[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


            THE MINERAL SUPPLY CHAIN AND THE NEW SPACE RACE

=======================================================================

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                       Tuesday, December 12, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-85
                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
       
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
00-000 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2024            
      

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO	       Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA	       Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Tom McClintock, CA	           CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ		       Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA	       Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS   Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA	       Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL	       Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR   Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID	       Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN	       Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT	       Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI		       Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL		       Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT	       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO	       Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR		       Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA		       Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU		       Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX	       Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
                                
                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                        PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
                      MIKE COLLINS, GA, Vice Chair
                MELANIE A. STANSBURY, NM, Ranking Member

Matt Rosendale, MT                   Ed Case, HI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Ruben Gallego, AZ
Mike Collins, GA                     Susie Lee, NV
Anna Paulina Luna, FL                Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                 ------                                
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, December 12, 2023.......................     1

Statement of Members:

    Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Arizona.................................................     1
    Stansbury, Hon. Melanie A., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of New Mexico....................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Sundby, Eric, Co-Founder and CEO of TerraSpace, Executive 
      Director of the Space Force Association, Boerne, Texas.....     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     6
        Questions submitted for the record.......................     7

    Autry, Greg, Director and Clinical Professor, Space 
      Leadership, Policy, and Business, Thunderbird School of 
      Global Management, Arizona State University, Phoenix, 
      Arizona....................................................    12
        Prepared statement of....................................    14
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    19

    Milazzo, Moses P., Owner of Other Orb, Chief Scientist for 
      NASA's Planetary Data Ecosystem, Flagstaff, Arizona........    21
        Prepared statement of....................................    23
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    27

    Hanlon, Michelle, Executive Director, Center for Air and 
      Space Law, the University of Mississippi School of Law, 
      University, Mississippi....................................    31
        Prepared statement of....................................    33
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    40

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar

        AstroForge, Inc., Statement for the Record...............    62
                                     


 
  OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE MINERAL SUPPLY CHAIN AND THE NEW SPACE RACE

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, December 12, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:19 a.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Gosar, Rosendale, Collins, 
Westerman; and Stansbury.
    Also present: Representatives Crane, Lamborn; and Kamlager-
Dove.

    Dr. Gosar. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the 
mineral supply chain and the new space race.
    I ask unanimous consent the following Members be allowed to 
testify today with the Subcommittee, to give their testimony, 
and participate in the hearing from the dais: the gentleman 
from Arizona, Mr. Crane; and the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 
Lamborn.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking 
Minority Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all 
other Members' statements be made part of the hearing record if 
they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Dr. Gosar. Good morning everyone, and thank you to all the 
witnesses who have traveled such a long way to get here to 
testify on this important and somewhat new issue for the 
Subcommittee: the mineral supply chain and the new space race. 
The witnesses before us today are among the most pre-eminent 
intellects and entrepreneurs in their field, so I look forward 
to our discussion.
    I understand that mining in space is not an issue that we 
hear about every day in Congress, but the fact is that the rest 
of the world, including some of our greatest competitors, like 
China and Russia, have started a new space race. This time it 
isn't a race to land someone on the moon for bragging rights. 
It is a race to establish a permanent, sustained space presence 
that will allow these countries to tap into the vast resources 
in space, and subsequently control life on Earth in 
immeasurable ways.
    Sadly, the governments of China and Russia have already 
completed a lap around the track, and the U.S. Government is 
seemingly unaware that the race has even started. Today's 
hearing aims to change that.
    The effort to mine in space is driven by the immediate and 
projected global demands for minerals. Minerals including 
copper, lithium, cobalt, and dozens of others are integral to 
our modern way of life and technological innovation. There are 
increased obstacles to mining on Earth, so turning outwards 
reflects the unfortunate reality that space mining is more and 
more a necessity.
    Mineral demand, driven by technological change, is 
exacerbated by climate goals and heavy-handed mandates from 
governments, including mandates from the Biden administration 
that force mineral-dependent electric vehicles on American 
consumers. As a result, global demands for critical minerals is 
projected to be more than doubled by 2030, and that is a 
conservative estimate.
    Sadly, President Biden and his cronies have been making 
America increasingly reliant on our foreign adversaries for 
mineral supplies. The Biden administration is increasing 
mineral demand, with unprecedented government intervention into 
private markets, while at the same time doing everything in its 
power to strangle our domestic mining industry, including 
shutting down mining projects in my state of Arizona.
    The actions by President Biden are further exacerbating 
America's dangerous reliance on China for critical minerals. At 
this time, the United States is import-reliant on China for 26 
of the 50 minerals designated as critical by the USGS and the 
Department of the Interior.
    China also dominates the mineral refining process, 
accounting for 85 to 90 percent of the global rare Earth 
element mine-to-metal refining. China's dominance of mineral 
supply chains on Earth presents a grave threat to America's 
national security and economic interests.
    Additionally, the minerals integral to modern life 
typically come from resource-rich countries that are among the 
most egregious violators of human rights and the environment. 
For example, the Democratic Republic of Congo is associated 
with horrific environmental degradation and slave labor, yet it 
produces two-thirds of the world's cobalt. It is not a reach to 
say that a child in Congo is currently risking his or her life 
so that Americans can have unlimited access to smartphones and 
electrical vehicles.
    As elected officials and Americans, members of the 
Committee cannot and should not turn a blind eye to where and 
how we get the minerals that have become essential to our 
modern way of life. The United States has a choice of how it 
responds to this exponential demand for minerals. We can 
increase support for domestic production where we are certain 
of responsible development practices, or allow foreign nations 
with unacceptable labor and environmental standards to dominate 
the global market. In order to maximize the national security, 
economic and environmental interests of the United States, 
prioritizing domestic mineral production is key.
    While it is overdue for the United States to unleash 
domestic mineral development, America must also prepare to lead 
the world into the next frontier: space mining. As a country, 
we must accept that we are in the midst of a new space race, 
and we must take steps to secure the celestial mineral supply 
chain to provide a stable future for the United States and the 
free world.
    Undoubtedly, we must also overcome major hurdles to make 
space mining a reality. This includes a transportation cost, 
logistical and technological hurdles, and the inherent 
uncertainty of space activity. However, if the United States 
can develop the ability to tap into these vast mineral 
resources on celestial bodies such as moons, Mars, and 
asteroids, the potential may in fact be limitless.
    Eventually, the volume and the value of the space mining 
will provide immeasurable benefits to whoever controls the 
celestial mineral supply chain, and will prove disastrous for 
those who ignore it. China and Russia are committed to mining 
in space, and if we don't start preparing for the future of our 
resource development now, we will continue to find ourselves in 
a vulnerable position. Thus, America must take the necessary 
steps to secure our mineral supply chains by increasing 
domestic mineral development and leading the development of 
space mining activities.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Stansbury for her 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELANIE A. STANSBURY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Good morning, everyone, and thank 
you, Chairman Gosar and to my colleagues for this interesting 
hearing this morning. I am looking forward to hearing from our 
expert witnesses.
    And I have to say, Mr. Chairman, when it came across my 
desk that we were going to have a hearing on space mining in 
the Natural Resources Oversight Committee, I did not have this 
on my bingo card this session. So, I am looking forward to the 
discussion today.
    I agree with the Chairman that we absolutely have to 
address our critical minerals issues. We have had countless 
hearings in this Committee and other hearings across committees 
across Congress. We all know that this is a crucial national 
security issue, but I think that we have to also be realistic 
about the science, and I think we are going to hear a bit about 
that today.
    Space mining, if it does transpire, is not in the immediate 
future. So, some of the issues that have been raised about our 
national security interests and supply chains cannot be 
resolved by pursuing this particular avenue. In fact, we know 
that many of the things that have to be pursued in the short 
term are right in front of us, and that is why the Biden 
administration has passed and put into place a whole-of-supply-
chain effort to address our critical minerals with a strategy 
that they have put together, and that includes stockpiling the 
critical minerals that we do have access to. It means 
collaborations with our allies around the world where critical 
minerals are located. It means that, as international stewards, 
we ensure that the practices for sourcing those minerals follow 
human rights protocols and environmental protection and, of 
course, that we help to promote a circular economy here on 
Earth, because we are, in fact, going to need these critical 
minerals in order to make this clean energy transformation that 
we are all undergoing right now.
    So, it is important that we address these issues. And I do 
look forward to hearing from our folks today who are going to 
share about the near term and longer term aspirations of mining 
and space, what the technology looks like, what the ethical, 
moral, and legal considerations of all of that is. But we have 
to actually act here on Earth in the meantime.
    There are also a number of issues that we have to be 
conscious of as we are pursuing these strategies. This is an 
interesting hearing to have in this Committee, which has 
primary jurisdiction over our public lands and waters, and 
works with our Indigenous Nations. And certainly, we want to 
make sure that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past as we 
pursue new technological options to pursue the sourcing of 
critical minerals.
    But I do have to say it is the last week of Congress. We 
are about to gavel out in 2 weeks. We still haven't passed a 
real budget yet for the Federal Government. We still haven't 
actually addressed many of the big issues that are immediately 
in front of us. We have unsustainable leadership. There are 
fights in the halls happening. We had a Member expelled from 
Congress just 2 weeks ago. It is really a chaotic time. So, it 
is a bit strange, I think, for this Committee, which is an 
oversight committee, to be holding a hearing on space mining 
based on an aspiration that is possibly decades down the line, 
while our country is facing real crises.
    So, while I am looking forward to hearing about this 
important issue, and I greatly appreciate the expertise of our 
witnesses who traveled here to come share today, it is a bit of 
an odd distraction from the most pressing issues that our 
country is facing right now. But I do look forward to the 
conversation.
    Mr. Chairman, I turn it back to you.

    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady. I am always a believer 
you can chew gum and walk at the same time. I think we are 
going to find some interesting avenues in regards to our panel. 
Armageddon might be closer than you think.
    I also want to waive on Ms. Kamlager-Dove for the panel, 
please.
    Now I am going to introduce our witnesses. First, we have 
Mr. Eric Sundby, Co-Founder and CEO of TerraSpace, Executive 
Director of Space Force Association, Boerne, Texas; Dr. Greg 
Autry, Director and Clinical Professor, Space Leadership, 
Policy, and Business, Thunderbird School of Global Management, 
Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona; Dr. Moses Milazzo, 
Owner of Other Orb, Chief Scientist for NASA's Planetary Data 
Ecosystem, Flagstaff, Arizona; and Ms. Michelle Hanlon, 
Executive Director, Center for Air and Space Law, University of 
Mississippi School of Law, University, Mississippi.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, you 
must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes, but the entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, press the ``on'' button on the 
microphone.
    We use timing lights here. To begin, you will see the green 
light. When it gets to the last minute, it turns yellow. And 
then finally, when it is red, you want to summarize up and 
finish up.
    I now recognize Mr. Sundby for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF ERIC SUNDBY, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO OF TERRASPACE, 
  EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SPACE FORCE ASSOCIATION, BOERNE, 
                             TEXAS

    Mr. Sundby. Good morning, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member 
Stansbury, honorable members of the Subcommittee. I want to 
thank you for having us here today to speak on this issue of 
critical importance to our nation's security and standing on 
the global stage.
    My name is Eric Sundby. I am the Co-Founder and CEO of 
TerraSpace, a mineral exploration company applying artificial 
intelligence to the mineral analysis process. I also serve as 
the Executive Director of the Space Force Association, a non-
profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to supporting space 
force guardians and their families, and advocating for strong 
national and allied space power.
    Humanity stands on the precipice of a new era, one that 
will be defined by space development and the utilization of 
space resources. Space holds an endless amount of opportunity 
for America, both economic and strategic. Yet, this opportunity 
is challenged by the Chinese Communist Party and its allies in 
Russia and a growing number of states, as China has launched 
the International Lunar Research Station Organization 
Initiative over the last year.
    In 2015, the Strategic Support Force was established, 
providing a more organized structure for the space forces of 
the People's Liberation Army. It is through this institution 
that the China-manned space program is housed, which oversees 
all astronauts, operations, and space infrastructure 
development.
    Lastly, in 2019, the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program 
Director equated the moon and other celestial bodies in the 
solar system to a series of island chains currently controlled 
by the Philippines and Japan, of which has been a point of 
contention in the CCP's illegal territorial expansion in the 
South China Sea.
    Given actions here on Earth, the potential for great power 
competition in the space domain, particularly over space 
resources, is not on the horizon; it has already arrived.
    In 2022, the United States Geological Survey, as you know, 
classified 50 mineral commodities that have no viable 
substitutes and are essential to the economic security of the 
United States. Many of these natural resources have been 
discovered on celestial bodies in our solar system, including 
on the moon and in the asteroid belt. Our ability to access and 
utilize these critical minerals here on Earth is threatened, as 
China currently controls 60 percent of production and 85 
percent of processing capacity, according to analysis by the 
USGS and Natural Resources Canada.
    This threat to our mineral supply chain calls for new and 
innovative ways at looking at resources from a national 
perspective, with space resources being front and center. This 
upcoming month, in January 2024, a company from my home state 
of Texas, Intuitive Machines, will return America to the lunar 
surface for the first time since 1972. What is notable about 
this feat is that it is done by a commercial company. Its 
commercialization of access to space is what gives our country 
the strategic advantage. It is private enterprise that will 
provide new opportunities in the field of mineral discovery, 
mining, and processing, and will open up access to space 
resources.
    I want to urge this Committee to investigate ways in which 
the government can encourage and lower entry barriers for 
technologies that can be applied to support the established 
Earth mining industry, while also enabling the discovery and 
access to resources off planet.
    Various government agencies offer commercial companies the 
opportunity to contribute to research and develop technologies 
through programs such as Small Business Innovation Research 
grants, or SBIRs.
    One area of improvement could be the USGS offering specific 
grants in support to companies developing technology to enable 
faster and less environmentally impactful methods of discovery 
and access of critical minerals, with an emphasis on such dual-
use technologies as I mentioned earlier.
    The use of space resources in alleviating the mineral 
supply chain here on Earth will not be an easy or quick task. I 
want to be clear about that. This must be a long-term strategic 
goal of the United States. Nevertheless, the development of 
technologies capable of operating in the harsh environment of 
space will enable further discovery and access to critical 
minerals here on Earth, such as those in existing mine sites, 
in more remote locations on land, and the deep seabed. Numerous 
start-ups and commercial companies are leading in this field, 
and are offering services in critical minerals, while 
exemplifying the pioneering spirit of American innovation.
    President John F. Kennedy vowed that we shall not see space 
governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of 
freedom and peace. It is up to the government to prioritize our 
nation's mineral supply chain, and open the way for such 
companies to carry this spirit forward into this new era. Thank 
you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sundby follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lang Eric Sundby, Co-Founder & CEO of TerraSpace, 
           Executive Director of the Space Force Association

    Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for 
having us here to speak today on this issue of critical importance to 
our nation's security and standing on the global stage. My name is Eric 
Sundby, I am Co-Founder & CEO of TerraSpace, a mineral exploration 
company applying artificial intelligence to the mineral analysis 
process. I also serve as the Executive Director of the Space Force 
Association, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting Space 
Force guardians and their families, and advocating for strong national 
and allied spacepower.
    Humanity stands on the precipice of a new era, one that will be 
defined by space development and the utilization of space resources. 
Space holds an endless amount of opportunity for America, both economic 
and strategic. Yet, this opportunity is challenged by the Chinese 
Communist Party, and its allies in Russia and a growing number of 
states, as China has launched the International Lunar Research Station 
Organization initiative over the last year. In 2015, the Strategic 
Support Force was established, providing a more organized structure for 
the space forces of the People's Liberation Army. It is through this 
institution that the China Manned Space Program is housed, which 
oversees all astronauts, operations, and space infrastructure 
development. Lastly, in 2019, the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program 
director equated the Moon and other celestial bodies in the solar 
system to a series of island chains currently controlled by the 
Philippines and Japan, of which has been a point of contention in the 
CCP's illegal territorial expansion in the South China Sea.
    Given actions here on earth, the potential for great power 
competition in the space domain, particularly over space resources, is 
not on the horizon, it has already arrived. In 2022, the United States 
Geological Survey classified 50 mineral commodities that have no viable 
substitutes and are essential to the economic security of the United 
States. Many of these natural resources have been discovered on 
celestial bodies in our solar system including on the Moon and in the 
asteroid belt. Our ability to access and utilize these critical 
minerals is threatened, as China currently controls roughly 60% of 
production and 85% of processing capacity according to analysis by the 
USGS and Natural Resources Canada. This threat to our mineral supply 
chain calls for new and innovative ways at looking at resources from a 
national perspective, with space resources being front and center.
    This upcoming month, in January 2024, a company from my home state 
of Texas, Intuitive Machines, will return America to the lunar surface 
for the first time since 1972. What is notable about this feat, is that 
it is done by a commercial company. This commercialization of access to 
space is what gives our country the strategic advantage. It is private 
enterprise that will provide new opportunities in the field of mineral 
discovery, mining, and processing, and will open up access to space 
resources. I want to urge this Committee to investigate ways in which 
the government can encourage and lower entry barriers for technologies 
that can be applied to support the established Earth mining industry, 
while also enabling the discovery and access to resources off planet. 
Various government agencies offer commercial companies the opportunity 
to contribute to research and develop technologies through programs 
such as Small Business Innovation Research grants or SBIRs. One area of 
improvement could be the USGS offering specific grants and support to 
companies developing technology that enable faster and less 
environmentally impactful methods of discovery and access of critical 
minerals, with an emphasis on such dual-use technologies as I mentioned 
earlier.
    The use of space resources in alleviating the mineral supply chain 
here on Earth will not be an easy or quick task, I want to be clear, 
this must be a long-term strategic goal of the United States. 
Nevertheless, the development of technologies capable of operating in 
the harsh environment of space, will enable further discovery and 
access to critical minerals here on Earth, such as those on the deep-
sea bed, existing mining sites, and in more remote locations on land. 
Numerous start-ups and commercial companies, including TerraSpace, are 
leading in this field and are offering services in critical minerals 
while exemplifying the pioneering spirit of American innovation. It is 
up to the government to prioritize our nation's mineral supply chain 
and open the way for such companies to carry this spirit forward into 
this new era.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Eric Sundby, Co-Founder & CEO 
    of TerraSpace, Executive Director of the Space Force Association

              Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar

    Question 1. How are space resources natural resources?

    Answer. From the widely accepted definition of the term natural 
resources, minerals from space are clearly classified as a natural 
resource.
Explanation:
    The Encyclopedia Britannica defines a natural resource as ``any 
biological, mineral, or aesthetic asset afforded by nature without 
human intervention that can be used for some form of benefit, whether 
material (economic) or immaterial'' (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2023). 
From this widely accepted definition, minerals are clearly classified 
as a natural resource. The vast majority of minerals that are central 
to our way of life (save for some lab produced substances), come from 
geological processes that are outside of human intervention. These 
minerals naturally include the list of 50 critical minerals classified 
by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) last year as having no 
viable substitutes and play a central role in our national and economic 
security (Burton, 2022).
    In terms of resources in outer space, found on planetary bodies 
such as the Moon and Mars, and asteroids abundant in the asteroid belt, 
all of these resources have been developed through processes afforded 
by nature without human intervention. Thus, space resources are 
definitively natural resources. Nevertheless, to understand space 
resources better requires a deeper dive into what resources are 
actually out there. The answer is rather simple, most of the natural 
resources found on Earth can be found in space. Asteroids, for example, 
are generally analyzed through viewing visual spectra through a 
telescope, or more simply stated by looking at the properties of the 
light reflecting off an asteroid's surface. This visual spectrum 
indicates what resources make up the majority of the asteroid. Through 
decades of research into asteroid samples which have fallen to Earth, 
we have come to the understanding that asteroids are generally 
geologically homogenous, meaning they are largely made up of the same 
material. Many of the critical minerals on the USGS's list can be found 
in the asteroid belt, including platinum, palladium, nickel, cobalt, 
rhodium, ruthenium, the list goes on and on. So too are other useful 
elements found in abundance, such as iron.
    Planetary bodies, on the other hand, are trickier. Much like with 
the Earth, these bodies can be heavily geologically diverse. Some 
contain thick layers of regolith (a layer of loose material such as 
dust and rocks, lacking organic material, which covers a more solid 
planetary surface). The Moon is a perfect example of a planetary body 
with natural resources near Earth. Although much is known about the 
Moon's geological and mineralogical makeup, there remains a lot we have 
yet to learn. Lunar regolith has been determined to range from 4-5 
meters in the mare (plains) regions to 10-15 meters in the highland 
regions (Heiken, et. al., 2005). The Apollo missions, particularly 
Apollo 15, 16, and 17, used drill cores to collect deeper samples 
rather than scooping surface regolith and collecting surface rocks; 
however, the deepest core collected was a mere 2.92 meters, not going 
deeper than the regolith (Meyer, 2007). While we do have a good 
understanding of what mineral deposits and their characteristics are 
below the regolith, based on LIDAR (light detection and ranging), 
ground-penetrating radar, and other remote sensing technologies, we 
have yet to get physical samples which would give an exorbitant amount 
more of data. On Earth, the mineral exploration process is more 
complex, with core drilling and logging of mineralogical information 
and data from these cores central to the process. Mineral exploration 
at mine sites requires the acquisition of many core samples at varying 
depths, most in the tens to hundreds of meters. These samples are then 
analyzed by geologists to determine the presence of minerals being 
sought (Epiroc, 2023). While this process is common in the mining 
industry, the development of technologies to discover specific mineral 
makeups of regions on planetary bodies has been limited to exploration 
programs through NASA and other government funded programs in various 
countries, and have not been scaled to enable substantial mineral 
exploration off planet.
    From these facts it is clear that space resources are natural 
resources. Yet, the ability to explore deeper for specific mineral 
deposits on planetary bodies has lacked substantial developments--which 
should be encouraged by the government, and can benefit the country 
economically, strategically, and environmentally.

    Question 2. How can the House Committee on Natural Resources help 
America secure the celestial mineral supply chain?

