize our Chairman, Doctor Babin, for five minutes. You're recognized, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and again, uh, thank you for being here. We pr- appreciate this. You described the proposed space commerce certification is voluntary. If commercial space operators do not participate in the certification process, will other agencies prohibit their missions or operations?

Thank you for the question. So, in developing this proposal, we worked hand in glove with the interagency 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. We are leveraging existing authorities that we that we have uh 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 kinda hobble together in in an ad-hoc fashion different s 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 streamlined effort that industry is looking for, we are we are confident that they will use this voluntary system.

Are you confident, and how will you insure that this voluntary process does not turn into just a vast expansion of regulatory authority?

That 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 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 they 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 success.

Absolutely. Currently, the Commercial Remote or 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 end-of-life operations. How will the Office of Space Commerce leverage your experience with licensing private remote sensing operations to inform the Space Commerce certification process?

That'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 uh on behalf of the US government. We also have uh our CRISRA experience that you mentioned, where we are uh a space regulator as well. So that provides us a number of different opportunities to to go into how uh regulations actu- actually work. and have that experience under our belt. In 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.

Well, to follow that up, uh the remote sensing licensing process was plagued by never-ending 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?

So our work through CRISR 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 inter interests uh from multiple levels to to make sure we get to conclusion on a fast time line. In our certification we've also built in uh some some time lines into that that are again informed from our experience with CRISRA. Uh and then we also have uh some some very short time lines for re-review.

OK, and I've got time for one more. The FCC res- recently scheduled a meeting to consider a new order that requires applicants to respond to certifications regarding various space save- safety information including trackability, satellite size, collision risk, casualty risk, and post-mission mission disposal. When 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. Ultimately, the FCC withdrew of those proposals under significant criticism of from Congress and other agencies and the public.

Without objection.

Amen. 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?

So that's a that's a great question.

And and I think we'll from there we'll we'll yield back. And uh, we'll get to that question a bit later.

OK.

All right, thank you.

All right.

With that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Next, I'd like to recognize Miss Gillin from New York for her five minutes. You're recognized.

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. And thank you, Director Jordan, for testifying here before us today. So I I wanna build a little bit on Chairman Bavin'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?

Thank 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, um, 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 uh 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. We 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.

So is there a role that we can play to make the process even more streamlined and more efficient.

Absolutely. 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

Okay, thank you. Um, and as you're vetting the companies that are putting in uh for the certification, what kind of guardrails have you put in there to protect national security?

So, through the inter-agency, we will have the Department of War, uh, uh NASA, FAA, FCC, State Department, all with the core US government equities, and 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 CRISRA license as well, our CRISRA work. Um so we feel like we will have the ability to seek resolution. But national security is extremely important and the Department of War will absolutely be in the inter-agency process.

OK. Thank you so much. I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Gillen. Next we wanna recognize the representative from Florida, Mister Webster, for his five minutes of question. Mister Webster, you're recognized, sir.

Thank you, Chairman. Mister 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.

Thank 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 indemnification, uh, from, for the US government for activities. Uh, but this is something that we absolutely will take into account as we

OK, thank you. Uh, to what extent, uh, will uh the OSC ensure that its missions are uh, mission oper authorization proposal project protects US financial interest if as it relates to potential liability issues.

So thank you for the question. So important to us is is listening to industry and understanding their pain points. And if liability issues become uh a pain point that they cannot live with, that is something that we're gonna 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 on transparency and in conversation with industry and we will continue that.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the record a copy of my November uh letter to the CRS uh memo on a topic of space object uh space object liability.

Without objection.

Thank you very much. OK, and also um Uh, 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. Does the OSC need or see a need to uh include space nuclear uh technologies under emission authorization. And if that, if it does, how does it work to avoid be- duplicative kind of inter- interaction between you and the FAA?

Yep. So 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. So I, I believe they have 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 clearinghouse to ensure that uh safety remains uh intact throughout the life of that mission so FAA is gonna handle it for launch and re-entry and once it gets to space we w- we will then provide our expertise through the regu- 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

Can you um confirm that the OSC uh can directly adopt FAA findings and issue mission authorization for nuclear applicants without uh redoing their work?