    Answer. Short Answer----

    The House Committee on Natural Resources has jurisdiction over the 
topic of space resources, as it oversees the USGS which conducts 
research and publication on this field. The committee can take five key 
actions to move the ball forward on technological innovation and 
development of space resources which will help America secure the 
celestial mineral supply chain.
Action Plan----

    I would like to propose five actions on how it can help America 
secure the celestial mineral supply chain:

  1.  Place space resources as a ``Mission Area'' of the USGS.

          a.   While space resources will play directly into the 
        ``Energy and Minerals Mission Area'' once the field is matured, 
        space resources currently require a separate focus to help 
        develop the field.

  2.  Increase funding to the Astrogeology Science Center at USGS.

          a.   The Astrogeology Science Center is the primary 
        organization within USGS that oversees planetary science, 
        mapping, and geologic research; however, it is arguably lacking 
        in funding that would enable it to cooperate and coordinate 
        with innovative start-ups and private commercial companies 
        developing new technologies in the field. Further, the Center 
        could increase its research into mapping and surveying, and 
        mineral exploration for the public's knowledge, while also 
        increasing its scientific research output.

  3.  Develop an open-topic SBIR or similar grant program. This program 
            can include a track focused on space resources, which 
            encourages commercial companies in the development of dual-
            use technologies that will enable eventual access and 
            utilization of space resources.

          a.   Unlike many other government organizations (including 
        the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, NASA, and 
        others), the USGS lacks a substantial private sector grant 
        program to encourage innovation in technologies that will 
        benefit the further access to critical minerals designated by 
        the USGS.

  4.  Require a yearly report to the Committee from USGS on the state 
            of space resources technologies, scientific developments in 
            the field, and discovery and mapping of new resources.

          a.   By providing the Committee with frequent updates on 
        developments in the field of space resources, members of the 
        House will be increasingly informed about the realities of the 
        field, and how and when such resources may alleviate Earth-
        based reliance of certain key minerals. Further, the Committee 
        will be informed through this report on the actions of foreign 
        states, including adversaries, in the field of space resources.

  5.  Form a Congressional Advisory Commission to examine and make 
            recommendations with respect to the near-term and long-term 
            development and uses of space resources, and its impact on 
            the national security and economic security of the United 
            States.

          a.   As this issue has largely been left out of discussion 
        within Congress, this Commission could present Congress with a 
        detailed report with a defined realistic timeline and specific 
        policies the government should take in approaching the issue of 
        space resources. The Commission may provide a comparative 
        analysis on the use of space resources to offset environmental 
        damage on Earth, as well as the developments of foreign states, 
        including adversaries, on this topic. This Commission can also 
        provide annual reports to Congress on technical, financial, and 
        strategic progress made in the field.

Explanation:

    Despite some confusion, the Committee indeed has jurisdiction over 
the topic of space resources, first and foremost due to its oversight 
of the United States Geological Survey which has been given purview 
over the field of study. Since 1960, the USGS has managed the 
Astrogeology Science Center, previously classified as the Astrogeologic 
Studies Group and the Astrogeology Research Program, which was 
originally formed to assist in Lunar and planetary mapping, Apollo 
astronaut geological training, and other space focused research 
(Wilhelms, 1993). According to the USGS, this internal organization is 
explicitly tasked with the following mission statement: ``To help 
humanity understand our solar system by maximizing the scientific and 
technological return from planetary missions through scientific 
research, software development, and the creation of spatial data 
products and standards'' (U.S. Geological Survey, 2023). The 
Astrogeology Science Center further serves as ``a national resource for 
the integration of planetary geoscience, cartography, and remote 
sensing'' (U.S. Geological Survey, 2023).
    Now that it is established that the House Committee on Natural 
Resources has jurisdiction over this topic. Regarding space resources, 
the House Committee on Natural Resources has a massive responsibility 
before it, one that has the potential to change the course of our 
entire species. While such a statement may be seen as hyperbolic to 
some, it is clear that the abundance of resources available in near-
Earth space can be utilized for the betterment of humanity, and the 
security of our country on the global stage. Through the five actions 
listed above, the House Committee on Natural Resources can raise the 
discussion of the important impact that space resources will have on 
the country outside of the laboratory and into the public forum. If we 
are to advance as a nation, we need to look forward, realistically, 
towards the positive economic uses of outer space from a more public 
level.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Lamborn

    Question 1. What are the opportunities and barriers to greater 
coordination and investment in space resources research within 
industry?

    Answer. Regarding coordination and investment in space resources 
research within industry, there are a few barriers and opportunities 
that present themselves. Barriers include the failure of previous space 
resources focused firms and subsequent investor hesitancy in the field, 
the SBIR program not focusing enough on mining/space resources adjacent 
technologies, and a general lack of understanding on the topic in wider 
society. Opportunities that exist include the Artemis Program's 
strength of bringing space resources into a mainstream discussion and 
its requirements for technology in the field, the development of dual 
use technology that helps the existing mining industry while also 
benefiting the development of space resources, and lastly the 
application and adaptation of existing technology within industry to 
support space resources which can open up establish companies into the 
new market.
Explanation:

    Innovation through the private sector is one of America's greatest 
strengths, but it also faces a large hurdle before it. Specifically, 
for space resources, there exists a few barriers that prevent greater 
coordination between firms and investment into companies in the field. 
One of the primary barriers to investment in space resources is the 
previous failure of companies such as Planetary Resources, which was 
subsequently acquired by the software company ConsenSys. Because the 
space resources market has not materialized within a healthy time 
frame, investors are hesitant to throw money at new companies in the 
field, and rightfully so. Since 1982, the government has coordinated 
the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant program, which has 
provided many startups with funding and government partnerships that 
attract investment. These SBIR programs have become part of the very 
fabric of American innovation, and in many cases are a requirement by 
investors for a startup to have before they commit their angel or 
venture capital money to the young firm.
    The challenge here is that industry has become accustomed to 
reliance on small government grants, which are meant to prove out basic 
innovative technology. With a lack of space resources or peripheral 
related technology being strongly represented in SBIR programs, many 
space resources companies find themselves competing and working on 
grants that do not assist in developing their firm's technology, and 
thus slow their ability or outright stop them from creating a 
commercially viable dual-use or space-focused technology for access or 
utilization of space resources.
    A final barrier to coordination is the lack of understanding by the 
public, the mining industry, and the wider aerospace sector of the 
abundance of what space offers in terms of critical minerals and 
natural resources. This issue is somewhat more challenging than the 
others, as it requires educating various markets and their leadership, 
and requiring clarity of understanding the near-term and long-term 
issues related to space resources and returns on investment.
    With discussion of barriers to greater coordination and investment 
in space resources within industry being somewhat heavy, it is 
important to point out the numerous positive opportunities that 
industry presents. First and foremost, the existing Artemis Program led 
by NASA requires a multitude of newer technologies to sustain human 
operations on the lunar surface. For the Artemis Program and subsequent 
presence on the Moon to be successful and sustainable, the access and 
utilization of space resources will be centrally necessary in achieving 
this goal, both for construction of shelter, forming landing pads for 
spacecraft (in order not to kick up massive amounts of regolith), and 
the development of rocket fuels and potential nuclear reactor fuels. 
These necessities drive up the government's reliance on private 
companies' space resources technologies, which in turn can drive 
investor's interest in investing in such companies.
    Another opportunity for greater coordination and investment into 
space resources presented by industry is the development of dual use 
technologies. While the phrase dual use can be seen as a buzzword, 
there exists very real opportunities with such technology. For example, 
the process of mineral exploration is human-intensive and requires many 
core samples to be taken at mine sites. Some dual use technologies 
being developed currently allow for a more autonomous process of 
analyzing minerals, as well as new technology that allows drill bits to 
core deeper both on Earth and off-planet.
    An opportunity also exists in seeking out existing and developed 
technology that has not been introduced into the field of space 
resources, or thought to be utilized in such a manner. Many inventions 
and technologies that are in use on Earth will be needed when accessing 
and utilizing resources in space. Through treating space resources as a 
priority, existing industry can be brought into the fold to assist in 
the development of the nascent space resources market.

    Question 2. What other gaps are we missing when we think of mining 
operations in space, and the need for a supply chain to bring those 
back or refine them in space?

    Answer. There exists a handful of gaps in mining operations in 
space, and particularly in the supply chain. These gaps include the 
creation of more powerful energy sources, autonomous capabilities to 
explore and prospect for minerals, and the further refining of 
extraction techniques that are not commonly used on earth. However, it 
is important to note that much of these gaps are being investigated by 
startups and innovative companies with promising answers.
Explanation:

    Mining in general seems to be an afterthought of most in society. 
There is a common perception that if we are to use electric vehicles 
and batteries in our grid system that we will lower environmental 
impact. While electric vehicles and electrification in general is 
largely a positive move for lowering carbon emissions, it is extremely 
questionable that the current environmental and human impact of mining 
is truly offsetting our impact on the planet (International Energy 
Agency, 2021). While the International Energy Agency's report on the 
role of critical minerals in clean energy transitions does note steps 
to mitigate the environmental impacts made by mining, as long as 
humanity exists, we will require resources to survive. Unfortunately 
accessing many of these minerals has negative impacts on our natural 
environment. Therefore, we require a levelheaded and realistic approach 
to the process required to access critical mineral resources beyond our 
home planet, for the benefit of our home planet. While this vision is 
one that will not be achieved in a short time, it is one that needs to 
be planned for strategically and worked towards diligently.
    When thinking about mining in space, and particularly the supply 
chain necessary to bring back such minerals or refine and use them in 
space, many frequently throw their hands up in dismay at the complex 
physics and orbital mechanics involved. Others hold starry eyed visions 
of an expanding human species beyond this planet that will explore and 
develop the cosmos. Both groups have much merit, and admittedly, I find 
myself in the latter camp (albeit grounded by reality).

    Although the physics involved is complex, the reality is that 
accessing and utilizing space resources is entirely possible, and in my 
view necessary. Where the `grounding in reality' I mentioned earlier 
comes from, is the complex supply-chain processes that will need to be 
developed to enable space resources to be brought to the Earth market, 
or at least used in developing in-space economies.

  1.  First, a super-heavy lift launch vehicle will need to be 
            certified and produced at scale. This challenge is 
            something SpaceX has taken on with their Starship and Super 
            Heavy systems (SpaceX, 2023). Others, including Blue Origin 
            are developing their own launch platforms to rival Starship 
            as well. There exist concerns over Starship's need of 
            refueling, but nevertheless, as engineering processes go, 
            the system will see new iterations with potential 
            propulsion designs that decrease the need for frequent 
            refueling. Only time will tell. Starship, and other super 
            heavy lift launch platforms have been noted as being 
            useable for the transportation of samples and minerals 
            extracted in space (O'Callaghan 2021).

  2.  Second, the creation of more powerful energy sources and storage 
            capability will assist in increasing the operational 
            capacity of rovers, drills, etc.

  3.  Third, a stronger on-site (and most likely autonomous) capability 
            to explore and prospect for minerals is needed. This 
            capability can be coupled with existing remote sensing 
            technologies.

  4.  Fourth, extraction techniques need to be refined, as some of 
            those proposed are not used on Earth as they uniquely 
            navigate the extreme environment space presents.

    These gaps in the supply chain are understood by many in the field 
of space resources. Some of these gaps have entire books written about 
them, but often are not consulted by policy and lawmakers because of an 
all to frequent (and very wrong) belief that the development of space 
does not benefit the Earth.
    Nevertheless, there exists an important gap in the formation of the 
supply chain for near future mining operations of planetary bodies: one 
that has of yet been answered by theoretical concepts or early-stage 
technologies. This gap is that of mineral exploration and prospecting, 
as mentioned briefly before. Planetary bodies have not been explored 
similarly to how we search for minerals on Earth. Probes have used 
remote sensing, and for the Moon, the Apollo astronauts took samples 
from the surface. If we want to explore for minerals in space as we do 
on the Earth, we must develop technologies and capabilities that allow 
us to understand the economic viability of extracting resources from a 
planetary body such as the Moon. To achieve this capability requires 
deeper core samples, and more sophisticated mineral analysis equipment 
and sensors, including the need for autonomous systems, to be able to 
determine if a site on such a planetary body is worth mining--just as 
we do here on Earth. Remote sensing and surface sampling just won't cut 
it. This is a key gap that will need to be fixed as the Artemis 
Program, and the equivalent International Lunar Research Station 
Organization being developed by China and Russia, begin to populate the 
lunar surface and search for critical minerals. The development of 
capabilities such as autonomous mineral exploration rigs will help in 
the discovery of new mine sites off world, bridging a key gap in the 
space resources supply chain.
References

Astrogeology Science Center--About/U.S. Geological Survey. (2023). 
www.usgs.gov. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/astrogeology-science-center/
about.

Burton, J. (2022, February 22). U.S. Geological Survey Releases 2022 
List of Critical Minerals/U.S. Geological Survey. www.usgs.gov. https:/
/www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/us-geological-survey-releases-
2022-list-critical-minerals.

Epiroc. (2023). Exploration. Epiroc. Retrieved December 28, 2023, from 
https://www.epiroc.com/en-za/applications/mining/exploration.

Heiken, G., Vaniman, D., & French, B.M. (2005). Lunar sourcebook: a 
user's guide to the Moon. Cambridge University Press; Houston, TX.

International Energy Agency. (2021). Executive Summary--the Role of 
Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions--Analysis. IEA. https://
www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-
transitions/executive-summary.

Meyer, C. (2007). 70001-70006 Deep Drill Core Frozen samples. Lunar 
Sample Compendium; Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX. Retrieved 
December 28, 2023, from https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/
A17drill.pdf.

Natural resource/ecology. (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. https://
www.britannica. com/science/natural-resource.

O'Callaghan, Jonathan. ``How SpaceX's Massive Starship Rocket Might 
Unlock the Solar System--and Beyond.'' MIT Technology Review, 7 Dec. 
2021, www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/07/1041420/spacex-starship-
rocket-solar-system_exploration/.

SpaceX. (2023). Starship. SpaceX. https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/
starship/.

Wilhelms, D.E. (1993). To a rocky moon: a geologist's history of lunar 
exploration. University Of Arizona Press.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Sundby. I now recognize 
Dr. Autry for his 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF GREG AUTRY, DIRECTOR AND CLINICAL PROFESSOR, SPACE 
LEADERSHIP, POLICY, AND BUSINESS, THUNDERBIRD SCHOOL OF GLOBAL 
     MANAGEMENT, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, PHOENIX, ARIZONA

    Dr. Autry. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 
and honorable members of the Committee. I am testifying on my 
own behalf. The views expressed here are not the views of any 
organization. I will speak on the specific strategic 
significance of extraterrestrial resource extraction in the 
context of China's competitive space development agenda. My 
remarks are not intended to disparage the people of China. They 
are aimed at the corrupt dictatorship that exploits its people 
and threatens our planet.
    I also appreciate the non-partisan nature of space policy.
    Seeing this hearing, Dr. Ajay Malshe, a colleague of mine 
from Purdue, sent me a note. He wrote, ``Strategic materials 
and manufacturing have always created new, real wealth. America 
has handed that source of wealth to other nations in every key 
sector, from semiconductors to aerospace. Space is a new 
frontier, and offers a second chance to revise that era and to 
go from being consumers to makers. That process must begin with 
the supply of basic factor inputs, including minerals.''
    Dr. Malshe's comments underscore how appropriate it is for 
this important decision to be held now in this Committee. Dr. 
Malshe's observations are driven by a Keynesian economic 
perspective which prioritizes consumption above production. 
When our economy slows, the prescription is always stimulate 
the consumers into the mall. This has funded a dangerous 
military dictatorship and pushed us into stagflation.
    The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, harbors no 
delusions about the source of national wealth and power. It is 
laser-focused on capital, resources, and productive capacity, 
as we once were. China buys mines and lands in Africa, Latin 
America, and even in the United States, and then blocks others 
from buying theirs.
    Earth's moon, on the other hand, is roughly the size of 
Africa, is covered with impact craters, and some of these are 
composed of nickel, iron, and platinum group metal asteroid 
cores. Analysis of NASA data suggests that an enormous mass 
concentration is buried near the moon's south pole. Dr. Peter 
James of Baylor University describes that as a pile of metal 
five times larger than the Big Island of Hawaii.
    NASA's Psyche mission will be the first to visit a metal 
asteroid. The press has suggested that mining Psyche will make 
us all billionaires. The reality is that when we do learn to 
mine these materials, market prices will adjust, but everyone 
on Earth will lead richer lives.
    AstroForge of Huntington Beach, California is focused on 
the return of important platinum group metals that are rare 
here on Earth. Trans Astra is planning on mining ice near the 
poles for water, as well as oxygen and hydrogen for rocket 
power. Origin Space of Shenzhen, China, on the other hand, has 
raised 150 million yuan, and China's moon czar is all in on the 
idea of extracting helium 3 from lunar regolith for fusion 
power.
    The Chinese know that space mining challenges are 
surmountable and will produce positive externalities, and they 
are working on it now. Mining on the moon and asteroids, 
processing ore and delivering products to our markets in space 
or Earth is not simple and will not happen quickly. It will 
demand advances like AI-controlled mining equipment, 
automation, and nuclear power solutions. Technological spin-
offs from the first space race enriched our nation and 
transformed the world. Technologies required for space mining 
will also be applicable to Earth.
    I know some will suggest that we halt space development 
until we deal with every problem on Earth, or until we can 
ensure that resources are equitably distributed for everyone on 
Earth. I appreciate that. But the CCP will continue without 
regard to rights or rules, and they will leverage their 
monopolies against nations large and small. Any delay in 
America's development of space resources, no matter how well 
intended, will leave the field to that rapacious regime.
    I have some recommended actions for Congress.
    Provide additional R&D funding for dual-use technologies 
that enable both space resource extraction and advanced 
terrestrial mining, including the detection of subsurface 
mineral deposits and AI-enabled autonomous deep mining systems.
    Support a permanent and sustainable presence on the moon 
with our partners in the Artemis Accords.
    Appropriate additional funding to NASA's Science Mission 
Directorate for continued exploration of lunar and asteroid 
resources.
    Appropriate additional funding to DOE and NASA's Space 
Technology Mission Directorate for the development of nuclear 
space power solutions.
    Further clarify our interpretation of the Outer Space 
Treaty and language that supports a legal framework conducive 
to the development of space resources by private actors, 
including the security of exclusive operating areas and ways 
that will allow space mining to be transferrable and 
collateralizable.
    Clearly direct the U.S. space force to prepare for the 
future protection of American commerce in cis-lunar space and 
celestial bodies.
    Let me close with a quote often attributed to Eleanor 
Roosevelt that I think speaks to the topic of why we should do 
this now. She said, ``The future belongs to those who show 
up.'' Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Autry follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Greg Autry, PhD, Director of Space Leadership,
     Policy, and Business, Thunderbird School of Global Management,
                        Arizona State University

Introduction

    Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the 
Subcommittee. My name is Greg Autry, and I am a Clinical Professor and 
the Director of Space Leadership Policy and Business at the Thunderbird 
School of Global Management, a unit of Arizona State University. I also 
have an appointment as Affiliate Professor at ASU Interplanetary 
Initiative and as a Visiting Professor in the Institute for Security 
Science and Technology at Imperial College London. I serve as Vice 
President for Space Development at the National Space Society. I am 
testifying on my own behalf and the views expressed here are not 
necessarily the views of any organization.
    My testimony will focus on the strategic and economic significance 
of extraterrestrial resource extraction in the context of China's 
growing dominance of terrestrial mineral supply chains and aggressive 
plans for space development. I want to be clear that my remarks on that 
competition are in no way intended to disparage the admirable nation of 
China nor its hardworking people. I am excited by their passion for 
space and their scientific achievements in that domain. My criticisms 
are aimed entirely at the corrupt, nominally communist, dictatorship 
that exploits its own people and threatens our entire planet.
Context--We Have Set Ourselves Up for Failure

    Dr. Ajay Malshe, a colleague of mine from Purdue and an expert in 
space manufacturing, sent me a note before this hearing. He wrote,

        Strategic materials and manufacturing have always created new 
        real wealth. America has handed that source of wealth to other 
        nations, in every key sector from semiconductor to aerospace. 
        Space is a new frontier and offers a second chance to reverse 
        that error, and to go from consumers to makers. That process 
        must begin with the supply of basic factor inputs, notably 
        minerals.

    Dr. Malshe's comments underscore how appropriate it is for this 
important discussion to be held in this committee. As the 21st century 
unfolds, the United States finds itself being displaced on the 
geopolitical and economic stage, by an aggressive and mercantilist 
competitor. A primary cause of the American decline that Professor 
Malshe observes has been the adoption, during the last century, of a 
Keynesian economic perspective which prioritized consumption above 
production and investment. We routinely hear Americans referred to as 
``consumers'' and when our economy falls ill, the Rx is always fiscal 
and monetary stimuli designed to get American ``consumers'' back into 
the shopping malls, buying more Chinese goods, produced from a global 
supply chain of raw materials increasing controlled by the 
authoritarian state.
    This naive economic strategy is like prescribing sugary cough syrup 
for pneumonia. It helps the financial press feel better for a couple of 
quarters, getting us through another election cycle; but it has bred 
staggering deficits and more recently it has pushed our economy toward 
stagflation. Worse, this process has funded and legitimized a genocidal 
regime and created a near peer military threat that requires ever 
increasing DoD budgets to defend against.
    For all its many faults, the Chinese Communist Party harbors no 
delusions about the sources of national wealth and power. It has been 
strategically focused on resources, education, capital, and productive 
capacity. This is basically the system that Alexander Hamilton outlined 
in his 1791 report to Congress on Manufacturing. Using the ``American 
System'', China strides across the world stage like a 19th century 
imperial power. While our economists worry about whether Americans will 
buy enough Chinese made stuff this holiday season, China is buying up 
mines, wells, and farmland in Africa, Latin America, and even in our 
own nation!
    A couple of decades ago, most of the world's rare earth elements 
were mined and processed in California at Molycorp's Mountain Pass 
Mine, near the Nevada border. Then China began to aggressively strip 
mine and process these elements with no regard for the environment. Tim 
Maughan of the BBC writes about the resulting toxic environment that he 
found in Mongolia:

        It's a truly alien environment, dystopian and horrifying. The 
        thought that it is man-made depressed and terrified me, as did 
        the realisation that this was the byproduct not just of the 
        consumer electronics in my pocket, but also green technologies 
        like wind turbines and electric cars that we get so smugly 
        excited about in the West. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Maughan, Tim. ``The dystopian lake filled by the world's tech 
lust'', BBC, February 22, 2022. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/
20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]

    The CCP's willingness to destroy the environment of occupied 
Mongolia for competitive advantage and to dump the resulting production 
far below market price, shuttered the U.S. mine. Having obtained a 
global rare earth monopoly, they jacked up pricing by double and triple 
digits. When the California mine reopened it was in a partnership with 
a Chinese State Owned Enterprise, under an agreement to ship all of the 
ore to China for processing. Meanwhile China threatens us with rare 
earth embargos as a tool to manipulate U.S. policy; \2\ compelling DoD 
to fund a small domestic processing effort with taxpayer dollars.\3\ 
Seriously! You can't make this up!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Navarro, Peter and Autry, Greg. Death by China: Confronting the 
Dragon--A Global Call to Action, 2010. Pearson. (p. 64).
    \3\ Easley, Mikayla. ``U.S. Begins Forging Rare Earth Supply 
Chain'', National Defense, February 10, 2023. https://
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/2/10/us-begins-forging-
rare-earth-supply-chain
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And this has been no Ricardian free trade paradise. As they gobbled 
their way across the globe, Chinese law prevented foreigners from 
owning or controlling resources inside of China. Now that we've awoken 
to how foolish we have been, we face a difficult supply chain problem.
Space Resources Offer Solutions

    One answer to this problem is about 240,000 miles away. The surface 
of the Earth's Moon is roughly equivalent to the entire continent of 
Africa. Having been formed some four and half billion years ago in the 
collision of the Earth with a wayward protoplanet, our Moon shares many 
of the material properties of the Earth, with a few important 
differences. Measurements of the ratios of elemental isotopes, 
including oxygen and titanium found in Apollo samples confirm that the 
moon is composed of the same materials which form the Earth's crust.\4\ 
Much of what we use to live and prosper are found in abundance there. 
There are also things we may find only on the Moon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Zhang, Junjun, et al. ``The proto-Earth as a significant source 
of lunar material.'' Nature Geoscience 5.4 (2012): 251-255.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Any good look at our celestial neighbor reveals thousands of 
asteroid impact craters and a few huge ``basins'' created by hits from 
supermassive planetesimals. These impactors were often composed of 
nickel-iron, platinum group metals, and even rare earth elements. Some 
of these will have interacted with molten lunar crust and water and may 
have been distributed into the Moon's crust or flowed into veins. Some 
of the cores may be solidly intact. Much of our minable mineral wealth 
that we extract from Earth is the result of similar past impacts.
Strategic Locations

    The likelihood of buried metallic cores and concentrated infusions 
of minerals makes a few areas of the Moon strategically attractive. 
Most notably the Southern Polar regions of the Moon appear to contain a 
massive ``metallic structure.'' Research of the Moon's unique 
gravitational anomalies, based on data from NASA's GRAIL mission, 
suggest an enormous mass concentration (mascon) is buried beneath the 
Moon's Aitken Basin. The study's lead author, Dr. Peter James of Baylor 
University, has suggested that the anomaly is, ``a pile of metal five 
times larger than the Big Island of Hawaii.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Goodrich, Terry. ``Mass Anomaly Detected Under the Moon's 
Largest Crater'', Baylor University, June 10, 2019. https://
news.web.baylor.edu/news/story/2019/mass-anomaly-detected-under-moons-
largest-crater [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]

        This anomaly has a minimum mass of 2.18  1018 kg and 
        likely extends to depths of more than 300 km. Plausible sources 
        for this anomaly include metal from the core of a 
        differentiated impactor or oxides from the last stage of magma 
        ocean crystallization.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ James, Peter B., et al. ``Deep structure of the lunar South 
Pole-Aitken basin.'' Geophysical Research Letters 46.10 (2019): 5100-
5106.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            --James, et al., Nature

    Of course, metallic asteroids can also be found in space. Thousands 
of them are found beyond the orbit of Mars and several near-Earth 
objects wander closer to our own planet. NASA's recently launched 
mission to the main belt asteroid Psyche will be the first to visit 
what we suspect is the massive metallic core of an unformed planet.\7\ 
It may contain more precious metals than have been mined in all of 
human history. The plucky spacecraft will beam back immensely valuable 
data from that metal world. There has been a great deal of enthusiasm 
in the press about how mining Psyche, or a near Earth object like Eros, 
could make us all billionaires.\8\ The reality is, of course, that if 
we learn to extract and return these materials, market prices would 
adjust significantly, but the more important point is that everyone on 
Earth would indeed lead richer lives without additionally impacting our 
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://psyche.asu.edu [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
    \8\ Carter, Jamie, ``No, NASA's Asteroid Visit Next Week Won't Make 
Us All Billionaires'', Forbes, October 2, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/
sites/jamiecartereurope/2023/10/02/no-nasas-asteroid-visit-this-week-
wont-make-us-all-billionaires [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Moon's southern polar regions also appear to contain large 
reserves of water ice--which is indispensable for human occupation and 
operations. U.S. firms, such as Trans Astra, are looking at ``mining'' 
ice on the Moon for water as well as for the oxygen and hydrogen, 
rocket propellants that can be easily extracted from water with solar 
or nuclear power.
    Mining on the Moon and asteroids, processing ore in situ, and 
delivering products to markets in space or on Earth are not easy or 
straightforward tasks. Space is a harsh environment. Partial or zero 
gravity, a cold vacuum, and constant radiation exposure demand new 
mining equipment, processes, as well as a great deal of AI controlled 
automation. The energy required to move these materials to the orbits 
where they will be most useful can be very significant. Increasing our 
ability to deliver significant volumes of materials, or finished goods 
from orbit back down to the Earth will require new vehicles and reentry 
technologies.
Scrappy Entrepreneurs are Running America's Race with Limited Resources

    Space is hard and a couple of high-profile space mining companies 
have already failed without returning anything to Earth or to their 
shareholders. As a scholar of technology entrepreneurship, I was not 
surprised by this, and it should not dissuade us from continuing to 
pursue this opportunity. Does anyone know recall who the first personal 
computer company was? It wasn't Apple. Who developed the smartphone? 
Again, not Apple.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ The first commercial personal computer was the Altair 8800 
offered in 1975 by a New Mexico startup named MITS. The first 
smartphone was the Treo produced in 2002, by a company named 
Handspring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, new companies are stepping forward and raising capital, 
including AstroForge of Huntington Beach, California and the U.K.'s 
Asteroid Mining Corporation. Both of these startups are focused on the 
return of platinum group metals (PGM), like iridium and palladium. PGMs 
have a number of critical industrial applications, particularly as 
catalysts in chemical processes, including the catalytic converters 
that reduce emissions from automobiles. Unfortunately, PGMs are among 
the rarest elements on Earth and their production is inconveniently 
dominated by Russia and South Africa. The U.S. Department of Energy has 
called for American leadership in PGM production.\10\ Space may offer a 
long-term path to that leadership position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ ``Achieving American Leadership in the Platinum Group Metals 
Supply Chain'', U.S. Department of Energy, February 24, 2022 https://
www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1871584 [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not to be left behind, China has Origin Space, a nominally 
commercial firm located in Shenzhen. Origin Space has raised CNY150M or 
approximately $20 million USD, making it better funded than its small, 
Western competitors.\11\ The firm has already launched a test 
satellite, NEO-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/origin-space/
company_financials [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's About the Technology, Not Just the Minerals

    These firms are popping up because the challenges of space mining 
are surmountable and the nation whose firms succeed will benefit from 
many positive externalities. The AI automated technologies required for 
mining on the Moon are highly applicable to Earth, where we must dig 
increasingly deeper to find new materials. Investment in one can 
provide American competitive advantages in both. Solar energy is 
abundant in space and increasing the efficiency of photovoltaic systems 
to power electric thrusters, perhaps using new classes of propellants, 
would benefit all manners of space transportation as well as increase 
our options for clean energy on Earth. Developing nuclear propulsion 
and nuclear power solutions for the lunar surface are key NASA 
objectives and would be of great benefit to the US Space Force in the 
future. Space mining can benefit from and assist with these nuclear 
solutions, which may someday return clean energy solutions for Earth.
    Even if we never return minerals from the Moon, we will benefit 
from the effort to do so. We would not have the solar PV or fuel cells 
we enjoy today if it were not for space applications driving those 
technologies decades ago.\12\ The hundreds of pounds of Moon rocks 
returned by Apollo astronauts, produced no direct revenues, but the 
First Space Race produced unexpected spinoffs that have transformed the 
world. Who knows what the 21st century equivalent of GPS or the 
Internet \13\ will turn out to be and how they will benefit our nation 
and everyone on Earth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Autry, Greg. ``Space policy, intergenerational ethics, and the 
environment.'' AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition. 2011.
    \13\ Autry, Greg. ``Space policy, intergenerational ethics, and the 
environment.'' AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition. 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America Must Lead Here

    It is important to note that this bright future only materializes 
for everyone if America takes the lead and space minerals are extracted 
and sold by private actors in a free market. We should not expect 
Chinese state-controlled exploitation of the Aitken Basin mascon or the 
asteroid Eros to play out any differently than their terrestrial rare-
earth monopoly or territorial aggression in the South China Sea have. 
We should expect the CCP to act without regard to anyone's rights, 
extract monopolistic rents, and then leverage their competitive 
advantage for political and military concessions from nations large and 
small. China's authoritarian leaders will, of course, cloak their 
aggressive space actions in the usual propaganda of greenwashing, 
insincere calls for international cooperation, and meaningless phrases 
extolling their supposedly virtuous nature.
    Before you are tempted by calls for ``cooperation rather than 
competition in space'' or naive suggestions that America should halt 
space development until we can ensure that space resources are 
equitably distributed for everyone on Earth, let's take a hard look at 
how that has worked on Earth. While the examples of the CCP's 
malfeasance and duplicity could overfill my testimony, let's consider 
the Galapagos islands. Darwin literally unraveled the mysteries of life 
on these starkly beautiful isles and the Ecuadorian government has 
worked hard to preserve this UN Natural Heritage Site. Satellite radio 
maps, from Hawkeye 360, show a constant ring of radio activity around 
the islands. These are hundreds of Chinese fishing and processing ships 
and their GPS transponders showing them just outside of Ecuador's 
economic exclusion zone. The mayor of Santa Cruz province describes 
their operations best:

        They are killing the species we have protected and polluting 
        our biota with the plastic waste they drop overboard. They are 
        raping the Galapagos. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Gibbs, Stephen, ``Huge Chinese fishing fleet accused of 
`raping' Galapagos on industrial scale.'', October 20, 2020. https://
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/huge-chinese-fishing-fleet-accused-of-
raping-galapagos-on-industrial-scale-m08lxd60j [last accessed Dec. 9, 
2023]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              --Angel Yanez Vinueza

    If simply hanging off the coast and ``legally'' killing everything 
that swims and polluting the Earth's most pristine ecosystem were not 
bad enough, satellite tracking of more subtle radio signals has 
revealed something more nefarious. Chinese trawlers routinely switch 
off their AIS transponders to ``go dark'' and then violate Ecuador's 
waters in order to move their floating slaughterhouses closer to 
shore.\15\ This has been going on for years in plain sight while China 
continues to promote internationalism and pretend it is a globally 
responsible actor. Any well-intended delay in U.S. efforts to develop 
space resources will simply put more of those resources into the hands 
of this rapacious regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Datta, Anusuya, ``Satellite data nails Chinese fishing fleet 
near ecologically sensitive Galapagos Islands'', Geospatial World, 
October 1, 2020. https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/satellite-data-
nails-chinese-fishing-fleet-near-ecologically-sensitive-galapagos-
islands/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lastly, space also holds treasures we can't find on Earth. One of 
these is an isotope of Helium that contains just a single neutron. 
Helium 3 (3He) is extremely rare on Earth. Efforts to 
isolate 3He from Helium during natural gas refining yield 
only about a hundred parts per billion.\16\ However, it is believed to 
be found in relative abundance on the Moon, where the solar wind 
deposits it into the lunar regolith (dirt).\17\ Helium 3 has unique 
properties that enable several specialized Earth-bound applications 
including neutron detection, improved MRI imaging and cryogenic 
research. Most significantly it is hypothesized that 3He 
would be a preferrable fuel for nuclear fusion reactors, providing 
emissions free energy with no residual radioactivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Shea, Dana A.; Morgan, Daniel (22 December 2010). The Helium-3 
Shortage: Supply, Demand, and Options for Congress (PDF) (Report). 
Congressional Research Service. 7-5700. [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
    \17\ E. N. Slyuta; A. M. Abdrakhimov; E. M. Galimov (2007). ``The 
estimation of helium-3 probable reserves in lunar regolith'' (PDF). 
Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVIII (1338): 2175 [last accessed Dec. 9, 
2023]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the practically of 3He as an energy source remains 
the subject of debate in the U.S., China is ``all in'' on the topic. 
Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist for China's Lunar Exploration 
Program has stated that, ``Each year, three space shuttle missions 
could bring enough fuel for all human beings across the world.'' \18\ 
Last year, China verified they have detected the rare isotope in 
samples returned from the Moon by their Chang'e 5 lunar mission.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ ``Ouyang Ziyuan's Moon Dream Coming True,'' China Daily, July 
26, 2006. http://www.china.org.cn/english/scitech/175923.htm [last 
accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
    \19\ Whittington, Mark, ``China has returned helium-3 from the 
moon, opening door to future technology'', https://thehill.com/opinion/
technology/3647216-china-has-returned-helium-3-from-the-moon-opening-
door-to-future-technology/ [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Humanity is at a pivot point. We are about to leave the cradle of 
our home planet to develop and populate the solar system. If we want 
that expansion to carry the angels of our better nature into the future 
and to benefit the Earth and everyone on it, America must lead. We must 
not permit a genocidal dictatorship to define the future of humanity 
nor gain further leverage over global supply chains.
Recommended Congressional Actions

  1.  Provide funding for R&D into dual use mining technologies that 
            enable both space resource extraction and advanced 
            terrestrial mining. Most importantly, support technologies 
            for the detection of subsurface mineral deposits and AI 
            enabled autonomous deep mining systems.

  2.  Support a permanent and sustainable presence on the Moon with our 
            partners in the Artemis Accords and in constructive 
            competition with the Chinese-Russian International Lunar 
            Research Station.

  3.  Allocate additional funding to NASA's Science Mission Directorate 
            for the continued exploration of lunar and asteroid 
            resources.

  4.  Allocate additional funding to DOE and NASA's Space Technology 
            Mission Directorate for the development of space power 
            solutions including nuclear.

  5.  Develop follow on legislation to Commercial Space Launch 
            Competitiveness Act (CSCLA) of 2015 and work with our 
            partners in the Artemis Accords, in order clarify our 
            interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty in language that 
            supports a legal framework conducive to the development of 
            space resources by private actors, including the security 
            of exclusive operating areas in ways that will allow space 
            mining and other ``properties'' to be transferable and 
            collateralizable.

  6.  Clearly direct the United Space Force to prepare for the future 
            protection of American commerce in cis-lunar space and on 
            celestial bodies.

    A quote often ascribed to Eleanor Roosevelt offers an appropriate 
closing,

                        The future belongs to those who show up.

                                 ______
                                 

          Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Greg Autry

              Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar

    Question 1. How are space resources natural resources?

    Answer. I'd be hard pressed to understand how space resource would 
be ``unnatural.'' They are not fabricated by humans. They were created 
by God or nature through the same natural process that created the 
Earth and everything in our solar system. In fact, many of the metals 
and minerals we mine from the crust of the Earth were deposited there 
by the impacts of asteroids in the past. The heaviest materials present 
in the original formation of the Earth sunk to the core and are 
inaccessible to us.

NASA routinely refers to space resources as ``natural resources.'' 
        Examples:

    On their website NASA defines In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) 
as follows ``ISRU is the harnessing of local natural resources at 
mission destinations, instead of taking all needed supplies from Earth, 
to enhance the capabilities of human exploration.'' (emphasis on 
``natural resources'' added) https://www.nasa.gov/mission/in-situ-
resource-utilization-isru/

    Another article is entitled ``NASA Challenge Seeks Ways to Use 
Mars' Natural Resources for Astronauts.'' https://www.nasa.gov/news-
release/nasa-challenge-seeks-ways-to-use-mars-natural-resources-for-
astronauts/

Academics routinely refer to space resources as ``natural resources.'' 
        Examples:

    Coffey, Sarah. ``Establishing a legal framework for property rights 
to natural resources in outer space.'' Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 41 
(2009): 119.

    Tronchetti, Fabio. The exploitation of natural resources of the 
Moon and other celestial bodies: a proposal for a legal regime. Vol. 4. 
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.

    Jakhu, Ram, and Maria Buzdugan. ``Development of the natural 
resources of the moon and other celestial bodies: economic and legal 
aspects.'' Astropolitics 6.3 (2008): 201-250.

USGS believes that space resources are ``natural resources'' under its 
        domain. Examples:

    Surveying natural resources was the key job Congress gave the USGS 
when it was created on March 3, 1879 . . . In 2017 we published a study 
that showed that the methods the USGS uses on Earth can be applied to 
asteroid resources with only modest modification. https://www.usgs.gov/
index.php/news/usgs-prepares-assess-resources-moon

    ``The USGS realized that our congressional mandate to assess 
natural resources extends to space'' Kestay said. At this time, the 
USGS does not have a funded program to conduct full-scale assessments 
of space resources. ``But we are anticipating that the USGS may be 
directed to do so soon, and we are taking a number of steps to be 
prepared for that possibility,'' he said. (Space News quoting Lazlo 
Kestay, a USGS research geologist) https://www.space.com/41707-space-
mining-usgs-resource-survey.html

Relevance to the Natural Resources Committee

    I see no reason why the location of resources would change their 
nature or affect the relevance of this committee's oversight over them. 
The fact they would be accessed via rockets and spacecraft doesn't 
change the nature of the material. We would not insist that because 
minerals are transported by rail, ship, or truck that only 
Transportation & Infrastructure Committee could discuss those 
materials. The technology of the mode of transport is far less relevant 
than the economic and strategic importance of these natural resources.

    Question 2. How can the House Committee on Natural Resources help 
America secure the celestial mineral supply chain?

    Answer. As I stated in my testimony I recommended six items, not 
all of which are directly within the Natural Resources Committee's 
portfolio but for which the committee could take an active role in 
leading and supporting. My first recommendation is directly within the 
committee's jurisdiction, and I believe that there funds in USGS and 
other buckets that could be applied to this important task.

    Provide funding for R&D into dual use mining technologies that 
enable both space resource extraction and advanced terrestrial mining. 
Most importantly, support technologies for the detection of subsurface 
mineral deposits and AI enabled autonomous deep mining systems.

    Additionally, appropriate the funding that Dr. Kestay is referring 
to above. As he notes, the Astrogeology Science Center is ready and 
waiting to do this work.

    I also want to be clear that we are not talking about ``billions of 
dollars'' as was oft repeated in the hearing. NASA is spending billions 
to get us back to the Moon. DoDo is spending billions on space 
capabilities. Natural Resources can leverage those huge expenditure and 
accomplish a great deal with the judicious application of a few 
$million. China is certainly far more than that to beat us to these 
resources.

    Form an Advisory Commission to the Committee or an Advisory 
Committee to USGS on how best to utilize funding and resources and most 
importantly coordinate with NASA and DoD lunar efforts. Appoint 
induvial to that body that understand the science, engineering, 
economics, business aspects of space mining. Ensure there are 
individuals who have experience working with NASA and DoD leadership.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Lamborn

    Question 1. What are the opportunities and barriers to greater 
coordination and investment in space resources research within 
academia?

    Answer. I am convinced there are significant opportunities for the 
coordination of research and investment in space resources within 
academia. Firstly, there are a number of academic institutions already 
doing this work, albeit on a shoestring budget. Among these:

     The Colorado School of Mines

     The University of Central Florida

     Purdue

     Arizona State University

     University of Alabama at Huntsville

    These schools and others could use funding or the opportunity to 
access USGS grants. Some grants for technology development and the like 
at USGS could perhaps be expanded to allow for space related 
applications. I think this is particularly important in the ``dual 
use'' category where work done on a space related project, such as 
automated assaying equipment or AI enabled mining robotics, would 
produce benefits for both space and terrestrial applications. This 
addresses the relevance to ``problems here on Earth'' questions.

    NASA is already working with these institutions in many ways 
including running Robotic Mining Competitions for several years. 
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-announces-robotic-mining-
competition-2/

    https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/stem-engagement-at-nasa/
collegiate-miners-excavate-soil-for-nasas-robotic-mining-competition/

    Provide funding for USGS to partner with NASA on this and other 
academic projects and grants.