So that's a great question that is going to uh rely on the inter-agency's willingness to see our certification process through. Uh 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 have 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. get some of these use cases under our belt, it's gonna rely on continued inter-agency collaboration.

Thank you very much. Uh, you're back.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. Next, we're gonna recognize from the state of California. Miss Salinas, you're recognized for five minutes.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, I'm actually from the state of Oregon, but people in the that's okay.

Oregon, sorry.

Thank you. Uh, thank you to Chair Herodophilus and Ranker, Ranking Member Foushee for holding this hearing. Um, I know we've gone over the budget a little bit, but I wanna dive into the staffing um that underlies this budget. Um, President's budget request proposes eliminating TRAX entirely. Uh, would it be fair to assume that you would lose half of OSC's current staff if TRAX is terminated?

So thank you for the question. Um, as far as the FY twenty-seven budget request, uh, we do continue the work of TRAX. Again, a- as I - I tried to articulate earlier, we're l- it's not a question of if we should do it, but how should we do it? through a contractor-owned uh 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 FY twenty-six appropriation process Congress continued to fund the office at the sustained level I 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. Again, 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 SPD three uh from President Trump in twenty six.

Okay.

That'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 that.

Okay, 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 OSC certification to satisfy other agencies' requirements could serve as a loophole for you know certain companies that rigorous analysis by experts at the FAA, FCC, and NOAA. And it sounds like some of that work is still being negotiated as well. Um, 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 agencies?

Thank 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 CRISRA. 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 gonna be a lot, right? It's uh we're talking about space mirrors, we're talking about lunar landers, asteroid mining, world 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 can 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 gonna have to get the FDA involved in how we would certify something done in space uh so that's it's new and interesting and exciting but again, you know, we're interested in a

Thank you. Um, thank you, Mr. Jordan.

Mm-hmm.

Your proposal does not make any mention of informing or consulting with the public as part of that certification review process. In-space activities

Yep. So thank you for that. And and public comment is important, and we look forward to to working on mechanisms we can put into

And when can we see that proposal? Okay, thank you. I'm just, my time's expired, I and I will yield back.

I wanna thank the representative of the great state of Oregon for her thoughtful questions. Outstanding work.

Thank you.

Thanks for being. I want to now recognize a a Congressman Self from Texas, your recognizer, for five minutes.

You got it right, Chairman. Thank you. Uh, Mister Jordan, I'm trying to reconcile some uh, it looks to me like internal inconsistencies 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? So, 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.

Thank you for the question, and I'll and I and I will be more clear. So, we are trying to catch up.

Mm-hmm.

But, 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 gonna 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, t- uh, on the international front. We 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.

OK, so follow-up, you you uh kind of address this with Mister Webber uh Webster, but we live in a litigious society. So this new certification, can you tell me exactly the legal protections uh or the legal aspect of what this new certification does? Is it gonna require consensus, one thing, amongst the different agencies Um, if it does, any time 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 company?

So, thank you for the question. We do have, we are, we are relying on some existing statutory uh obligations that we have under title fifty-one. uh to seek the removal of policy and legal and and uh institutional impediments to growth for the commercial space sector when it comes to liability, as as I had mentioned before, this is this is a question that we'll that we will have to address moving forward because again we're gonna 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.

Mm.

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 gonna have to address.

OK, and uh I think my last question is going to be how are we gonna make sure that we're, that China is not hiding behind shell companies? Because that's their modus operandi 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?

So 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 gonna ask some some basic govern- uh business structure questions, and not just, you know, uh where you're 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.

Uh 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 in particularly I would think when it comes to space because Uh, we know that they hide the actual uh ownership and control deep within uh multiple layers of shell companies. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you. I'd like to return to Doctor Babin if he could for a question. As you know, we didn't get the all those questions in the the record. Doctor Babin, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. Uh, you may not remember, Mister Jarden, uh, 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?

So, 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,

Right.

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.