    Additionally, it is important to not just spend the taxpayer's 
money, but to create an environment that is conducive to public-private 
partnerships. Leveraging the private sector is America's greatest 
strength and how we beat China, which is certainly funding their 
academics to devise ways to beat America to these resources.
    There are billionaires, private equity firms, (friendly) sovereign 
wealth funds and many other investors eager to get in on the ground 
floor of America's commercial space boom. Most of them are investing in 
rockets and satellites, but they understand the opportunity in lunar 
and asteroid resources. Providing small grants to business schools with 
space related programs so they may establish centers of excellence or 
startup incubators would help attract this private capital into the 
university ecosystem. These centers and incubators could connect 
investors with researchers and entrepreneurs.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Dr. Autry. I now recognize Dr. 
Milazzo for his 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF MOSES P. MILAZZO, OWNER OF OTHER ORB, CHIEF 
   SCIENTIST FOR NASA'S PLANETARY DATA ECOSYSTEM, FLAGSTAFF, 
                            ARIZONA

    Dr. Milazzo. Thank you, Chair Gosar, Ranking Member 
Stansbury, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Dr. 
Moses Milazzo. I am the Founder and Owner of Other Orb LLC, a 
successful small business that provides planetary science 
consulting services to a variety of U.S. institutions, 
including private and public universities, for-profit and non-
profit scientific organizations, and Federal agencies such as 
NASA.
    I appear today on my own behalf, and not as a 
representative of any institution, agency, organization, or 
business. I thank you for the opportunity and honor to present 
testimony to this hearing. My goal through this testimony is to 
encourage you to proceed with careful consideration of the 
following aspects of any future space mining: resource and 
energy development, ethical consideration of public investment 
and returns, and ethical consideration of environmental and 
human burden that may be created by said mining.
    The near-term enabling energy technologies for space-based 
mining will be solar panels and batteries. We have the 
opportunity, with the rapid growth of alternative energy 
sources and electric vehicles, to help develop more efficient 
and more resilient solar panels to support and tap into 
research and development of new, more robust and more energy-
dense battery technologies, and to expand the testing 
environment of such batteries. Solar energy and EVs on our 
roads and highways represent the most advanced testing 
laboratory available for improving energy collection, storage, 
and use, and the lessons learned can be applied to operations 
in space.
    To guarantee that the public will benefit from an 
investment of public funds into space mining we need to ensure 
that public funding will be allocated in an equitable manner; 
anyone with the appropriate knowledge and skills will be able 
to compete for this funding; public funding will not only go to 
large and rich companies; public funding and the companies that 
receive this funding will be well regulated; that monopolies 
will not be permitted; that we will regulate the industry to 
ensure public good is achieved through public funding; and that 
this public funding does not create additional wealth 
disparities within our communities.
    We also need to consider who will be responsible for the 
oversight of companies receiving Federal funding for space 
mining. We have historically failed to enact effective 
regulations during the earliest stages of a new industry. For 
example, during the industrial age disasters such as burning 
rivers were the result in part of an unregulated industry. We 
now have the opportunity to consider not only whether and how 
to fund this budding industry, but also how to ensure it 
protects and benefits the public that pays for it.
    Space mining endeavors will have far-reaching impacts for 
humanity, and therefore anti-colonialism must be a central 
tenet of our regulation of the space mining industry. It is 
incumbent upon us, as we borrow from the future, to make 
decisions that benefit as much of humanity as possible, both 
today and far into the future. Just as various cultures hold 
certain geographical sites and features on Earth sacred, many 
cultures hold some planetary bodies sacred. We must seriously 
consider the harm that mining planetary bodies may cause to 
those cultures. Our concern for Apollo landing site 
preservation is no different from the concern others have for 
the preservation of whole planetary bodies in space.
    A thorough and thoughtful plan for development of space 
mining must include codified protections and cooperative 
international agreements to preserve historical and cultural 
treasures. The question of whether and, if so, how to mine in 
space is one that needs careful consideration before a large 
expenditure of public funds is made. We stand in a singular 
position to do the right thing. We must use the lessons of 
history and advances in technology to not only help people on 
Earth in the near term, but to conserve our legacy for far-
future generations.
    Now is the time to bring in all stakeholders to discuss 
whether we should mine in space, how we might do so, and how 
doing so may benefit everyone rather than just a few people. 
The ideas and concerns I raise here are not exhaustive, but are 
intended as a framework for starting a deeper and more detailed 
dialogue.
    To be clear, I am not opposed to mining in space. 
Personally, I think that there may be more positive outcomes 
than negative. But I am only one person. And as a scientist, I 
want my ideas, concerns, and excitement to be peer-reviewed by 
others with different perspectives. To that end, I urge the 
convening of a committee composed of historians, cultural 
experts, Indigenous representatives, ethicists, planetary 
scientists, lawyers, archeologists, anthropologists, industry 
experts, regulation and policy experts, and Federal agencies to 
carefully consider the two main questions of whether and, if 
so, how to encourage, regulate, and fund U.S. mining in space. 
Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Milazzo follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Dr. Moses P. Milazzo

    Chair Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and members of the 
Subcommittee, my name is Dr. Moses Milazzo. I am the founder and owner 
of Other Orb LLC, a successful small business that provides planetary 
science consulting services to a variety of US institutions, including 
private and public universities, for-profit and non-profit scientific 
organizations, and federal agencies such as NASA. I appear today on my 
own behalf and not as a representative of any institution, agency, 
business, or organization. Thank you for the opportunity and honor to 
present testimony to this Hearing on The Mineral Supply Chain and the 
New Space Race. My goal through this testimony is to encourage you to 
proceed with careful consideration of the following aspects of future 
space mining: resource and energy development, ethical consideration of 
public investment and returns, and ethical consideration of 
environmental and human burden that may be created by said mining.
    I want to begin this testimony with a story about simple resource 
management in remote locations. I was born and raised on a small, self-
subsistence ranch in the high desert of Northern Arizona. This ranch 
was far beyond the reach of grid-tied utilities: our water was supplied 
by a deep well into the Colorado Aquifer with a windmill-powered pump; 
we used wood-burning stoves for cooking and heating; and our only 
source of electricity were 12-volt car batteries used to power a radio 
and some small lights when our kerosene lanterns were out of fuel. One 
day in elementary school, I borrowed from the school library a book 
about a technology called photovoltaics. I asked my parents to get a 
solar panel for us to experiment with. We set up the solar panel to 
charge a 12-volt car battery and shortly afterward, we added a small 
black-and-white TV to our entertainment and news sources. The solar 
panel substantially decreased the cost of lighting and listening to 
music and the news on the radio and watching it on the TV; we no longer 
had to purchase kerosene or charge the battery with a gasoline 
generator. In this same book about photovoltaics, there was a section 
about the use of solar power on NASA's first space station, Skylab. It 
blew my mind that I, a poor kid on an off-grid ranch in the middle of 
nowhere, was now listening to the radio using the same power technology 
that NASA was using in space! My stepmom and two brothers still live on 
that ranch and still power the home with wind power, solar panels, and 
batteries.
Executive Summary

    The question of whether and, if so, how to mine in space is one 
that needs careful consideration before a large expenditure of public 
funds is made. We stand in a singular position to do the right thing. 
We must use the lessons of history, and advances in technology, to not 
only help people on Earth in the near-term but conserve our legacy for 
far-future generations. Now is the time to bring in all stakeholders to 
discuss whether we should mine in space, how we might do so, and how 
doing so may benefit everyone rather than just a few people. The ideas 
and concerns I raise here are not exhaustive but are intended as a 
framework for starting a deeper and more detailed dialogue.
    To be clear, I do not believe in stalling or blocking mining in 
space. Personally I think there may be more positive outcomes than 
negative. But I am only one person and as a scientist, I want my ideas, 
concerns, and excitement to be peer-reviewed by others with different 
perspectives. To that end, I urge the convening of a committee composed 
of historians, cultural experts, Indigenous representatives, ethicists, 
planetary scientists, lawyers, archeologists, anthropologists, industry 
experts, regulation and policy experts, and federal agencies (NASA, 
USGS, NSF, EPA, etc) to carefully consider the two main questions of 
whether, and if so, how to encourage, regulate, and fund U.S. mining in 
space.
Energy and Resource Development

    The first and most significant factor in our ability to conduct 
space mining will be our ability to meet the vast energy requirements 
necessary. Mining requires very large energy expenditures here on Earth 
and will require even more in space. At this time, there's simply no 
known, better technology for humans taking advantage of the vast 
resources of solar energy than photovoltaics, the conversion of energy 
from the sun into electric power. Photovoltaics is a fundamental 
technology for enabling space exploration because burning fuels is a 
particularly inefficient method for generating usable energy, and it is 
an especially expensive and inefficient method of generating energy for 
exploring space. On Earth, where we have abundant oxygen, we need only 
store and transport the fuel to be burned, be it kerosene for a 
lantern, gasoline for an internal combustion engine, or jet fuel for 
the airplane that brought me to Washington, DC. But in space, to take 
advantage of this kind of chemical energy, we would need to store and 
transport both the fuel and the oxidizer, which is prohibitively 
expensive and dangerous. We must therefore generate, store, transport, 
and provide that energy in some other form. While some of the energy 
will come in the form of nuclear energy, that source is already highly 
regulated, and I find it unlikely that our government or other 
governments will loosen those regulations. As such, the enabling 
technology for space exploration and commercialization of space is and 
will likely continue to be photovoltaics and batteries, which together 
allow us to generate, transport, and store energy in space without the 
massive inefficiencies of burning fuel.
    Why does this matter? Because, to build a space mining industry, we 
will need very high capacity, resilient batteries that can withstand a 
variety of extreme environmental conditions and efficient and resilient 
photovoltaics to feed those batteries. We regularly see deliberate 
frustrations of developing photovoltaic and battery technologies 
through short-sighted anti-alternative energy initiatives, attempts to 
reduce funding for such technological advances, and anti-Electric 
Vehicle campaigns across the nation. If we are to seriously consider 
advancing our technology with the goal of acquiring essential minerals 
from space, we must rapidly and substantially advance our battery and 
photovoltaic technology. The most applicable, rapid-return development 
for this technology comes from alternative energy and battery research 
for the purposes of building electric vehicles of all sizes (including 
electric mining vehicles). EVs are the best approximation we have for 
testing and implementing new technologies that can be translated to 
space mining and material transportation.
Ethical Public Investment

    If we commit to advancing these enabling technologies and to 
advancing the exploration of mining critical minerals in space, we must 
carefully consider how best to protect public investment and encourage 
a broad diversification of access to these technologies and to space.
    As illustrated in recent news events, where a comment or tweet 
spurred a major telecommunications CEO to shut down satellite internet 
access to an entire nation, we should be careful of and wary of 
companies who claim to have the public good in mind. It is not within 
the strategic best interest of the United States to allow unregulated, 
large monopolistic companies to dominate resource extraction in space.
    The mining industry is capital intensive, which means these 
businesses are more highly reliant on physical resources and capital 
(machinery and equipment) than on labor; labor only accounts for 7-8% 
of the cost of mining. The economics of space mining will be similar.
    I know of no private companies that have sent any usable equipment 
out of Earth orbit and into space without some degree of public 
funding. Leaving Earth orbit is, like terrestrial mining, very capital 
intensive, but there's very little to no monetary return on investment 
in the short time periods traditionally expected by investors. This 
means that for the foreseeable future, few or no private companies will 
be leaving Earth orbit except with public funding, much less landing on 
or surveying asteroids or the Moon for resources. The nascent U.S. 
space mining industry will be dependent on U.S. federal funding so that 
the research, development, and capital costs can be afforded without 
the need to immediately meet investor expectations. There will be only 
minimal reduction in capital cost even after the research and 
development costs have been substantially reduced. For an extended 
period of time, it will be incredibly expensive to build space-capable 
machinery and to launch that machinery into space and it is unlikely 
that any space mining company will realize immediate profits.
    Because of this likely need for public funding of research, 
development, and capital costs of the nascent space mining industry, it 
is incumbent upon all of us to carefully consider the following.

    First, Federal funding for the space mining industry will pick 
winners and losers of this industry. Accordingly, we need to ask, will 
the public funding be allocated in an equitable manner? Will everyone 
with the appropriate knowledge be able to compete for this funding, or 
will it mostly go to already-large and rich companies? How will federal 
funding and the companies that receive this federal funding be 
regulated? What kinds of monopolies will we permit, and how will we 
regulate those monopolies to ensure public good is achieved through 
public funding? Will this public funding create additional wealth 
disparities within our community? Should we use the taxes paid by a 
small business owner who farms buckeyes in Georgetown, OH, or a beef 
cattle rancher in Verde Valley, AZ, or a struggling household to 
benefit a large corporation that already has access to space?

    In short: how will the public expenditures for space mining benefit 
everyone?

    Second, we also need to consider who will be responsible for the 
oversight of companies receiving federal funding for space mining. We 
have historically failed to enact effective regulations during the 
earliest stages of a new industry--see the industrial age disasters 
such as the fires on the Cuyahoga River that were the result, in part, 
of an unregulated industry. We now have the opportunity to consider not 
only whether and how to fund this budding industry, but also how to 
ensure it protects and benefits the public that pays for it.
Environmental Considerations

    There are obvious environmental concerns to be addressed here on 
Earth arising from the likely exponential growth in mining for 
resources to produce many times more space-capable rockets and 
machinery than we currently produce. Space mining will incur 
environmental impacts here on Earth. Who will be expected to bear the 
fallout from those environmental impacts?
    There are also, perhaps less obviously, environmental concerns for 
the mining of an asteroid in space. First, mining companies may need to 
park equipment in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) before sending it to the target 
asteroid when the orbital geometry is most favorable; they may choose 
to leave spent rocket boosters in LEO; or possibly allow the detritus 
to fall back to the Earth's surface. Each of these possibilities 
requires regulation and oversight. As evidenced by the Starlink 
satellite system, we know that a massive constellation of objects in 
Low Earth Orbit impacts our ability to scientifically survey the sky. 
This is significant not only for people who like to look at the night 
sky without light pollution or for scientists who study astrophysics 
and astronomy. An exponential increase in space junk in Low Earth Orbit 
would diminish the space mining industry's ability to detect both 
valuable resources and potential hazards. We are dependent on Earth-
based instruments for gathering information about accessible asteroids. 
Without clear skies, we could lose not only the ability to visually 
enjoy our night skies and study our galaxy and the universe, but also 
the ability to effectively advise the very industry that is leaving 
behind this space junk.
    We need to also consider the potential impact of hazardous debris 
being ejected from an asteroid during the mining process and colliding 
with Earth or affecting other space-based industries. Consider the 
possibility that after some years of mining on an asteroid that will 
pass near Earth, a mining company hasn't contained the unusable debris 
it generated. As that asteroid approaches Earth, we may no longer be 
able to use planetary defense technologies intended for large, mostly 
cohesive asteroid bodies and we will be poorly informed of the size and 
mass of debris that may threaten our atmosphere or surface, even if the 
main body of the asteroid does not. Similarly, mining an asteroid 
without careful consideration of how mining might impact the asteroid's 
solar orbit could potentially threaten the Earth by shifting the 
asteroid's orbit from a safe Earth flyby to a dangerous encounter. 
Unregulated mining on the Moon could cause debris to enter low lunar 
orbit and threaten historical artifacts such as the Apollo landing 
sites and impact other developing industries such as spare tourism
    To avoid these nightmare scenarios, we need a well-considered plan 
for regulating mining activities on the moon or low-gravity bodies such 
as asteroids. NASA's DART mission produced data that may be helpful in 
creating a model for how much material might be disturbed from an 
asteroid's surface into its orbital path where it might 1 day cross 
Earth's orbital path.
    As an avid outdoor enthusiast who frequents our nation's parks, 
monuments, and protected wild spaces, and who adheres to the ``Leave No 
Trace'' ethic, I also have recreation-related concerns about the 
environmental destruction that may occur in an unregulated space mining 
industry. Saturday afternoon before this hearing, I had the opportunity 
to spend some time visiting Muir Woods National Monument north of San 
Francisco, CA. During my walk through the Woods, I reflected on the 
fact that President Theodore Roosevelt created the Muir Woods National 
Monument in 1908, 115 years ago. I was quite thankful to both the donor 
of the land and to the President for having the foresight to preserve 
this unique natural, majestic space for future generations and this 
made me contemplate whether someone 115 years from today might be able 
to enjoy visiting heritage sites on, for example, the Moon or the 
asteroid Bennu. Anyone who has spent time in the wilds across much of 
America recognizes the beauty of living landscapes and we know from the 
majesty of places like Death Valley that a landscape doesn't have to be 
filled with fauna and flora to be beautiful and important to humanity. 
Without a careful and deliberate approach to mining as an industry, 
future generations may not have the opportunity to explore that 
``Magnificent Desolation'' Buzz Aldrin described during the Apollo 11 
mission.
    While we need to invest time and caution into any decision to 
implement space mining, we need to also consider the environmental-
related ethical question of whether, in light of the significant 
environmental damage Earth-based mining causes, it would be ethical not 
to mine asteroids. Often, critical mineral extraction on Earth can 
involve mountaintop removal or open pit mining. Can we afford to 
continue this kind of mineral extraction here on Earth, our home and 
the only planet known to be capable of sustaining any kind of life? 
Because to our current knowledge no asteroids are capable of sustaining 
life, choosing to mine asteroids instead of Earth may be the more 
ethical consideration. We must apply further legal, ethical, 
scientific, cultural expertise to examining this question.
Cultural Considerations

    Because any space mining endeavors will have far reaching impacts 
for much of humanity, anti-colonialism must be a central tenet of our 
regulation of the space mining industry. It is incumbent upon us, as we 
borrow from the future, to make decisions that benefit as much of 
humanity as possible, both today and far into the future.
    This includes considering the cultural impact of potential damage 
to historical and cultural sites. Do we want to preserve the sample 
selection site from OSIRIS-REx's Touch-And-Go (TAG) sampling of the 
asteroid Bennu? What about the golf balls Astronaut Alan Shepard hit 
while on the Moon? How should we approach the historical artifacts of 
our international partners and competitors? Will we allow mining on 
Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, which has the potential to cause 
damage to the European Space Agency's Philae lander? And, just as 
various cultures hold certain geographical sites and features on Earth 
sacred, many cultures hold some planetary bodies sacred. We must 
seriously consider the harm that mining planetary bodies may cause to 
those cultures. Our concern for the Apollo landing site preservation is 
no different from the concern others have for the preservation of whole 
planetary bodies in space.
    Accordingly, a thorough and well thought-out plan for development 
of space mining must include codified protections and cooperative 
international agreements to preserve historical and cultural treasures.
Conclusion

    Space mining technology is not yet on our doorstep, but it is no 
longer science fiction. At this moment, we stand in a singular position 
to do the right thing. We must use the lessons of history and advances 
in technology, to not only help people on Earth in the near-term but 
conserve our legacy for far-future generations. Now is the time to 
bring in all stakeholders to discuss whether we should mine in space, 
how we might do so, and how doing so may benefit everyone rather than 
just a few people. The concerns I raise here are not exhaustive but are 
intended as a framework for starting a deeper and more detailed 
dialogue. I recommend the convening of a committee composed of 
historians, cultural experts, Indigenous representatives, ethicists, 
planetary scientists, lawyers, archeologists, anthropologists, industry 
experts, regulation and policy experts, and the several federal 
agencies (NASA, USGS, NSF, EPA, etc) to carefully consider the two main 
questions of whether, and if so, how to encourage, regulate, and fund 
U.S. mining in space.
Supporting References:

Cornwall, Warren (2020) Catastrophic failures raise alarm about dams 
containing muddy mine wastes. Science Magazine. https://bit.ly/3kfigCU.

Fladeland, L., Boley, A.C., & Byers, M. (2019). Meteoroid Stream 
Formation Due to the Extraction of Space Resources from Asteroids. 
arXiv:1911.12840. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.12840

McDowell, J.C. (2020). The Low Earth Orbit Satellite Population and 
Impacts of the SpaceX Starlink Constellation. ApJLett, submitted. 
https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07446

Mercer-Mapstone, L., Rifkin, W., Moffat, K., & Louis, W. (2017). 
Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate. 
Resources Policy, 54, 137-146. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/abs/pii/S0301420717301770

Meursing, S. (2017). Space Mining: Ethical Issues and Some Possible 
Solutions. https://bmsis.org/space-mining-ethical-issues-and-some-
possible-solutions/

Metzger, P.T. (2016). Space development and space science together, an 
historic opportunity. Space Policy, 37, 77-91. https://arxiv.org/abs/
1609.00737

Metzger, P.T. (2017). Economic Planetary Science in the 21st century. 
In Planetary Science Vision 2050 Workshop, volume 1989 of LPI 
Contributions, page 8126. https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/V2050/pdf/
8126.pdf

Pilchman, D. (2015). Three Ethical Perspectives on Asteroid Mining. 
Commercial Space Exploration: Ethics, Policy and Governance, 135-147. 
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315572857-14/
three-ethical-perspectives-asteroid-mining-daniel-pilchman

Rivkin, A. (2020). Asteroid Resource Utilization: Ethical Concerns and 
Progress. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.03369.pdf

Schwartz, J.S. (2016). Near-Earth water sources: Ethics and fairness. 
Advances in Space Research, 58, 402-407. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/abs/pii/S0273117716301582

Schwartz, J.S., & Milligan, T. (2017). Some ethical constraints on 
near-earth resource exploitation. In Yearbook on Space Policy 2015 (pp. 
227-239). Springer, Vienna. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/
978-3-7091-4860-0_10

Tavares, F., et al. (2020). Ethical Exploration and the Role of 
Planetary Protection in Disrupting Colonial Practices. https://
arxiv.org/abs/2010.08344

Venkatesan, A., et al. (2019). Towards inclusive practices with 
indigenous knowledge. Nature Astronomy, 3, 1035-1037. https://
arxiv.org/abs/2009.12425

Vidaurri, M., et al. (2019). Absolute Prioritization of Planetary 
Protection, Safety, and Avoiding Imperialism in All Future Science 
Missions: A Policy Perspective. Space Policy, 51, 101345. https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265964619300803

Vidaurri, M. and A. Gilbert (2020) ``Environmental Considerations in 
the Age of Space Exploration: The Conservation and Protection of Non-
Earth Environments.'' https://baas.aas.org/pub/2021n4i454/release/1

Wiegert, P. (2020). On the delivery of DART-ejected material from 
asteroid (65803) Didymos to Earth. The Planetary Science Journal, 1, 3. 
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/PSJ/ab75bf

Ouellette, J. (2021). Remastered images reveal how far Alan Shepard hit 
a golf ball on the Moon. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/
remastered-images-reveal-how-far-alan-shepard-hit-a-golf-ball-on-the-
moon/

U. Kansas (2023) Scholars say it's time to declare a new epoch on the 
moon, the `Lunar Anthropocene' https://phys.org/news/2023-12-scholars-
declare-epoch-moon-lunar.html

                                 ______
                                 

       Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Moses P. Milazzo
            Questions Submitted by Representative Stansbury
    Question 1. Does China have mining aspirations on the Moon?

    Answer. I believe so, but I am not a foreign policy expert. The 
stated goals of the Chinese National Space Administration include in-
situ resource utilization (ISRU), which could be considered a precursor 
to mining. Several capabilities demonstrated by Chinese missions 
indicate they are hoping to establish a more permanent presence on the 
Moon. For example, the Chang'e 4 mission included plant seeds that were 
reported to have sprouted. Due to very low temperatures and a failure 
to keep the seeds warm, the experiment was terminated in 9 days instead 
of the planned 100. However, the experiment was successful in the sense 
that it demonstrated it is possible for seeds to sprout within a closed 
system on the Moon. On the other hand, this experiment may have been 
simple science similar to NASA and the US Forest Service's 
collaboration to bring hundreds of tree seeds from five species to 
lunar orbit on Apollo 14 and return them back to Earth. Despite the 
seeds being exposed to vacuum, they were successfully germinated on 
Earth.
    Despite such possible aspirations, the reality of space exploration 
and exploitation are very different and sending a pot of soil with 
seeds to space is a very early first-step. Remember, we have private 
companies that promised to land a rocket on Mars by 2016 (and 2018 and 
2020 and . . .). Space exploration for science is very difficult, but 
space exploration for resource extraction is exponentially more 
difficult and does not yet provide returns on investment. Many entities 
have aspirations of mining on the Moon or asteroids but the reality is 
that there are significant hurdles to achieving those goals.

    Question 2. How far along is China in advancing space mining?

    Answer. China is far from space mining. To date, China has returned 
a sample of the Moon back to Earth with its Chang'e 5 lunar sample-
return mission in 2020. This sample had a mass of 1.7 kg. By 
comparison, the US has a total of 382 kg of lunar materials that were 
returned from the Moon with the Apollo missions; however, these samples 
would not be considered ``mining.'' True mining requires significant 
and rarely-discussed technological advancements.

    Question 3. How accessible are critical minerals on the Moon?

    Answer. The talk of untold riches in space is similar to the story 
of El Dorado, the legendary and mythical city of gold that led many 
explorers astray. In one sense, critical minerals are all over the 
Moon--there are small amounts in nearly every scoop of lunar regolith 
(soil). However, these critical minerals are not realistically 
accessible and critical minerals that are most abundant on the Moon are 
already easily accessible on Earth. Specifically, minerals that are 
abundant on Earth, for example, plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine, and 
ilmenite, are also abundant on the Moon and on many asteroids. The 
metals associated with these minerals include Calcium, Aluminum, 
Silicon, Iron, and Magnesium. However, these are also highly abundant 
on Earth and the relative costs to acquire these minerals on Earth 
instead of in space are many orders of magnitude lower. Less common 
minerals and metals (such as Rare Earth Elements or REEs) are, in many 
cases, only available on the Moon and on asteroids in concentrations of 
parts per billion (ppb), meaning one would have to process a billion 
kilograms of material, at 100% efficiency, to obtain a single kg of 
pure mineral or metal.
    Mineral maps of REEs on the Moon and asteroids may appear to show 
rich resources available at the surface, but this is only because the 
maps are intended to show differences in mineral concentrations; what 
appears to be a dramatic difference on the map may only be the 
difference between 2 ppb and 0.5 ppb. At this point in time it is not 
economically viable to process billions of kgs of material for the 
reward of only a few kg of minerals on the Earth, much less in space.
    While we might consider infrastructure materials (steel, aluminum, 
etc) to be especially important to a space race that includes mining 
and other infrastructure developments; we need to also keep in mind 
other critical components of the infrastructure. For example, carbon is 
essential in producing steel from iron but is only seen in 
concentrations of less than about 100 ppb on the Moon. Carbon steel 
typically has a carbon content of 0.05% to 2.1% by weight. Accordingly, 
to make a metric tonne (1000 kg) of steel, we would need to gather 
between 0.5 and 21 kg of carbon. If one plans to mine all of their 
resources in space, that would require processing between 5 million and 
210 million kg of material on the Moon to obtain the necessary 0.5 to 
21 kg of carbon for producing 1 metric tonne of carbon steel. To 
develop a realistic mining infrastructure on the Moon, we might need 
several million metric tonnes of steel. In other words, we might need 
to process up to 100 trillion kg of material to build the 
infrastructure if we only use material acquired in space. A rough 
estimate for the average mass of near-Earth asteroids is around a 
trillion kg. While some of the near-Earth asteroids will probably have 
higher carbon concentrations than others, the reality is that a mining 
operation intending to acquire carbon and iron for creating 
infrastructure components might need to process an entire asteroid, or, 
more likely, several.
    Carbon is just one of the many ``minor'' infrastructure components 
required to see realistic returns on mining in space that either needs 
to be acquired from somewhere in space or launched off the Earth. 
Neither option would be cheap or easy.
    In addition, to acquire and process these millions to billions to 
trillions of kg of materials on the Moon, we would need very large 
transportation networks (many hundreds to thousands of km of trains, 
for example) to move these materials from their source to their 
refining centers, and those networks will depend on battery and solar 
power technologies as well as many materials acquired from the Earth 
and launched into space. If we were to build the networks for mining on 
asteroids and bringing materials back to Earth or to the Moon, we would 
also need a similar ``train'' of rockets to transport those materials.
    The infrastructure requirements to expand humanity from Earth to 
anywhere beyond low Earth orbit are tremendous and incredibly complex, 
meaning any such effort will be expensive.

    Question 4. What are lunar ``mascons''?

    Answer. Mascons are positive gravity anomalies relative to the mean 
shape of the body. For the Moon, this usually means there is a 
depression of some kind that has a higher gravitational pull than would 
be expected if mass were missing from this area. These are almost 
always in areas where there were large basaltic lava flows called 
``mare basalts''. These ``mare basalts'' are similar to Hawaiian 
basalts and consist mostly of pyroxene, plagioclase, and olivine, with 
minor amounts of other minerals. While there might be small amounts of 
critical minerals in some basaltic deposits on Earth or on the Moon, 
the concentrations are such that it's simply not economically sensible 
to go after these sources of minerals because on Earth, hydrothermal 
systems have, over eons, concentrated these minerals for us for free. 
If these deposits had valuable concentrations of critical minerals, we 
would see terrestrial mining companies processing basaltic lava flows 
on Earth. Hydrothermal systems are not known to have occurred on the 
Moon or asteroids.
    Related to mascons, there is a common misunderstanding regarding 
the formation of impact craters that an impacting object remains at the 
bottom of the resulting crater. However, most or all of the impacting 
object is vaporized and material is spread all around the impacted 
body, first as vapor that may be put into orbit (or may be pulled down 
to the surface of the body), which cools, condenses, and eventually 
joins the rest of the regolith on the surface. This wide dispersion of 
the vaporized material means that the concentrations of whatever 
material made up that impacting object are extremely low. This critical 
misunderstanding cost an Earth-based speculator in Arizona his entire 
fortune. Daniel Moreau Barringer staked a mining claim at what is now 
known as Meteor Crater in Northern Arizona, believing that a 50-meter 
diameter nickel-iron asteroid, with a mass estimated (by Barringer) to 
be 100 million tons (or worth around $1B in 1903 dollars) had formed 
the crater and was buried beneath the surface. In actuality, the 
impactor had vaporized upon impact and had rained out over a wide area. 
Pieces of this meteoroid can still be found in the surrounding area. 
Barringer's work to find this imagined fortune greatly improved our 
understanding of impact crater events, but it did nothing to make him 
rich.

    Question 5. What is Helium-3 (He-3)? What are its uses and how 
accessible is it on the Moon?

    Answer.
    He-3 is an isotope of Helium that can theoretically be used as a 
relatively clean fuel for fusion. However, this is currently a science-
fiction fantasy. We have no human-built operational fusion reactors 
other than nuclear bombs (which do not use He-3). The only other known, 
operating fusion reactor in our solar system is the Sun. Theoretically, 
fusion reactors may someday be usable, and our national laboratories 
may be on the verge of sustained nuclear fusion ignition in a 
laboratory setting. But, for nearly a century, we have speculated that 
we are ``just'' 30 years away from a solution for fusion power using 
known fusion fuels like deuterium (D) and tritium (T). We have never 
worked out a technological method for using He-3 in a fusion reactor 
because it is far more difficult than D-T or D-D reactions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2834/1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not only is the use of He-3 still far-future science fiction, its 
concentrations are, at best, only in the parts per billion on the lunar 
surface, so even if we could figure out how make He-3 fusion work, we 
would have to mine billions of kg of material to get a single kg of He-
3. Moreover, containing and keeping He-3 pure and usable as a fuel is a 
non-trivial challenge.
    He-3 is a potential clean fusion source for far-future use, but is 
not a practical goal in near-future commercial exploitation of space 
and is probably a direct road to bankruptcy because of the significant 
study still needed in physical laboratories before it could be ready 
for use in Earth reactors, much less space-based ones.

    Question 6. Some private companies are exploring methods for 
processing minerals in space. How close are we to successfully mining 
celestial objects and processing the resulting materials for use on 
Earth?

    Answer. We are in the early stages of forming theoretical methods 
for processing minerals in space but are still decades away from 
successful mining of celestial objects.
    One company tried to put into practice a theoretical method that 
imitates gravitation separation for processing mineral ore in low earth 
orbit, but encountered multiple problems with its first experiment. 
Gravitational separation is the least energy intensive method we have 
for processing mineral ore on Earth and essentially uses the fact that 
minerals all have different densities to separate them from each other. 
On Earth, we can shake, agitate, or otherwise disturb a mixture of 
useful minerals and less useful materials to separate them according to 
their densities. A good example is panning for gold: we put some soil 
that might contain gold into a pan of water and agitate it for a bit. 
The water allows the less dense materials to float when agitated while 
the more dense gold sinks. We remove those less dense materials and are 
left with a more gold-rich soil. We can repeat the process to further 
concentrate the gold in the soil. This process is similar to the 
industrial processes used to separate large volumes and masses of 
minerals from their ores.
    There are several theoretical ways to imitate gravitational 
separation for mineral processing in space, one of which is to use 
magnetic fields to create the separation. This method uses the magnetic 
properties of minerals rather than their densities to create separation 
and is the method the space mining startup attempted. However, testing 
the theory became impossible because of numerous spacecraft issues 
directly conflicted with testing requirements. Specifically, large 
magnetic fields generated on low-earth orbiting spacecraft interfere 
with the spacecrafts' attitude and control systems and cause the 
spacecraft to tumble out of control. The strength of the gravitational 
field required for differential mineral processing is so large that it 
would be nearly impossible to cheaply shield the spacecraft's attitude 
control system from that magnetic field. The energy costs to scale this 
magnetic field to process more than a few grams at a time become 
astronomical.
    Outside of Earth's orbit, gravitational separation could be 
simulated in spacecraft under constant rocket acceleration that 
generate the needed simulated gravity, but this is incredibly expensive 
and would require a long time and a corresponding amount of fuel for 
the separation to occur.
    A centrifuge could be used to simulate gravity but again, for large 
masses (in most cases billions of kg of material processed to obtain a 
single kg of usable mineral), this becomes extremely expensive. We 
might try to do this on the Moon, but the lunar gravitational field is 
one sixth the strength of Earth's, so the time needed for processing 
would be greatly increased and would require greater energy 
expenditures. And, as noted previously, all of this is theoretical and 
untested in any capacity.

    Question 7. How could the circular economy on Earth be useful for 
acquiring critical minerals?

    Answer. Earth currently produces about 50 million tons of 
electronic waste every year. In addition, we also generate huge amounts 
of unmonitored non-electronics waste that contains critical minerals 
and metals. Our landfills are overflowing with decades' worth of 
electronic and electrical waste that hold critical metals and minerals 
in concentrations thousands of times greater than our most productive 
mines. There currently exists a secondary market of individuals who buy 
old CPUs on popular auction websites to process and collect the gold 
from those CPUs; even at very small scales, this is lucrative. At 
scale, processing landfill and recycled materials for critical minerals 
is probably the most lucrative approach to filling the gap in our 
critical minerals needs; companies looking to seriously produce low-
cost precious metals and critical minerals would be wise to start with 
landfills.

    Question 8. Should the United States be concerned about its future 
access to space, the Moon, or the rest of the Solar System considering 
claims that foreign adversaries are investing in settlements and mining 
projects in space?

    Answer. I don't believe so. Our access to space is limited only by 
our ability access near-Earth airspace; once a rocket moves away from 
Earth and into space, its access to the Moon, asteroids, and the rest 
of space increases with its distance from Earth. If a foreign adversary 
wanted to threaten our access to space, it would have to do so as near 
to the Earth's surface as possible, which raises a far different issue. 
Once an entity begins operations in space, the danger posed by any kind 
of adversary significantly diminishes.
    While international space agreements could be improved and updated, 
the reality is that once an entity has established a safe way into 
space, its access to space is unlikely to be threatened by the presence 
of another entity.
    That's not to say foreign adversaries building access to space is 
without potential danger. Most significantly, there are cultural 
treasures in space, both human-made and natural, that may be threatened 
by entities disregarding existing or future international agreements. I 
believe a diplomatic approach, both within the United States and 
internationally, is most likely to result in successful protection of 
cultural artifacts, environmental conditions, human rights and lives, 
and technological advancement.
    The most consequential limitation on our ability to access space 
will not come from foreign adversaries, but from our own willingness to 
fund education and the necessary research for advancement in energy 
resources. We are woefully behind other nations on crucial technologies 
such as large capacity battery storage and solar power generation and 
are expending pointless time and energy fighting ourselves over those 
technologies and the ones they will need to replace (fossil fuels will 
be useless in space). We have lost the edge on education; our national 
fear of innovations in science, mathematics, and humanities education 
has put us decades or more behind the technological advancements of 
other countries. We fight our own workers and labor unions instead of 
incentivizing them to be innovative and productive. If we want to lead 
in space, we must return to our position as a global leader in 
education, workers' rights, and human rights in general.

    Question 9. Besides on Earth, is there currently any permanent 
human presence in the solar system?

    Answer. No. The closest anyone has to a permanent human presence in 
the solar system is the International Space Station. We have robotic 
space missions exploring the solar system, but the farthest humans have 
gone outside of low Earth orbit is to the Moon. Eugene Cernan commanded 
Apollo 17 (11 to 14 December, 1972) and was the last person to walk on 
the Moon. The crew of Apollo 17 were the last humans to travel outside 
of Earth's orbit.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Dr. Milazzo. I now recognize Ms. 
Hanlon for her 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF MICHELLE HANLON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 
AIR AND SPACE LAW, THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI SCHOOL OF LAW, 
                    UNIVERSITY, MISSISSIPPI

    Ms. Hanlon. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the 
Subcommittee, I thank you for convening this hearing which 
recognizes the ability to access and utilize extraterrestrial 
natural resources must be considered as the United States looks 
to the future of the mineral supply chain, and I thank you for 
your invitation to testify.
    My name is Michelle Hanlon. I am a space lawyer. I am the 
Executive Director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the 
University of Mississippi. I am the Co-Founder and President of 
For All Moonkind, which is the only organization in the world 
focused on protecting human heritage in outer space, like the 
Apollo and lunar landing sites. And finally, I am also the 
Founder and Executive Director of the Institute on Space Law 
and Ethics.
    I am heartened to see growing recognition of both the 
promise of space resources and the fact that we find ourselves 
once again in a space race. Only this time the stakes are much 
higher than before. This race is not about prestige. It is 
about access to resources that can benefit the lives of all 
Americans, all humanity. And it is about the governance 
framework that will support the management of these resources 
and all future space activities.
    Earth occupies a very small part of space. Around us are an 
infinite source of resources. How we characterize the 
extraterrestrial domain is important. The United States 
considers space to be a unique domain of human activity, not a 
global commons. This description of the cosmos allows for 
responsible stewardship while leaving open possibilities we 
have not yet had the opportunity to contemplate. Indeed, we may 
one day agree that the broad expanse of space is susceptible to 
not one, but several categorizations. It is important, vital 
that we use our terrestrial experience to inform, not 
constrain, our view of the universe and the management and use 
of its resources.
    Space is not a global commons, but nor is it a lawless 
wonderland. However, the international regime governing 
extraterrestrial activities was not designed for space resource 
utilization. The treaty instruments were developed under the 
guidance of President Eisenhower, with the primary goal of 
keeping outer space for peaceful purposes. The Outer Space 
Treaty has been largely successful in this regard, but it 
leaves much susceptible to interpretation in other regards, a 
dangerous circumstance.
    For example, the Outer Space Treaty states that space shall 
be free for exploration and use by all, which implies that 
resource extraction is permissible, an interpretation President 
Obama endorsed as U.S. law in 2015, and which is also enshrined 
in the multilateral Artemis Accords. But the treaty also states 
that a nation may not claim territory in space by any means. 
Occupying a mineral-rich area of an asteroid could be 
considered a territorial claim.
    Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty requires that parties 
act in space with due regard to the activities of others. Thus, 
under the Outer Space Treaty, simply maintaining a presence in 
one specific area of a celestial body might violate the non-
appropriation principle. However, the concept of due regard 
suggests that if one entity is already occupying, others must 
avoid interfering. This gives a tremendous advantage to those 
who simply establish a presence first. So, the race begins.
    The Artemis Accords proposed that ``due regard'' requires 
others to respect reasonable safety zones around activities. 
But what is reasonable? Without a more specific construct of 
due regard, the entity that gets to a desirable area first can 
easily make the argument that due regard reasonably requires 
other parties to maintain a distance measured in kilometers in 
order to assure the protection of their operations.
    What is worse, these rules could by default apply not just 
to one particular celestial body, but can become the foundation 
for all extraterrestrial resource management, wherever the 
source.
    Currently, the United States' closest competitor in this 
new space race is China. China has made no secret of its own 
space resource utilization plans. And remember, winning 
requires only getting there first. Once a spacecraft of any 
kind lands or even crashes in a mineral-rich area, due regard, 
it could be asserted, requires that no other entity approach 
within 20 or more kilometers of that certain spacecraft, 
thereby creating a safety zone that effectively excludes access 
by others to any minerals found in that area.
    We must accelerate our efforts to assure continued access 
to extraterrestrial resources. This hearing is a first but 
significant small step. U.S. policy as a whole, and not just 
space policy, must acknowledge and embrace the vast resources 
the universe offers. The United States must encourage and 
increase support for commercial mining activities. The United 
States must also continue to encourage the growth of the 
Artemis Accords and work within the Accords and the United 
Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to better 
define due regard. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hanlon follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Michelle L.D. Hanlon, Executive Director,
        Center for Air and Space Law, University of Mississippi
                and President and CEO, For All Moonkind

I. Introduction--It is a Race

    Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury and Members of the 
Subcommittee, my name is Michelle Hanlon. I am a space lawyer and the 
executive Director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the 
University of Mississippi. We are the only ABA accredited law school in 
the country to offer a Juris Doctorate degree with a concentration--as 
well as an advanced master of laws--in air and space law. The 
University of Mississippi possesses a deep tradition of research, 
analysis, education and advancement in space law going back to the 
1960s when the first international treaties governing space activities 
were being negotiated. I am also the co-founder, President and CEO of 
For All Moonkind, a nonprofit that is the only organization in the 
world focused on protecting human cultural heritage in space, like the 
Apollo lunar landing sites. We are a Permanent Observer to the United 
Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, a position which 
affords a view into international deliberations regarding space 
activities.
    Finally, I am the founder of the Institute on Space Law and Ethics, 
an organization that brings together diverse perspectives on space 
exploration Our mission is to ensure that ethical considerations 
continuously serve a foundational role in shaping the legal and 
normative frameworks governing the exploration and use of outer space, 
with the goal of enhancing mutual understanding, transparency, trust 
and the sustainable use of space and its resources for the benefit of 
all humankind while minimizing misunderstandings and the potential for 
conflict.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to testify today in respect of 
the Mineral Supply Chain and the New Space Race. It is without question 
that the decisions made today with respect to the exploration and use 
of space and its resources will have far-reaching implications for 
future generations, and indeed, all humanity, whether in communities 
here on Earth or elsewhere in the cosmos. Some regard space and its 
resources as a savior of our Earth, able to provide energy and other 
resources as our terrestrial supplies dwindle. Others will tell you 
that space exploration is a wasted investment. But what is inarguable 
is that humanity has greatly benefited from the use of assets in space. 
It is also incontrovertible that the future sees only more dependence 
on space assets and resources. We do not--we cannot--know what 
solutions space may hold, and we will not unless we continue to explore 
and expand into the upper reaches of space.
    For these reasons, I am heartened to see growing recognition of 
both the promise of space resources and the fact that we find 
ourselves, once again, in a space race. Only this time, the stakes are 
much higher than before. This race is not about prestige, it's about 
access to resources that can benefit the lives of all Americans--all 
humanity--and it's about the governance framework that will support the 
management of these resources and all future space activities. Contrary 
to popular belief, space is not a lawless wonderland. There are four 
widely-ratified international treaties that govern space activities. 
Negotiated in the 1960s and 70s, they provide a solid baseline. 
Nevertheless, they are broadly worded, suffer from internal 
inconsistencies and glaring gaps and are subject to varied 
interpretations. Chief among the grey areas are questions related to 
the ownership and use of extraterrestrial resources. For example, while 
binding international law states that the exploration and use of outer 
space shall be free for exploration and use by all, which implies that 
resource extraction is permissible, it also states that a nation may 
not claim territory in space, which calls into question how a space 
resource mining operation would be able to protect its investment. 
Given these and other grey areas, there exists a potentially serious 
first mover advantage which the United States must understand and take 
into consideration as it implements space and natural resource policies 
and competes in this new space race.
II. The Outer Space Treaty Regime Was Not Designed for Space Mining
A. President Eisenhower Initiated Negotiations to Keep Space Peaceful

    In October 1957, Sputnik 1 became the first human-made object to 
reach space. Shortly thereafter, President Eisenhower initiated 
negotiations to secure space for peaceful purposes. His efforts 
ultimately led to the development by the United Nations (UN) of an ad 
hoc committee, the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 
(COPUOS), which was made a permanent UN body in 1959. The COPUOS above 
all recognizes ``the common interest of [hu]mankind in outer space'' 
and ``the common aim that outer space should be used for peaceful 
purposes.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.N.G.A. Res. 1472 (XIV) (Dec. 12, 1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    COPUOS was the backdrop for the negotiation and implementation the 
treaties which today govern space activities. The first, the Treaty on 
Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and 
Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the 
Outer Space Treaty), was ratified in 1967. This Treaty, with 114 
signatories including the United States (US), Russia, China and most 
every spacefaring nation, enshrines the fundamental concept that outer 
space ``shall be free for exploration and use by all.'' Essentially a 
demilitarization instrument, the Treaty does not contemplate the 
management and use of extraterrestrial natural resources. In fact, it 
does not once mention the word resource. However, it does impose 
limitations on the freedom of exploration and use. First, is the non-
appropriation principle, which stipulates that no country may claim 
territory in space. And second, the Treaty requires that all activities 
in space be conducted with due regard for the corresponding interests 
of others.
    Four other treaties related to sovereign space activities were 
negotiated in the wake of the Outer Space Treaty. These are 
colloquially known as the Rescue Agreement, the Liability Convention, 
the Registration Convention and the Moon Agreement. As their names 
suggest, these agreements respectively offer more detailed guidance on 
how countries should act in relation to the rescue of astronauts; 
responsibility and liability for damage caused by space objects; and 
the registration of objects launched or intended to be launched into 
orbit. The Moon Agreement was the international community's first 
attempt to regulate the access to and management and utilization of 
extraterrestrial natural resources. It has been ratified by only 18 
States. The United States, China and Russia are not parties to that 
Agreement and Saudi Arabia is withdrawing from the treaty in January 
2024.