Absolutely. Well, maybe we need to clarify that thing through codification. Uh, the Commercial Space Act of twenty twenty-three focused on establishing a clear process for the United States' carryout its obligations to

So thank you for the question. And and as I said, um, in my in my testimony, and We we do meet the outer space treaty today, uh 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 that'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.

That's the kind of information exactly we need to find out today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Follow up one thing. How much of the proposed review process is derived from the United States' international obligations compared to other federal governmental uh interests?

That'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

OK.

Outer Space Treaty and I'll I'll I'll get back to them on uh on any other things.

OK, still a couple of minutes here. The Office of Space Commerce developed this mission authorization proposal in response to President Trump's executive order one four three three five, using among other statutory authorities its direction under title fifty-one to foster the conditions for the economic growth and technological advancement of the United States space commerce industry. Last Congress I introduced the Commercial Space Act of twenty twenty-three 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 objective submission authorization?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Um,

Sir.

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 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, uh, more robust.

Yeah. E- 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 nontraditional space activities. The Office of Space Commerce provides several examples of such activities, including in-space 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?

So that that is a great question that we have thought through within and it does rely on the expertise through the inter-agency of the federal government. So different agencies are gonna have different expertise, whether that's uh DOE uh or Department of War for for nu- space nuclear, or or FDA uh for pharmaceuticals in space, we 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 wanna do that iteratively with with in the inter-agency and with industry.

Absolutely. With that I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next we're gonna move to the Congress from California. Mr. Fong, Mr. Fong, your recognizer, five minutes.

Uh, uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, 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, uh, and OSC, uh, uh, would utilize the Space Commerce certification to waive certain elements of their regulatory view. What are some of the examples of administrative burdens that may be reduced?

Sure. 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 it's it's to fill the gaps in the regulations. And the second part of it, which is quite interesting, is the deregulatory nature that we are al- uh we were 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 the certification.

In this framework for the industry to voluntarily seek mission approval from the from the uh Department of Commerce, does this proposal require congressional action to implement?

So thank you. So yes, we are relying on uh we're we're 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.

What what type of uh new authorities or additional authorities would you need?

Uh, 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 a nefarious actor in the future there is an enforcement mechanism that can that can draw that out in the process.

OK. Um uh many commercial space activities are done under contract with the government, uh for example NASA's commercial LEO um LEO d- destinations program uh and the commercial lunar payload services programs are both commercial activities for which NASA is a customer. How are discussions going with your fellow space agency leaders on what activities should go through the office of space commerce, uh, pro- and and that process versus what activities would be purely overseen by government purchas- government purchasers? And how do we ensure that, um, that that bureaucratic back and forth doesn't hold back our prior to our priorities, like returning to the moon?

Thank you for the question. So our ability to reach consensus with the inter-agency and submit this proposal to the White House, 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. We have had many of those conversations uh over the last few months, and we feel like we're in a good place.

Uh, what 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?

Thank 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 of the companies, uh, through a tailored approach. uh, review the - 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-agency and then finally seek, uh - seek, uh, an approval.

OK. My last question, an important element, uh, of the OSC's work is to provide public information, uh, about space traffic, about, you know, 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 OSC's space traffic program? And are there additional resources or authorities you need to move forward um in this uh arena?

So thank you for the question. The work on our uh on our uh TRAX system, our SSA uh uh issue is is ongoing uh in FY twenty-six through congressional appropriations. We received funds and we are continuing that. It is in a pilot phase. We are in a

Thank you, sir. Next, I wanna recognize Miss Fucci, again, our Ranking Member. You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank 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." If such a review is merely voluntary, how will we have confidence that an application has been appropriately vetted, for any national security, foreign policy, international obligations, safety, or other US interests. Similarly, to what extent would the secretary be obliged to adopt any agency input?

So, thank you for the question, Ranking Member Foushee. 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 w- we have set strict timelines within our rev- our application review process that are going to hold our inter-agency partners to a high standard to put in the work, to to meet uh the the timelines of of the application. But you do do raise a good point and some of these things, again, it's a voluntary program, I mean, and and new authorities to to f- to to force uh that inter-agency collaboration would have to come through through new authorities.

OK. The 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. These types of novel space activities highlight the need for emission authorization framework, and one that considers potential impacts to our science. Will your proposed process review the scientific impacts of

So, thank you for the question. Our certification will include the scientific uh observations and discourse in the applications. And part of that is gonna be through our reliance on the the experts. And I know I've said it a few times, but the inter-agencies. 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. So 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

Is it an academic

of certification applications?

Yeah.

No, ma'am, our intent would be to to have scientific impacts as part of that review process. Yes, ma'am.

I yield back, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much. Next, Mister Gallagher from California is here, recognized for five minutes for questions, sir. Okay, no problem. Well, no other, um, I'm gonna take my fi- uh, five minutes. Uh, I wanna 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?

So 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. Um we will review those applications and I should say as well as we have no uh opinion about which application should come first. 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 uh 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. So we have built in, I believe, a hundred and twenty 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 conu- continue to do the things that they do best.

Okay. And then with that i- idea in mind, the FAA has some of these uh uh opportunities to make this flexibility with rulemaking and I would hope are you using them as a guideline to do this or are you looking a little di- 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 uh uh an official next step, again this was a 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.

OK. And one last question, I see Mister Whiteside is here as well. Uh, we actually proposed the one giant leap act. The - the goal we've all had, as you know, is to go kind of one stop shopping, and - and making sure we stayed number one in commercial space activities. Uh, with that in mind, there's - Where - where - how do you envision that one stop in time? What - because that's our overall goal, is - is that, uh, as you know the Chinese are - are nipping at our heels in a lot of fronts. We wanna re- reduce those, that bureaucracy, that's what the whole meeting uh today is about. How do we move towards one stop shopping because of the, the different agencies that are involved today?

So, that's a great question, and I, and I do wanna 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 wanna make sure that we have the ability to ask questions on their behalf, but we need a process that works. And 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 wanna be very clear we're not gonna be taking away any statutory obligations from others.

No doubt. And that, our goal is that one stop, but to begin with, the safety ideas in mind. Uh, I'll yield now to uh the Congressman from California, Mister Whitesides. Mr. Reitz,

Thank you.

you're recognized, five minutes, welcome to the committee.

Thank you so much, Mister Chairman, I appreciate your leadership and uh appreciate uh you, Director Jordan, for coming today. Uh, I wanted to start out with one of the Office of Commercial uh s- 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. Congress supported the twenty twenty reforms because they were intended

Thank you for the question. Um, so, yes, so, uh, since the twenty twenty update of the CRISPR, 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 reevaluating 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? Those are things that we want to take a look at, and we, we have not, uh, uh, officially moved forward with,

That'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. Commerce is obviously working hard on a civilian system to track satellites and debris and warn operators when uh 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.

So, thank you for the question. Um, so first uh, there's a few of them in there, let me bite off a couple of them at a time. Um, so for for what this system is doing today and what could it do tomorrow ki- uh type of, type of uh 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 uh not have our satellites run into each other, create uh uh debris, uh which will impact others. So 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 uh 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. Uh 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 it's 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 it'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

Thank you. I think my closing comment would basi- 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 gotta get on top of it, especially in a world where we're heading towards potentially as many as fifty thousand active satellites in 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.

Thank you. And next we'll recognize a connoisseur from Georgia, Mister McCormick, you're recognized, sir.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Really appreciate you being here, Mister Jordan. Uh, one of the things I was really concerned with is China's obviously aggressively pursuing a commercial space program. Uh, they don't have the regulatory burden we have. Obviously they have a streamlined system cuz one guy gets to call all the shots. We obviously have a procedure that kinda 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 obviously we have people some of the best entrepreneurs in the world, putting more space

That'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 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 gonna be 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. This 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 gonna have to insure that our expert controls are aligned to make sure that those things can be sold uh 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. One thing I love to say um is that all of our uh uh capabilities here, e- 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.