    The bottom line is that there are gaps in the law which may be 
filled by the first mover.
B. Space Cannot Be a ``Global Commons''

    Earth occupies a very small part of space. Around us are an 
infinite source of resources. How we characterize the extraterrestrial 
domain is important. Many say that space is a global commons. The UN 
defines the term ``global commons'' as ``those resource domains that do 
not fall within the jurisdiction of any one particular country, and to 
which all nations have access.'' \2\ Global commons require global 
governance, a notion that has been executed well in only rare 
circumstances. The UN identifies four ``global commons:'' the high 
seas, the atmosphere, Antarctica and outer space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ United Nations System Task Force on the Post-2015 UN 
Development Agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This notion that space is a global commons must be challenged. 
First, the Outer Space Treaty does not identify outer space as a global 
commons. Second, the very term ``global'' suggests that global commons 
must be bound, in some way, to Earth. Things that happen in the high 
seas, the atmosphere or even Antarctica could have direct impact on the 
health and welfare of countries, communities and individuals around the 
world. These areas also play an integral role in the health of our 
global ecosystem and environment. If someone, entity, or country 
operates a mine on a random asteroid in the Kuiper Belt, while the 
ultimate impact will benefit human society by providing a new supply of 
resources, it surely will not have a direct impact on the health and 
welfare of Earth communities or the Earth's ecosystem (except, again, 
perhaps as a benefit by moving heavy industry off-Earth).
    Finally, the concept that the vast infinity of space is a human 
resource domain is the utmost of anthropocentric hubris. Are we truly 
asserting that all of space is the sole responsibility and domain of 
Earthlings alone?
    Despite the UN stance, the United States has never, as a matter of 
international policy, considered space to be a global commons. A 2020 
Executive Order issued by President Trump formalized this position and 
characterized space, instead, as a unique domain of human activity. 
This, is a far more flexible description of the cosmos as it allows for 
responsible stewardship while leaving open possibilities we have not 
yet had the opportunity to contemplate. Indeed, we may one day agree 
that the broad expanse of space is susceptible to not one, but several 
different categorizations. We must use our terrestrial experience to 
inform, not constrain, our view of the universe and the management and 
use of the resources it holds.
    It is notable too that recently proposed legislation, the 
Commercial Space Act of 2023, also includes a provision stating that 
``outer space may not be considered a global commons.''
    That said, the United States is bound by the Outer Space Treaty 
which does place limits on space activities.
C. The Exploration and Use of Space is the Province of All Humankind

    Article I of the Outer Space Treaty describes the exploration and 
use of space as ``the province of all [hu]mankind.'' This is markedly 
different from term used in Article 11 of the Moon Agreement which 
characterizes the Moon and its natural resources as ``the common 
heritage of [hu]mankind.'' It is an important distinction.
    Ambassador Arvid Pardo of Malta is credited with introducing the 
principle of ``common heritage of humankind'' as a system of resource 
management in 1967 during the negotiation of the Law of the Sea 
Treaty.\3\ The concept of was more fully developed by the United 
Nations in a 1970 resolution which declares ``the sea-bed and ocean 
floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national 
jurisdiction, as well as the resources of the area, are the common 
heritage of [hu]mankind.'' This means, the resolution goes on to note, 
that these areas and resources ``shall not be subject to appropriation 
by any means by States or persons, natural or juridical.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Statement of Mr. Pardo, 22nd Session of the United Nations 
General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/C.1/PV.1515, 1516 (Nov. 1, 1967) (It 
would ``be wise to establish some form of international jurisdiction 
and control over the sea-bed and ocean floor underlying the seas beyond 
the limits of present national jurisdiction.'').
    \4\ U.N.G.A. Res. 2749 (XXV), Sec. 1 (Dec. 16, 1970).

    The concept of ``common heritage'' as encapsulated in the Moon 
Agreement suggests that: 1) no State or private entity may claim or use 
resources until and unless authorized and approved by a, presumably, 
United Nations-driven common management; and 2) any benefits which 
accrue as a result of any exploitation or use must be equitably shared.
    It is deeply significant that the Outer Space Treaty does not adopt 
this nomenclature, suggesting that outer space and its resources shall 
be considered and utilized in a manner different from that which 
governs ``common heritage'' as described in the Moon Agreement or the 
Law of the Sea.

    Regardless of what is meant by the term ``province of all 
[hu]mankind,'' the concept of freedom of exploration and use of space 
is the guiding force governing space activities. This is further 
buttressed by the additional agreement in the Outer Space Treaty that 
``there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.'' These 
freedoms to explore, use and access are barely curtailed by the other 
provisions of the Treaty. The only restrictions imposed on these 
freedoms are that:

     Exploration and use shall be carried out for the benefit 
            and in the interests of all countries (Article I)

     States may not claim territory in space (Article II).

     International law applies in space (Article III).

     Nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass 
            destruction may not be placed in orbit or on any celestial 
            bodies (Article IV).

     The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used 
            exclusively for peaceful purposes (Article IV).

     All activities in outer space must be conducted with ``due 
            regard'' for the corresponding interests of others (Article 
            IX).

    The benefits, non-appropriation and due regard principles, have the 
most bearing on the extraction and use of extraterrestrial mineral and 
other resources.

    For clarity's sake, it is important to note here that the Treaty 
does reach private, non-State activity. Article VI obligates countries 
to assure that all ``national activities are carried out in conformity 
with'' the Treaty. The Article also makes it quite clear that countries 
bear ``international responsibility for national activities in outer 
space . . . whether such activities are carried on by governmental 
agencies or by non-governmental entities.'' In space, essentially, 
everything that is done even by a nongovernmental entity is considered 
to be done by the State even if it otherwise had no involvement in the 
mission or activity.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ To demonstrate how Article VI might affect space mining 
activities, we turn to events that occurred in Low Earth Orbit in 2021. 
On December 3, 2021, the Chinese government used a diplomatic message 
known as a Note Verbale to complain that small satellites owned and 
operated by SpaceX had forced them to implement ``preventive collision 
avoidance'' measures to protect their space station on two separate 
occasions. Helpfully, the Chinese government also took the opportunity 
to remind all countries of their Article VI responsibilities. The 
message was clear. US, you have created a space hazard by not properly 
supervising your non-governmental entity and if something happens to 
our space station or our astronauts, you will be liable. In its 
response, the US chided the Chinese government for not reaching out 
bilaterally, however, it also implicitly recognized US responsibility 
for the privately-owned and operated SpaceX spacecraft even though it 
was not undertaking any tasks at the behest of the US government. If a 
private entity causes damage in space, the State in which the entity 
was formed, or in which it may be considered a national, will be liable 
regardless of the level of due diligence it may have exercised in 
respect of the activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Space Mining Benefits All

    Returning to the restrictions on freedom of exploration and access, 
Article I is clear that any exploration and use shall be carried out 
for the benefit and in the interests of all countries. Some would argue 
that the concept of shared benefits means sharing monetary profits. 
This is a very narrow view of the word ``benefit.'' The phrase also 
offers no indication of when a benefit must accrue. Removing immediacy, 
there is no doubt that every single country on Earth has benefited in 
some way from space activities, be it from remote sensing satellites 
that share weather predictions and climate information to GPS and 
telecommunications.
    Space mining will also provide benefits to all countries, indeed 
all humanity on multiple levels. First, as we have seen so often with 
space activity, the tools developed to implement off-Earth mining 
operations require technological advancement that will enhance the 
human experience on Earth in ways we cannot even begin to imagine. 
Mining for water in particular, may provide direct benefits to areas 
here on Earth where water is a scarce resource. Second, mining will 
also increase our scientific knowledge of the universe around us. 
Understanding the composition of our celestial neighbors will provide 
much insight which can ultimately help us better care for our Earth. 
Third, extracting and using off-Earth resources will make it more 
efficient for us to explore further into the reaches of the Universe, 
again compounding our potential scientific discovery. Finally, 
discovering and mining resources on other celestial bodies will relieve 
the pressure on our own and help us protect and even heal our 
terrestrial environment and end our reliance on children and other 
laborers earning less than $2 a day mining for cobalt in places like 
the Congo.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/
1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the short term, it may appear that only a select few entities--
whether national or private--have the capability to even consider 
commencing mining operations in space. There was a time that only a 
select few entities had the capability to sustain a national or private 
airline, and yet today the air industry is the backbone of our global 
economy. That said, care must be taken to assure that benefits are 
accessible to all, including future generations which implies that 
while the multiple benefits described above create an ethical 
imperative to develop extraterrestrial mining operations, there is an 
equal imperative to do so responsibly.
III. Opportunity for Interpretation Creates a First Mover Advantage
A. The Non-appropriation Principle: So Much Left Open

    Article II of the Outer Space Treaty states in full: ``Outer space, 
including the Moon and other celestial bodies is not subject to 
national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or 
occupation, or by any other means.''

1. National Appropriation Does Not Apply to Extraction

    Article II could have been interpreted to apply both to territory 
in space and the resources in that territory. However, reference must 
be made once more to the Moon Agreement which clearly states in Article 
11(3) that ``[n]either the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor 
any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property 
of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental 
organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of 
any natural person.''
    Once again, it is deeply significant that the Outer Space Treaty 
does not include this language, suggesting that Article II does not 
apply to parts of celestial bodies or the resources contained therein.
    As far as resources contained in celestial bodies, it is also worth 
noting that each of the US, China, Russia and Japan have obtained 
material directly from the Moon or other celestial body for use--albeit 
scientific rather than commercial--without objection by any other 
country. This supports the interpretation that the non-appropriation 
principle does not apply once a resource is extracted from its source.

    The US interprets Article II in this way. The Commercial Space 
Launch Competitiveness Act,\7\ signed into law by President Obama in 
2015, recognizes commercial property rights in resources extracted from 
celestial bodies stating unequivocally that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, H.R. 2262, 
114th Cong. (2015).

        A United States citizen engaged in commercial recovery of an 
        asteroid resource or a space resource under this chapter shall 
        be entitled to any asteroid resource or space resource 
        obtained, including to possess, own, transport, use, and sell 
        the asteroid resource or space resource obtained in accordance 
        with applicable law, including the international obligations of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        the United States.

    President Trump reaffirmed this in his 2020 Executive Order which, 
among other things, proclaims that ``American should have the right to 
engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in 
outer space,'' and urges executive departments to ``take all 
appropriate actions to encourage international support for the public 
and private recovery and use of resources in outer space.'' Luxembourg, 
United Arab Emirates and Japan have similar legislation and India has 
recently released a space policy that also supports this 
interpretation.
    It is also captured in the Principles for Cooperation in the Civil 
Exploration and Use of the Moon, Mars, Comets, and Asteroids, known 
colloquially as the Artemis Accords.\8\ Although these Accords are not 
a binding instrument, the Accords have been agreed by 33 nations (as of 
December 8, 2023). Included in the Accords is the affirmation ``that 
the extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute a 
national appropriation under Article II of the Outer Space Treaty . . 
.'' Neither China nor Russia has signed the Artemis Accords.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ The Artemis Accords, NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/specials/
artemis-accords/img/Artemis-Accords-signed-13Oct2020.pdf (last visited 
Apr. 17, 2022).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What About Parts of the Moon?

    The language of Article II of the Outer Space Treaty can be 
interpreted to mean that no nation may claim the whole of outer space, 
the Moon or any other celestial body as territory. Arguably, then, it 
is silent as to parts. Does this mean a nation can claim a part of the 
Moon, or a part of an asteroid so long as it does not claim the whole? 
Arguments can be made for this interpretation.

3. If You Mine it, You Own it, But Can You Protect it?

    Interpreting Article II to permit space resource extraction is just 
a first step. How can any country or private party establish a resource 
extraction operation if territory cannot be claimed?
    Clearly, if a country is simply occupying or using an area in 
space, it cannot be considered that country's territory, but what 
rights does it, or a private entity acting in conformity with the Outer 
Space Treaty have with respect to that occupancy? And what is meant by 
the concept of ``by any other means?'' These provisions conflict with 
other parts of the Outer Space Treaty. Pursuant to Article VIII, 
objects left in space remain under the ownership and control of the 
State that put them there. In fact, pursuant to Article VII of the 
Outer Space Treaty and Article III of the Liability Convention, States 
are ``internationally liable'' for damage caused to an object in space 
belonging to another State. So, you cannot cause damage to someone 
else's object without incurring liability. Yet leaving the objects in 
situ, or forcing others to give them wide berth in order to avoid 
liability, essentially results in perpetual occupation of the surface 
upon which they rest. And perpetual occupation feels like appropriation 
and a violation of the free access principal.
    Interestingly, Article XII of the Outer Space Treaty does 
contemplate the installation of facilities on the Moon and other 
celestial bodies. Any such facilities shall be open to all, on the 
basis of reciprocity and after appropriate consultation. It is not 
difficult to anticipate that this provision may be easily abused.

4. Claim of Sovereignty Prohibited--But What if Not a Sovereign?

    Should we treat private entities differently? The international 
community seems largely to agree that no nation may make a claim to 
extraterrestrial territory. Nevertheless, a colorable argument can be 
made that this particular provision does not apply to non-State 
entities. First, the Article plainly indicates that space shall not be 
subject to national appropriation. Second, the primary restriction is 
against appropriation by claiming sovereignty. Arguably, then, if a 
non-State entity asserts proprietary rights, it is not a ``national 
appropriation,'' nor is it ``by claim of sovereignty.'' This 
interpretation is supported by the United Nations Declaration of Human 
Rights, which, in Article 17 plainly states that ``[e]veryone has the 
right to own property alone as well as in association with others.'' 
\9\ The Declaration applies to space activities through Article III of 
the Outer Space Treaty which requires States to ``carry on activities 
in . . . space in accordance with international law.'' Surely, this 
would require States to support and defend fundamental human rights 
even in a space environment. As such, arguably, it would be a violation 
of international law to not permit ownership in space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, art. 17, https://www.un.org/
en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As Stephen Gorove, the founder of our air and space law program at 
the University of Mississippi put it back in 1968: ``an individual 
acting on his [or her] own behalf or on behalf of another individual or 
a private association or an international organization could lawfully 
appropriate any part of outer space, including the moon and other 
celestial bodies.'' \10\ Though this position has not been formally 
advanced by any nation, the concept of sovereign versus non-sovereign 
appropriation bears further consideration. While in the short term it 
seems a dependable barrier to territorial claims by adversary 
countries, it also may preclude the ability to protect or decline 
access to sites that require protection whether due to the presence of 
sensitive instruments or cultural artifacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Stephen Gorove, Interpreting Article II of the Outer Space 
Treaty, 37 Fordham L. Rev. 349, 352 (1969).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Due Regard--A Definition TBD by the First Mover

    Also layered on top of the non-appropriation principle of Article 
II are the requirements, contained in Article IX of the Outer Space 
Treaty that, among other things: 1) all activities in outer space be 
conducted with ``due regard'' to the corresponding interests of other 
States; and 2) if one country ``has reason to believe'' that its 
activity will cause ``potentially harmful interference'' to another, it 
must ``undertake appropriate international consultations.'' To be 
clear, harmful interference is not prohibited--it must simply be 
accompanied by a warning to the party which may be harmed. In short, 
this provision has no teeth and can be considered little more than a 
notice requirement.
    Both the concept of due regard and the admonition to warn of 
harmful interference suggest that States should not interfere with or 
otherwise despoil the objects of another and clearly conflicts with 
freedom of access enshrined in Article I of the Treaty and the ``by any 
other means'' provision of Article II. Plainly, a balance must be 
struck between access, appropriation and ``due regard.'' But ``due 
regard'' is a standard that remains undefined. An international 
arbitral tribunal considered the meaning of ``due regard'' in 2015 and 
determined that ``due regard'' requires a balancing test, taking into 
consideration the rights of the State that have been impinged by the 
contested activity, the extent of the impairment, the nature and 
importance of the contested activity, and the availability of 
alternative approaches. This balance will produce different outcomes on 
a case-by-case basis, an uncertainty which in and of itself is enough 
to make States and their nationals consider carefully their 
international obligations in respect of extraterrestrial mining 
activities.
    Thus, under the Outer Space Treaty, simply maintaining a presence 
in one specific area of a celestial body, be it the Moon or an 
asteroid, triggers the non-appropriation principle. However, the 
concept of due regard suggests that if one entity is already occupying 
and using a specific area, others must avoid interfering. This gives 
and advantage to those who establish a presence first. And so the race 
begins. Without a more specific construct of ``due regard,'' the entity 
that gets to a desirable area first can easily make the argument that 
``due regard'' requires other parties maintain a distance measured in 
kilometers in order to assure the protection of their object or 
objects. What's worse, these rules, could by default apply not just to 
one particular celestial body, but can become the foundation for all 
extraterrestrial resource management, wherever the source.
    In 2011, NASA issued voluntary guidelines \11\ intended to protect 
the instruments left at Apollo and certain US robotic landing sites. 
These guidelines established exclusion zones that were set arbitrarily 
by scientists and engineers who made assumptions about potential damage 
from the lunar regolith ejecta which is known to be particularly 
abrasive. In 2020, President Trump signed the One Small Step Act which 
made these guidelines binding on any entity in a contractual 
relationship with NASA. They do not bind any other countries or 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/
617743main_nasa-usg_lunar_historic_ sites_reva-508.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Artemis Accords, which were developed in part to fill gaps in 
international space law, also seek to establish guidelines to satisfy 
the concept of due regard. In a section entitled ``Deconfliction of 
Space Activities,'' the Accords require signatories to ``respect the 
principle of due regard'' and ``refrain from any intentional actions 
that may create harmful interference.'' The signatories to the Accords 
further commit to ``provide notification of their activities and commit 
to coordinating with any relevant actor to avoid harmful interference. 
The area wherein this notification and coordination will be implemented 
to avoid harmful interference is referred to as a `safety zone' . . .'' 
Finally, the Signatories agree to ``respect reasonable safety zones to 
avoid harmful interference with operations under [the] Accords, 
including by providing prior notification to and coordinating with each 
other before conducting operations'' in the safety zone of another 
Signatory.
    This safety zone construct is essentially a proposal to bring 
certitude to the balancing test of Article IX's due regard. However, 
the language states that the signatories will ``respect reasonable 
safety zones.'' The concept of reasonableness will necessarily be 
determined by the party that was their first. As noted above, neither 
China nor Russia has acceded to the Artemis Accords. In fact, they have 
collaborated on their own lunar project, the International Lunar 
Research Station (ILRS), which, as of December 8, 2023, has eight 
countries formally involved. Unlike the Artemis Accords, the ILRS is 
focused on scientific and engineering collaboration and thus do not, as 
yet anyway, incorporate any policy or legal principles with respect to 
appropriation or due regard. However, the Accords offer non-signatory 
countries the opportunity to take advantage of the publicly distributed 
language. Should China land on the lunar South Pole and claim a 
``reasonable'' zone of a 20-kilometer diameter, how can Artemis 
signatories complain?
IV. The Potential for the First Mover to Exploit ``Due Regard''

    The Outer Space Treaty has no enforcement mechanism. Disputes are 
intended to be settled through diplomatic channels. Barring that, 
claims may be brought to the International Court of Justice. There is 
no definition of ``due regard'' and thus the outcome of claims will be 
uncertain. Indeed, the broad language of and gaps in current 
international space law can be exploited to rationalize activities and 
claims others would consider unreasonable or in violation of the law. 
Moreover, international laws and norms are easily ignored and even 
flouted without consequence on Earth. There is no reason to believe 
that this will change when implementing activities beyond Earth.
    Make no mistake. Right now, we are in race. Even if interested 
parties were inclined to enter into negotiations to establish a treaty 
on extraterrestrial resource management and utilization, treaties take 
a long time to develop. In the meantime, legal norms will be 
established by activity, and the first actors will establish those 
norms.
    Some have speculated that the Chinese government will withdraw from 
the Outer Space Treaty when it established a permanent presence on the 
Moon. But it does not need to. The Chinese government need only 
interpret the Treaty, and particularly the concept of ``due regard'' in 
a manner that will satisfy its strategic goals.