One of the things that they worried me last administration, I was very vocal about this in these same hearings, was that for each space launch that they made a minor modification, there was a re-approval process that was really burdensome. And that could actually slow down the launch processes, get us way behind, and once again, regulatory burden, that that could put us at a competitive disadvantage. What have we done to correct that course?

So, uh, y- you're spot on, as as capabilities improve and the c- and the cadence, uh, increases, we will have more launches and we will need more facilities and we will need more capability to to meet that demand. So working with our partners in the Department of Transportation and uh 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.

Yeah, 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 you modification, it requires additional paperwork and an approval process. The paperwork's not the problem. But 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 so it's very quick, uh, to, to re-approve the process of launch.

Yeah, so, I mean, that, that, that's a great point. So the paperwork that's required, of course, paperwork is fine, but the modifications themselves requ- uh 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. in-house is how do we how do we speed up those processes, because the modifications are gonna happen, capabilities on orbit do do have new capabilities, they do have new things that they need to do, they 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 important.

I hope we continue to review that process to make it more speedy. I wanna take just my remaining time to kinda 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 two percent, and now five percent of GDP investment in their military. Luxembourg's like, well you guys got more janitors than we have people in the military. Uh, and that's just in the military, but one of the things I always said, eh, they, they make more per capita for GDP cap per capita than any other country in the world. And yet they invest the least of any NATO country in the military, cuz we're too small. Uh, they were at point six percent GDP. Now they're up to point nine percent. We really gotta get 'em past two and actually eventually plant five. The thing I always say is invest in space. Yeah, you're not gonna have tanks and airplanes, I understand, you're not gonna overtake anybody with your artillery, but you are very good at space. Invest in that right there and you can get up to two percent GDP and you're gonna 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?

I, yes sir, I would agree.

Fantastic. With that I yield.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Doctor Foster from the State of Illinois, recognized for five minutes, sir.

Yeah, uh, thank you, and I'd like to talk a little bit, one of the key elements in getting a 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?

Uh, yes sir, that's my understanding.

Yeah, and it's, 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 uh, there are recently, I think it was the Reuters, uh, published some leaked papers about Chinese-Russian collaboration on simple schemes to wipe out Starlink. Alright, 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. Uh, but it's not just China and Russia that we have to worry about. It is terrorists. You know, I've, like a lot of people these days, I'm, uh, 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, the debris field from there and how destructive that would be. OK, and that's something where you're talking about, you know, one rogue nation with one old Russian fighter jet s, you know, launching an air-to-air missile, and then taking out a fully fueled s um, starship. And so there are many other scenarios, just roughly speaking, anyone who puts a bucket of gravel in a counter-rotating orbit is gonna wipe things out. And so the cost, the damage that can be done with a very cheap mission is enormous. And so how, i- is that an insurable risk, and, 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, 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, 'cause I think one of the issues that we wanna make sure that we are cognisant of is the burden on industry for that, because it it there is not a level playing field. You have big companies and you have small companies, and and the the requirement of insurance could negatively impact, you know, start-ups over over the larger companies.

Sure. Oh yeah, no, it's very analogous to uh requiring um uh cyber security insurance of a small start-up, a small start-up 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, you could be doing everything right and misconfigure one database and kaboom. Uh, you've done, you know, billions of dollars of damages, no start-up 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 gonna see a a detailed plan out of industry of how to get this insured?

So I think I think you raise a good point, and I think we internally at uh at OSC 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. 'Cause again, I do wanna be cognizant of the burdens

That'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, 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 taxpayer's is going to be required to um to backstop insurance. So um so I this is a does is there a general appreciation inside industry of just how fragile these systems in low earth are but 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 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.

Yeah, 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 tremendous, you know, they'd 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.

Yes, sir. Thank you.

You're back.

Thank you, Josh Foster. Uh, with no other members for questions, I'd like to thank our our uh witness today, Mister Jordan, for your time and thought today. I know there's some questions you're gonna follow up on as well. Thank you very much. And the members for their questions, uh the record will be going open for ten days for additional comments and written questions from members. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.