    If a Chinese spacecraft lands, or even crashes, in a mineral-rich 
area of the Moon or another celestial body, how will the Chinese 
government interpret its rights and obligation? How will it define 
``due regard?'' While the future actions of the Chinese government 
cannot be predicted, we can learn from past statements about space and 
acts taken on Earth and in Low Earth Orbit.

     The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission 
            observed that ``China seeks to control access to the Moon 
            for strategic aims.''

     The Chinese government's space policy has evolved subtly 
            but tellingly.

          +   Its 2006 White Paper, states that ``China's government 
        holds that outer space is the commonwealth of all mankind, and 
        all countries in the world enjoy the equal right to freely 
        explore, develop, and utilize outer space and celestial 
        bodies.''

          +   Its 2011 White Paper report leaves out language on space 
        as a commonwealth, reading instead that the ``Chinese 
        government believes that the free exploration, development and 
        use of outer space and its celestial bodies are equal rights 
        enjoyed by all countries in the world.''

          +   It's 2016 White Paper replaces the phrase ``free 
        exploration'' with ``peaceful exploration'' though it does 
        maintain that all countries have ``equal rights'' to explore.''

          +   It's 2021 White Paper opens with the statement that 
        China's ``eternal dream'' is to ``explore the vast cosmos, 
        develop the space industry and build China into a space 
        power.'' It acknowledges that ``peaceful exploration, 
        development and utilization of outer space are rights equally 
        enjoyed by all countries.''

     China's Earth activities indicate a willingness to 
            disregard norms and act decisively even in the face of 
            international objection. For example, the Chinese 
            government has made sweeping territorial claims over 
            virtually the entire South China Sea, and appears willing 
            to defend these by force. It is not difficult to imagine 
            similar actions being taken with respect to an installation 
            on the Moon or another celestial bod, especially under the 
            cover of ``due regard.''.

     China is not a responsible or transparent space actor.

          +   While the majority of US spacecraft share information 
        regarding their planned maneuvers to a global database to 
        support space domain awareness and space traffic management, 
        the majority of Chinese spacecraft do not.

          +   Chinese space objects routinely enter the atmosphere with 
        little guidance or control.

          +   Chinese launches often cause damage in local environs.

    In a worst-case scenario, a first mover like China can block access 
to extraterrestrial resources under the legal cover of the Outer Space 
Treaty--particularly the concept of due regard as it has been 
conceptualized to support exclusion or safety zones.
V. Conclusions and Recommendations: Acknowledge Extraterrestrial 
        Resources

    The space beyond Earth is a domain of human activity. A domain 
filled with natural resources that can significantly improve life on 
Earth. This Hearing is a first but significant small step. US policy as 
a whole, and not just space policy, must acknowledge and embrace the 
vast resources that the Universe offers. In addition:

     The US should continue to encourage countries to accede to 
            the Artemis Accords and create as large a coalition as 
            possible.

     The US should continue to adopt licensing and regulatory 
            actions that support transparency and responsibility.

     The US should increase support for commercial space 
            activities that specifically include extraterrestrial 
            resource extraction and utilization activities.

     The US should continue to actively participate in the 
            COPUOS and, in particular, its Working Group on the Legal 
            Aspects of Space Resource Activities.

     The US should work with Artemis partners to enable the 
            research necessary to better define the concept of safety 
            zones and due regard.

    As Walter Cronkite said: ``We are the lucky generation. We first 
broke our earthly bonds and ventured into space. From our descendants--
perches on other planets or distant space cities, they will look back 
at our achievement with wonder at our courage and audacity and with 
appreciation at our accomplishments, which assured the future in which 
they live.''

    We have a responsibility to the future to get this right, and I am 
confident we can.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Michelle L.D. Hanlon, Executive 
   Director, Center for Air and Space Law, University of Mississippi
                and President and CEO, For All Moonkind

              Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar

    Question 1. How are space resources natural resources?

    Answer. Encyclopedia Britannica defines a natural resource as ``any 
biological, mineral, or aesthetic asset afforded by nature without 
human intervention that can be used for some form of benefit, whether 
material (economic) or immaterial.\1\ Merriam Webster states that 
natural resources are ``industrial materials and capacities (such as 
mineral deposits and waterpower) supplied by nature.'' \2\ And while, 
as Britannica points out, what is considered a ``resource'' has varied 
over time and from one society to another, natural resource laws and 
policy categorize resources by their character and properties--and not 
by where they are located. Aluminum, beryllium, tungsten, zinc and many 
other critical minerals are natural resources wherever they occur, even 
if they occur beyond areas of national jurisdiction, whether that area 
is the high seas, or space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.britannica.com/science/natural-resource
    \2\ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural%20resource
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Natural resources do not change their nature or their qualities 
based on where they are found. As the natural resources on Earth are 
depleted, as we know they will be over time, humanity must be open to 
looking for other sources and this Committee is well-placed to lead 
this paradigm adjustment.

    Question 2. How can the House Committee on Natural Resources help 
America secure the celestial mineral supply chain?

    Answer. The US Geological Survey (USGS), the administration of 
which is within the jurisdiction of this Committee, already implements 
activities beyond national jurisdiction as it is tasked specifically 
with researching seafloor mineral resources that occur in the high 
seas, domains recognized under international law as not subject to 
sovereign or territorial claim. This Committee can expand the 
parameters of this research to all areas beyond national jurisdiction, 
including outer space. As with research conducted on marine mineral 
resources, findings by the USGS about mineral wealth in space should be 
shared with stakeholders, including industry.
    The fact that humans will deplete Earth supplies, even those found 
in the high seas, is inevitable. For example, in 2022, the USGS 
released a list of 50 critical minerals, natural resources, defined as 
those that are essential to the economic and national security of a 
nation but that have a supply-chain vulnerable to disruption.\3\ Demand 
for these critical minerals is increasing, and one of the roles of the 
USGS is to address the need for more up-to-date information on access 
to critical mineral resources. The Committee could propose legislation 
to expand USGS research to include the space domain in its effort to 
define and prioritize focus areas with resource potential for these 50 
critical minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/24/2022-
04027/2022-final-list-of-critical-minerals
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While some might argue that this is premature as we are many years 
away from being able to successfully mine natural resources beyond 
Earth, identifying mineral rich areas in space as soon as possible 
offers many benefits, among others: first, it provides an incentive for 
the development of space mining technology; second, it assures that 
once the technology is ready, we will know where to go; third, it can 
alleviate US dependence on foreign-sourced supply chains; fourth, as 
our understanding of human reliance on the ocean eco-system increases, 
we can avoid disrupting the marine environment with mining operations; 
and finally, understanding what resources exist in beyond Earth and how 
accessible those resources are can do much to alleviate present 
tensions regarding resources. If it is established that these resources 
are in great abundance, as we believe them to be, potential for 
conflict will wane.
    It is also important to point out that the Chinese government has 
made very clear its intent to ``Exploit the Works of Nature'' through a 
public roadmap that sees ``a comprehensive space resources system 
spanning the solar system by the year 2100.'' \4\ This is a long game 
and this Committee is well-poised to oversee US efforts in this regard. 
Space resource utilization is the future and we jeopardize that future 
with inaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/china-reveals-
grand-vision-for-space-resource-utilization
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The space domain is an international domain and as this Committee 
has jurisdiction over international fisheries agreements, the UN 
Convention on the Law of the Sea, and cooperative efforts to encourage, 
enhance and improve international programs for the protection of the 
environment and the conservation of natural resources, it is a perfect 
starting point to open discussion of how international cooperation in 
the management of the natural resources of space might be structured. 
The Committee should hold hearings on how to manage natural resources 
in the space domain under the framework of the international space 
treaty regime.
    Finally, given the Committees jurisdiction over relations of the 
United States with Native American and Native American tribes, this 
provides the perfect opportunity to assure that Indigenous communities 
are included in the discussion of space resource utilization. The 
Committee can work directly with Indigenous communities to assure 
contribution from this group that is woefully under-represented in 
space activities.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Lamborn

    Question 1. What are the opportunities and barriers to greater 
coordination and investment in space resources research within 
academia?

    Answer. The United States has the finest academic institutions in 
the world and has always been at the forefront of both space activities 
and space governance. Three leaders come to mind. The Colorado School 
of Mines offers the only space resource graduate program in the world. 
The University of Mississippi has one of the oldest space law programs 
in the world and is home to the only ABA-accredited law school to offer 
a JD Concentration and an LL.M. in Air and Space Law. Finally, the 
Thunderbird School of Global Management hosts the only executive master 
of global management in space leadership program. Combining these three 
superlative and unique academic centers provide boundless cross-
disciplinary opportunity at minimal cost to the taxpayer. Working 
directly with USGS, these three institutions could help lay the 
groundwork for a sustainable space governance framework that meets the 
requirements of international law without ceding US leadership in the 
space domain.
    US leadership is vital because we have, at present, the most 
representative government in the world. Every human, wherever located, 
will be impacted by space resource activities. In the US we work hard 
to give voice to all humans--albeit not always successfully. 
Nevertheless, our system of governance provides more opportunity than 
any other in the world. If we want to see an equitable and fair 
management and distribution of space resources, we want to raise 
awareness and encourage discussion of all space activities.
    The only barrier to greater coordination is the lack of funding and 
direction from the government.

    Question 2. This committee especially understands the necessity of 
specific but clear laws and regulations when it comes to mining. It is 
important to walk that fine line of providing guidance and oversight to 
the mining industry without stifling the growth. Besides the Artemis 
Accords, which we see NASA is using to set the standard for extraction 
of minerals such as these, what else should this body be working on to 
protect the rights of private companies to extract and sell these 
critical minerals?

    Answer. Given this Committee's jurisdiction over aspects of the 
Convention on the Law of the Sea and in particular the remit to 
encourage, enhance and improve international programs for the 
protection of the environment and the conservation of natural 
resources, this Committee should take an active role in developing the 
foundation for space resource management and utilization in keeping 
with US treaty obligations. While arguments have been made that 
anything space-related should be relegated to the House Committee on 
Science Space and Technology, this gravely narrows our perception of 
space and its importance in human society. It is this Committee that 
manages natural resources, and its jurisdiction should not be narrowed 
by where those natural resources might be located. Respectfully, this 
Committee cannot properly oversee the management of natural resources 
if it ignores such resources just because they occur beyond Earth and 
beyond sovereign jurisdiction. There exists an opportunity to assure 
that space activities truly benefit all humanity, and this Committee 
should seize it.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Ms. Hanlon. I thank all the 
witnesses for their testimony. I am now going to go to Members 
on the dais for their questions. I recognize the gentleman from 
Montana, Mr. Rosendale, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ranking 
Member Stansbury, for holding this hearing today. It is a very 
important subject. It underscores the urgent need to diminish 
our dependence on foreign adversaries for crucial minerals. 
These minerals are essential to America's success in the 21st 
century, and we cannot rely on our enemies for them.
    China is deeply invested in controlling the critical 
mineral supply chain. The more we rely on them for these 
resources, the more of a threat they pose to our sovereignty. 
It is especially concerning that the CCP is exerting its 
control on a global stage, increasing the possibility of a 
future dominated by China. Currently, the United States relies 
on China for 26 of the 50 critical minerals designated by the 
Department of the Interior as a cause for concern. China not 
only controls production, but also dominates the refining 
process, and hardly anyone is talking about that.
    The United States finds itself at a crossroads. We must 
decide whether to reopen our mining and refining operations, 
regaining control over our destiny with respect to these 
critical minerals, or continue down a path of increased 
dependence and economic entanglement with the CCP.
    Unfortunately, the current Administration seeks to import 
these minerals from countries that use child labor and produce 
emissions. We could mine critical mines ethically and cleanly 
now right here at home. But instead, we rely on third-world 
countries in the name of environmentalism.
    I am intrigued by extracting minerals in space, especially 
as China races there. However, I want to ensure that this does 
not replace extracting the critical minerals in our own 
backyard.
    One thing I have learned living in Montana, where 
everything is freight in and freight out, transportation costs 
are extremely expensive. Looking to space for minerals where 
they may be plentiful is interesting, but it will present 
incredible access challenges.
    And to hear comments about how we have to make sure that 
the environmental standards are met, or that the public 
receives their funding back after they make the investments, I 
have a real big problem with that. I am a skeptic, I will be 
honest with you, because the nations that we compete with right 
now do not follow the labor or environmental standards that are 
in place with the international community as it exists, whether 
it be by norms or mandates. Yet, somehow this panel believes 
that they are going to follow those in outer space? You are 
kidding yourselves. You are absolutely kidding yourselves.
    Mr. Autry, you begin your testimony by quoting, ``Strategic 
minerals and manufacturing have always created new real 
wealth,'' and I agree with that, I absolutely do. America has 
handed that source of wealth to other nations. We have 
literally developed the technology and then handed it to them. 
Space is a new frontier and offers a second chance to reverse 
that error. Rather than focusing solely on space exploration, 
why not consider a dual course of action that combines space 
endeavors with domestic production in the United States?
    How do you envision balancing the opportunities presented 
by space exploration with the immediate advantages of more 
cost-effective and less risk-intensive resource mining here at 
home on our own soil?
    Dr. Autry. Thank you, sir. Excellent question. I want to be 
clear I don't know how you might have gotten the idea that the 
entire panel supports some of the things that you rallied 
against. I don't think that that is the case. And I also want 
to be clear at no point would I have suggested that we do not 
pursue an aggressive development of U.S. resources in an 
attempt to rectify the mistakes we have made here on Earth with 
our global supply chain. That needs to happen.
    Back in 2010, I wrote a book called Death by China. And in 
that book I addressed the issue of the Molycorp mine at 
Mountain Pass, California, which back around 2000 produced 80 
percent of the world's rare Earth elements. China shut that 
mine down using aggressive dumping of products made with 
abusive environmental behavior in Mongolia and Sichuan, and 
then they jacked up rare Earth element prices, and then they 
managed to get control of the output of that mine, which is all 
shipped to China now. I tried to bring this to people's 
attention, and do you know what I got? ``Do you realize we have 
an economic crisis here in the United States, and we have this 
problem and that problem? We don't have time to worry about 
that right now.'' Well, this is where we are in space. We 
need----
    Mr. Rosendale. My time is just about up, Mr. Autry. What I 
am trying to say is that if we can't get those minerals 
produced here domestically when we have the technology, the 
labor standards, the environmental standards, why would you 
recommend that we take unlimited amount of public dollars to do 
it in outer space?
    Dr. Autry. I didn't say unlimited at all.
    Mr. Rosendale. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Dr. Autry. I do believe investing in that technology will 
benefit us here on Earth.
    Mr. Rosendale. I yield my time, Mr. Chair.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Montana. The 
gentlelady, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is always a new 
experience on this Committee.
    China and Russia are exploitatively mining in Africa, and 
Russia is mining democracy and sovereignty in Ukraine, two 
critical national security threats that Republicans continue to 
slow walk when it comes to solutions, or even acknowledging 
that there are issues.
    A couple of years ago, the movie ``Don't Look Up'' came 
out, and I can't help but bring it up now. The movie is about 
two scientists who discover that an asteroid big enough to wipe 
out all of life on planet Earth is headed towards us. The 
scientists tried to convince the U.S. Government to divert the 
asteroid, but they get sidelined when an eccentric billionaire 
convinces the President we should mine the asteroid for 
valuable minerals instead. A highly politicized asteroid denial 
campaign ensues. But in the end, facts win.
    While the movie was widely known to be a satirical take on 
the threat of the climate crisis and the refusal of some to 
take it seriously, it looks like my colleagues across the aisle 
didn't get the joke. Nearly a year into Republican control of 
the House, and this Committee has yet to have a single hearing 
on the biggest threat of our time.
    Just to remind everyone, 2023 will be the hottest year ever 
recorded, and not by a small margin. Extreme weather events 
like hurricanes in California, ice storms in Texas, and 
wildfire smoke in DC are now the norm. Hundreds of thousands of 
people are dying each year, local economies are being 
destroyed, and frontline communities are getting hurt first and 
worst. Yet, many of my Republican colleagues still refuse to 
even talk about the climate crisis unless they can deny it. The 
idea of passing any climate legislation this Congress is a 
fantasy. In fact, every Republican who was here last year voted 
against the single biggest investment in clean energy and 
climate action in history, the Inflation Reduction Act.
    Don't get me wrong. If space mining becomes a reality, we 
must be absolutely clear-eyed about how it is managed. The 
environmental, economic, and social issues are important and 
challenging. So, I am glad our witness, Dr. Milazzo, is here to 
document those issues into the Congressional Record. So, yes, 
it is an important conversation to be had in the Committee that 
can consider legislation about it.
    Newsflash, that Committee is not this one. We repeatedly 
asked Republicans for a clear jurisdictional justification for 
it to be in this Committee and never got one.
    Newsflash, today's hearing is not the most pressing issue 
for the American people. It is just one more attempt to get us 
to look away from their obvious inability to govern. They took 
15 votes to pick a Speaker, voted him out, wasted 3 weeks to 
find another one, and are now turning on him. They have 
bafflingly turned one government shutdown threat into two. 
Their government funding bills are being shelved by their own 
party, and they are raining down investigations that generate 
Fox News headlines, but no actual or factual evidence of 
wrongdoing. With that kind of rap sheet, I can understand the 
need for a flashy distraction. I guess my Republican colleagues 
did learn something from ``Don't Look Up'' after all.
    With that, I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I was hoping we would see a lot more questions 
to the panel instead of the pontificating that seems to come 
out of the West Coast.
    The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn, is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 
being here.
    NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey have been working 
together to develop new technologies to detect and assess off-
world mineral resources. Universities like the Colorado School 
of Mines, which hosts the nation's only space resources 
program, is also researching how to detect, assess, and utilize 
resources in space. These advanced technologies would likely 
have applications for domestic industries, as well.
    Dr. Milazzo, how is NASA and USGS working with other 
Federal partners like the Department of Commerce and Department 
of Energy to advance technologies that could support a new 
generation of low-impact, critical mineral extraction and 
production here on Earth?
    Dr. Milazzo. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. I 
am hesitant to speak for either NASA or the USGS. I was an 
employee of the U.S. Geological Survey some years ago, but now 
I am no longer a civil servant, so I hesitate to speak for them 
about what efforts they are working on right now.
    The reality is that we have a lot of spacefaring, Earth-
pointed satellites that are helping to better understand 
resources and resource availability across the Earth. So, the 
specifics of what the policies are and what the activities are 
right now, I am not fully informed of. So, I want to be careful 
I don't speak for either of those agencies at this time.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK, fine. Besides the investments we will need 
to make in technology, I know we will also need to be looking 
to academia to make investments in future jobs in space mining. 
In June, I co-led H.R. 4152, the Space Resources Institute Act, 
with fellow Colorado Representative Caraveo. The bill directs 
NASA and the Department of Commerce to report to Congress on 
options for establishing an institute related to space 
resources, and to provide the necessary leadership in basic 
research, resource mapping, and technology development that 
could dramatically reduce the cost of commercial space 
missions, stimulate new industries, and maintain the United 
States' leadership in space.
    Dr. Autry, what Federal support is needed to encourage and 
leverage private-sector investment and research into a more 
robust U.S. strategy?
    Dr. Autry. Thank you. I do want to acknowledge the Colorado 
School of Mines' leadership on this topic, and my colleague, 
George Sowers, there, in particular. They have done great work.
    As I stated in my testimony, I think reasonable amounts of 
R&D investment can help dual-use technologies that benefit 
mining both here on Earth and in space in a reasonable way. And 
it is not an excessive amount of money.
    I also think that we can look at working with academia to 
make sure that we address the issues that my colleague, Dr. 
Milazzo, has while moving forward in a timely manner, as 
Michelle Hanlon has mentioned, because if we don't we will be 
ceding that field.
    It is also super important to make sure that we recognize 
some mechanism under which the mining operation sites and 
processing sites on a celestial body can be transferable and 
collateralizable so that debt investment, as well as venture 
capital, can come into this field and run it like a normal 
industry when it does emerge.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK, very good. And I also sit on the Armed 
Services Committee. We are concerned about what China is doing 
to become more aggressive in the Pacific and, indeed, in the 
entire world. So, Mr. Sundby, what are your biggest concerns 
when it comes to the fact that China is also in this race to 
secure the potential of rare metals from space resources?
    Mr. Sundby. My primary concern is that the Chinese military 
is there. The Chinese military essentially controls the 
entirety of their space program. Their space program has very 
little civil representation, essentially, and the People's 
Liberation Army is placed in authority to oversee their 
operations that will be conducted on the lunar surface.
    So, when you see institutions such as the Lunar Research 
Organization that they have established with Russia, that 
institution will be staffed by military personnel. That is 
legal under the Outer Space Treaty, but it is highly concerning 
that that is the institution that will be overseeing all of 
their research and resource utilization and exploration on the 
surface of the moon.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. The 
Chairman for the Full Committee is now recognized for his 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, and thank you to 
the witnesses for being here today.
    And I do want to take a minute and reassert that the 
Committee does have jurisdiction on this issue. I know that has 
been questioned, but I don't think there is any question that 
our Committee does have jurisdiction on this issue.
    And this is an issue that some people might ask why are we 
doing this, this seems far-fetched. You could ask the question, 
why not mine the Earth first, and then we will work on outer 
space later? But also, if we look at the past, people would 
have probably said the same thing about sending someone to the 
moon and the space race that we were in back then. And we know 
that there were some great discoveries and technological 
advances that came out of those efforts.
    When I was going over this hearing with staff, I was joking 
and said, ``Have they found dilithium crystals,'' being a Star 
Trek fan. And I know you haven't, but one question I want to 
ask is what are the possibilities of new advances or finding 
new materials and things that could be beneficial that we can't 
even imagine today?
    And if you are a Star Trek fan, you know that there were 
things on there that seemed really far-fetched and sci-fi when 
the show was made, but a lot of those are things that are 
actually kind of in our world today with communications and 
other things. But what opportunity do we have to advance our 
scientific knowledge by proceeding with space exploration for 
mining?
    And I will start with Dr. Autry.
    Dr. Autry. Thank you, sir. And I do have to underscore I 
can't imagine why you are not allowed to discuss space 
resources in the Natural Resources Committee. This baffles me. 
I am also lost on the idea of why America can't, for once, have 
long-term thinking. Because every single problem that we have 
today, which we are so obsessed with solving today and is 
distracting us from the future, is because we weren't looking 
ahead of ourselves. We have been staring at our feet as we walk 
forward.
    There are unknown opportunities out there, sir, that we 
don't know what they are. They won't be dilithium crystals, but 
they may be just as amazing. When we entered the first space 
race, nobody predicted GPS, the Internet, or that I would have 
solar panels on my house, or that we would have fuel cells 
backing up the operating rooms of hospital power supplies. 
These things all came down because of the investment we made in 
those technologies, and I don't know what we will discover.
    There are some things that cannot be found on Earth that 
are found in the moon. The isotope helium 3 is one of the ones 
that has been discussed, and the head of the Chinese lunar 
program is very excited about that. He says that the equivalent 
of three space shuttle loads of helium 3 could power the entire 
Earth for a year with clean, non-radioactive energy. That is 
worth looking at. That material is very, very hard to find on 
Earth. It is like 100 parts per billion in natural gas reserves 
in the Earth, but it is fairly relatively abundant in the 
moon's regolith.
    Mr. Westerman. That leads into another question I had. I 
have been to several mining operations, and it is amazing the 
small amount of rare Earth elements that you find in a ton of 
ore. I mean, you are talking about ounces or less. Are there 
greater concentrations of these minerals and elements that you 
find in space than we could find here on Earth?
    Dr. Autry. Indeed, and one of the most important things to 
realize, and that Michelle Hanlon touched on, is these are 
concentrated. I mentioned the large mass concentration near the 
south pole of the moon in the Aitken Basin. That may be 90 
percent of the moon's mineral resources in that one spot. China 
or Russia could go build their lunar base right there, and 
there is a good reason to believe they will, and just exclude 
us from that in no time flat. Even if we are not worried about 
mining it for 50 years, we will have just signed off the future 
because we didn't deal with it today. So, those resources are 
likely to be concentrated, rather than evenly distributed. We 
need to get out there, as I suggested, and increase NASA's 
investment in the technologies and missions to identify where 
these resources are.
    Mr. Westerman. And, Ms. Hanlon, this idea of the global 
commons of the resources that are in space, we know about the 
tragedy of the commons here on Earth if we think we can't 
exploit a resource enough and you get too many actors, and at 
the end of the day you have exploited the resource. What is the 
danger of having this view of the global commons, that it is 
going to be there, we can wait, and we don't have to take any 
action now?
    Ms. Hanlon. Thank you sir. The global commons is indeed 
ripe for tragedy. If nobody has a vested interest, then nobody 
has an interest in protecting and being responsible with 
respect to that commons.
    Here on Earth, we have seen a lot of issues with people not 
respecting the high seas. Unfortunately, that happens to be 
also one of our biggest rivals, China. When we talk about 
environmental concerns and being responsible, this is one of 
the things we need to think about in this space race. If China 
does get to create the base, and create a zone, and set up a 
property area--and call it what it may, we are not allowed to 
own property in space, but it is going to be treated like 
property, because what is property? Property is the right to 
exclude. And that is exactly what China is going to do. That is 
what China does here on Earth. And we have no reason to believe 
they won't do otherwise in space.
    Fundamentally, the concept of global commons also suggests 
that nobody can own it. And as we look at the vast universe 
that awaits us, it is incredible, anthropocentric hubris to 
suggest that all of the universe is somehow the responsibility 
of earthlings, as if nobody else, nothing else out there 
exists. We need to think about space very differently from the 
way we think about things on Earth, because it is infinite. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from 
Georgia is recognized for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
holding this hearing. I want to follow up off of what our 
Chairman of the Full Committee said. As a matter of fact, it is 
not only in our jurisdiction, but we have held field hearings 
all across this country for the past 11 months dealing with 
critical minerals and mining.
    And I would like to point out one thing, Mr. Chairman. I 
think it is rather obvious that, as well as in those field 
hearings, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle weren't 
even there for those, much less here for this one today. So, 
when someone did pop in, it is no wonder she is a little 
confused that we might have jurisdiction. It is the fact that 
they don't participate.
    If I ramble on a little bit more, please forgive me, but I 
am going to tell you something. China is in a race with us, and 
I am sure that the American people know that. And if they 
don't, they need to know that. They have even stated that by 
2045 or 2049 they want to be militarily, socially, 
economically, and even in space be dominant over the world. And 
we need to be cognizant of that, and we also need to be paying 
attention to it, which is why I am so glad that we are looking 
at things like what we are looking at today.
    As a matter of fact, we have an Administration that wants 
us to go EV on everything. Yet, Mr. Chairman, they refuse to 
let us mine. I mean, we were in Minnesota earlier, and we were 
talking about the largest deposit in the world of critical 
minerals in a town up there that is drying up because they have 
been trying to get permits for 20 years, but they can't do it.
    Over 80 percent of the critical minerals that we do process 
in this country are processed over in China by factories and 
smelters that are nowhere near green or as green as they could 
be. Yet, here we are, not allowing our own people. So, today I 
want to continue to focus on China.
    Professor Hanlon, you stated that legal norms in space will 
be developed based on activity. Whoever is first to establish 
space resource management and utilization will establish the 
corresponding legal norms. Will the world benefit more from 
space resources if CCP controls the celestial mineral supply 
chain, or if the United States controls the celestial mineral 
supply chain?
    Ms. Hanlon. Thank you, sir. One of the greatest things 
about this country is that we have the opportunity for every 
person to speak, to talk, and to give their opinion. We have 
hearings, we have notice of proposed rulemakings. Everybody has 
the opportunity to contribute, whether they are an Indigenous 
person, whether they are a male, female, cisgender. It doesn't 
matter. You have a voice if you are American. In China, that is 
not the truth, and that is not how the Chinese Government 
works.
    I believe that if the Chinese were to get there first, I 
can't predict what they would do, but we can look at what they 
do here on Earth. They suppress their own people. They make 
claims to high seas as a sovereign territory. If we want to see 
the equitable, responsible use of space resources, and see them 
managed in an equitable manner, we need them to be led by a 
country and countries that are part of the Artemis Accords, who 
will support freedom and democracy and equity here on Earth and 
in space.
    Mr. Collins. So, it is safe to say that America should 
focus on first obtaining a first mover advantage over space 
mining so that it can control both the legal framework and 
resource utilization policies that will most benefit our 
country. Is that correct?
    Ms. Hanlon. I would say that it could lead in the 
development of the framework, yes.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you. And if America lets the Chinese 
Communist Party secure control over the celestial mineral 
supply chain, then all other concerns are practically useless 
because the CCP will just do what it wants.
    Ms. Hanlon. Yes.
    Mr. Collins. Regardless of any implications for others, 
right?
    Ms. Hanlon. Yes.
    Mr. Collins. All right, thank you. Well, let's look at a 
worst case scenario, then.
    Dr. Autry and Professor Hanlon, real quick, I know I am 
running out of time. What is the worst case scenario if China 
wins the race for space mining? And how would that negatively 
impact the United States?
    Dr. Autry, do you want to start with that?
    Dr. Autry. Yes, I don't want to be hyperbolic here, but if 
China wins the race in space we have ceded the strategic high 
ground militarily, and we have ceded the entire economic 
future, and the United States will be relegated to a backwater 
position for the rest of human history. I honestly think this 
is an existential point.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you.
    Professor?
    Ms. Hanlon. I agree with Dr. Autry. The Chinese will have 
the opportunity to block our access not just to the moon, but 
to all of space, and humanity's future lies in space. We have a 
lot of problems here on Earth to deal with, but a lot of the 
answers we will find in space, including, I believe, 
ultimately, peace. Thank you.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from 
Arizona, Mr. Crane, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be 
here.
    I represent Arizona's 2nd Congressional District. We have a 
good amount of mining that takes place in my district. For 
those of you that don't know, Arizona is the largest mineral-
producing state in the nation. It provides about two-thirds of 
our domestic copper. In May, the Biden administration stopped 
the opening of Resolution Copper in my district. This mine 
could provide 25 percent of the demand for copper here in the 
United States of America. It is kind of problematic.
    I want to start with some questions for you, Mr. Autry. Is 
it a national security issue to buy critical minerals from our 
enemies, in your opinion, sir?
    Dr. Autry. Absolutely, sir. And as I noted, I have been 
spending years talking about the rare Earth problem, and now 
everybody has woken up to that. I think they are going to wake 
up to the copper problem and the rest of these problems.
    If we tie our own hands behind our back in the geopolitical 
and economic competition of the future, we are going to have a 
very hard time of it.
    Mr. Crane. Is it also an economic issue, Dr. Autry?
    Dr. Autry. Absolutely. As I noted, having access to a 
reliable supply chain of factor inputs is critical, and China 
has demonstrated that they will change the prices to suit their 
needs to grab excessive monopoly rents once they have gained 
control over the global supply chain, and they will also cut us 
off or any other country off when they have the opportunity to 
leverage us politically.
    They, for instance, quietly stopped all rare Earth element 
shipments to Japan several years ago in order to punish Japan 
for arresting a shipping captain who had rammed one of their 
coast guard ships. And they continue to behave that way.
    Mr. Crane. Dr. Autry, what about outsourcing these jobs? 
What happens to these mining communities when we shut down a 
mine and then send that overseas?
    Dr. Autry. We have in this country, unfortunately, 
denigrated and not supported our productive industries and 
manufacturing and resource extraction. It used to be that you 
could go get a decent job to support a family right out of high 
school in one of these industries.
    Mr. Crane. Yes.
    Dr. Autry. You can no longer do that. And we wonder why 
kids run up $200,000 debts and they are fighting over jobs at 
Starbucks. It is because of our lack of respect for these 
industries and jobs.
    Mr. Crane. OK, so we have already covered it is a national 
security issue. It is an economic issue. Is it an environmental 
issue, as well, Dr. Autry?
    Dr. Autry. Yes, absolutely. As the other Member mentioned, 
China doesn't do this well. In Mongolia, where they processed 
rare Earth elements using an incredibly destructive acid 
leaching process, the BBC did an article on it. They described 
it as the worst place on Earth, this toxic lake of sludge and 
mess that China is doing because China is willing to destroy 
their environment and our global environment in order to gain 
competitive advantage. The United States would do it right.
    Mr. Crane. The BBC? That is no right-wing outlet, is it, 
sir?
    Dr. Autry. Yes, it is a crazy, conservative journal, I 
think.
    Mr. Crane. So, we have national security. It is an economic 
issue. It is an environmental issue. Sir, why would we be doing 
this?
    Dr. Autry. Because the Chinese are putting a lot of 
pressure quietly on a lot of people in our country to be 
focused only on short-term things, to be fighting each other, 
and to not be paying attention to the strategic issues of the 
future.
    Mr. Crane. Yes.
    Dr. Autry. And we have seen that manifest here today.
    Mr. Crane. They do put a lot of pressure on influential 
people in this country, don't they, sir?
    Are you familiar with what ``elite capture'' is, Dr. Autry?
    Dr. Autry. Absolutely. In fact, I testified to the House 
Foreign Affairs Oversight Committee back in 2013 on Chinese 
perception management in the United States. I wish I could say 
the situation had improved since then, but it has not. There 
are a lot of people in industry politics that are at various 
levels compromised by the Chinese Communist Party.
    Mr. Crane. Yes, that is right, sir. Dr. Autry, does it 
bother you at all, does it concern you at all that this 
President and his son have taken money from the Chinese?
    Dr. Autry. I am hoping, frankly, to keep space as a non-
partisan domain, which has been very successful. Certainly, 
personally, I am concerned about that issue and any politicians 
where we would find that they were being paid odd consulting 
fees in tens of millions of dollars to do who knows what for a 
foreign government.
    Mr. Crane. Yes. Thank you, sir. I think we should all be 
concerned about it, and not focus on some of the distractions 
that were just brought in the room regarding we need to be 
focused on climate change. You want to talk about distractions? 
That was a complete distraction.
    Thank you guys for coming. Thank you, Dr. Autry.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. The 
gentlewoman from New Mexico, the Ranking Member, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    With all due respect to the comments that were made at the 
last round of questioning, if we are going to talk about 
Members of Congress being compromised by elite interests from 
other countries, how about we talk about members of this 
Committee who take campaign donations from multi-national 
mining companies that the Chinese Communist Party has an 
interest in, including in Arizona?
    So, this is an important issue. Mr. Milazzo, I am really 
grateful that you are here to talk about the ethical issues 
concerning the future of space mining. But it is hard, 
listening to this conversation, to really get a sense of what 
we are talking about here. So, can you please help us 
understand? What kind of minerals are we talking about mining?
    Dr. Milazzo. Thank you for the question. In space, in our 
near-Earth space, whether it is the moon or asteroids, or even 
the asteroid belt, or even all the way out to Mars, most of the 
minerals that we can find here on Earth are going to be found 
somewhere else in space, as well. Not all of them. Some of the 
minerals that we find here on Earth require geologic processes 
like hydrothermal systems to concentrate those minerals into a 
valuable ore, something that we can----
    Ms. Stansbury. But just specifically, what are we talking 
about? Titanium? Platinum?
    Dr. Milazzo. We can talk about platinum group metals, golds 
and we can talk about cobalt, we can talk about most of the 
strategic minerals that have been discussed are somewhere 
available, for the most part, in space, as well as here on 
Earth.
    Ms. Stansbury. Got it. Yes, I was actually talking to a 
colleague who is a scientist who works at NASA about this issue 
over the weekend, and he was talking about asteroids that have 
been found that are high concentrations of platinum that 
themselves, these asteroids, are actually worth trillions of 
dollars if they were to be captured, mined, processed, and sold 
here on Earth.
    But I think part of what gets lost in this conversation is 
that we are talking about commodities that sell on 
international markets, and the price of those commodities 
actually, like all commodities, has to do with supply and 
demand, right? So, if we were to flood the global markets with 
supply and demand, it would impact all of these issues.
    But I guess I am still struggling technologically and 
feasibility-wise, like, how far out is this? Even if we were to 
accelerate R&D in the United States and use international 
partnerships, how soon would we be able to tap these resources?
    Dr. Milazzo. I think that is a great question, and I think 
it is a really difficult one to answer perfectly. We have 
companies that think they can go mining next year or 2 years 
from now or something like that. I think that is totally 
unrealistic. I think we are looking at decades, at the best, to 
actually return valuable amounts of materials to some kind of 
use, whether that is use in space or back here on Earth.
    Ms. Stansbury. So, we are talking decades out. And, for me, 
I think part of what is hard, my background is in the sciences. 
I have worked in natural resources management my entire career. 
And the COP UN climate negotiations just wrapped up. And what 
we know, what the science is telling us, is that Earth is 
transforming so rapidly right now because of human emissions 
and the changes to our atmosphere that if we don't take 
immediate action, literally right now, in the next several 
years, we are not going to have a planet to live on.
    So, as we are talking about trying to compete with China 
and get to these minerals first, and establish our claims, and 
to hell with global commons and celestial commons, we have some 
real issues here on planet Earth that we have to deal with 
right now. So, I think part of what I really struggle with, and 
I am all for R&D, I really, truly believe that we should be 
investing in R&D in all opportunities, and I understand the 
importance of competition. But my question is, can this mining 
be done, which it sounds like is being proposed by private 
companies, without Federal subsidization?
    Dr. Milazzo. I think that is a great question, and I don't 
believe so. I think eventually, maybe yes, but I don't believe 
that there is a high-enough return on investment on the time 
scales that most investors are looking for to realistically 
bring profits back to those investors without some kind of 
support from public funding.
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes. I mean, I think that is where it comes 
back to, we are talking about jurisdictional issues here.
    Our role is to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. So, at 
the end of the day, we have to ask questions like does it make 
sense to spend billions of dollars in Federal taxpayer dollars, 
which I think both of us across both sides of the aisle agree 
we should not be wasting taxpayer dollars on pursuing things 
that are not going to return a real value to the American 
people, especially as we are facing immediate crises. Should we 
be spending millions, billions of dollars to pursue R&D to 
subsidize private companies who are going to go then and 
capture those resources and use them for their own profits? And 
I think that is, really, the ethical, the public policy 
question in front of us.
    And the more immediate question is how do we solve the 
problems that we have on Earth and use the resources we do have 
to do so in a smart way?
    Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of time, but I definitely 
would like to have another round. Thank you.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Sundby, your testimony discussed the private sector's 
role of, going in right after the Ranking Member's, in space 
resource development. How does the commercial space sector 
provide America a competitive strategic advantage, particularly 
as it relates to space mining?
    Mr. Sundby. Yes, well it is central. This will not be done 
by the government. And to address some of the concerns 
regarding public funding, I do want to let everyone know that 
most of the innovation in this country with a multitude of our 
startups are funded by public grants, right? The problem with 
that is that it has become entrenched, and venture capitalists 
generally do not fund many companies that have not already 
received public investment or public grants. So, that has 
created a system that has been very reliant upon the 
government.
    That being said, I believe that the commercial space 
sector, and particularly commercial companies that are focused 
on dual-use technologies, and I want to emphasize dual-use that 
will benefit the Earth mining industry, it will allow us to 
better extract these minerals in a more environmentally 
friendly way, and it will benefit our nation. If we can focus 
on those dual-use technologies and these space companies can 
utilize those, that will, obviously, give us a massive 
strategic advantage both here on Earth and in space.
    And to that point of dual use, I do want to say this: 
mineral extraction, particularly lithium, is extremely 
environmentally degradable. So, the process of creating 
batteries and moving us towards electric vehicles is an 
admirable one, I fully support it, but there are problems with 
the extraction of this critical mineral here on Earth, and we 
need to be looking at options as we move forward, because it is 
still impacting our environment, moving from one form of energy 
to another. Thank you.
    Dr. Gosar. So, in your opinion, it takes a lot of energy to 
look at this aspect. Would that be fair to say?
    Mr. Sundby. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Gosar. Immense. That is why the helium aspect is so 
important to the Chinese, is it not?
    Mr. Sundby. Yes, sir, absolutely.
    Dr. Gosar. Because this is demonstratable fission, if I am 
not mistaken, right?
    Mr. Sundby. It is nuclear fusion technology. It is 
generally theoretical, but there are numerous amounts of 
physicists that are very certain about its future, and we are 
becoming much closer to achieving it. Then the access to helium 
3 will, obviously, be a mineral race, one likely that we have 
never seen before.
    Dr. Gosar. Got you. So, the United States has a permanent 
base on the moon, right? True or false?
    Mr. Sundby. No, that is false. We do not----
    Dr. Gosar. Well, how about China?
    Mr. Sundby. China is preparing. They have outlined their--
--
    Dr. Gosar. Dark side of the moon, right?
    Mr. Sundby. What was that?
    Dr. Gosar. The dark side of the moon.
    Mr. Sundby. They have looked at strategic locations, 
generally in the south polar region, which is where we believe 
they will place their international lunar research station. 
That is also the same region that we have looked at, due to 
strategic access to water ice.
    Dr. Gosar. Now, private sector, I think in the discovery, I 
would love to get back to first to discover instead of first to 
file. That would be so opportunistic for us to do.
    But dentistry, I can tell you right now, has benefited from 
space. The tiles for re-entry on the space capsule, those 
changed the whole concept of ceramics. The density became much 
greater, much stronger, and you could cut colors with it, which 
is amazing. So, that was big, revolutionary.
    The other aspect was memory wire, where you could actually 
put a wire in a refrigerator, you plot the bands where teeth 
are needing to move, and you put that band in there and see the 
patient a year later, and the teeth are magically in place. So, 
it is amazing what space has done, and we have always looked at 
that from that standpoint.
    Now, Ms. Hanlon, if China were to get the upper hand, would 
we ever get a chance to get it back, from your viewpoint?
    Ms. Hanlon. From my viewpoint, no, we would never have the 
chance to get it back.
    Dr. Gosar. Dr. Autry, I heard a lot about these laser-type 
products. How close are we to those in space?
    Dr. Autry. I am sorry, repeat that.
    Dr. Gosar. These lasers, these military lasers, from your 
understanding, how close are we to seeing this a reality?
    Dr. Autry. The Chinese have already used laser weapons 
against U.S. satellites from the ground, and they are certainly 
entirely practical to use in space, as well.
    Dr. Gosar. It could be a game changer, right?
    Dr. Autry. Absolutely.
    Dr. Gosar. Yes. We are going to do a second round. So, the 
Chairman of the Full Committee is recognized for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Gosar. And, again, I 
appreciate the witnesses taking some extra time.
    This is an emerging field, new concepts, a lot of unknowns. 
As I mentioned earlier, the common sense with what we know 
today might say that it might not be a good investment, but 
there is possibility that it could be a tremendous investment. 
So, just to maybe inform the Committee more and to give you a 
chance to talk about something you may not have gotten asked, I 
wanted to start down on this end, and is there some question 
you wish you would have been asked today that you haven't been 
asked, or something you would like to leave the Committee with?
    Mr. Sundby. Yes. I would have liked to be asked what is the 
role of the space force in all of this, and that is a question 
that I think many people do have. They are curious about this 
new service that we have.
    As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the Chinese have 
created a space force. They didn't call it a space force. It is 
called the Strategic Support Force. But they are paying 
attention to this matter. They are investing in this matter. 
They care about this matter. And as much as we have made 
advancements in this, we do shy away from discussing the 
difficult topic of our humanity from different nations going 
into space and being in that environment, and having to protect 
our assets from a security perspective.
    So, my answer to that would simply be that we need to look 
at the space force and think of it more so how our Navy secures 
the high seas and allows for our shipping lanes and our conduct 
of industry and commerce in the ocean the same way that we will 
in space. So, we need to look at the space force from that 
perspective. We need to give it the ability to conduct that 
operation and understand that that will be under its purview as 
we go forward and further into space.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
    Dr. Autry?
    Dr. Autry. Sure. The topic I would love to address is the 
use of public funds in helping us capture this industry before 
our competitors do. I am fearful that some on the Committee 
would not have funded the Lewis and Clark Expedition because it 
was a distraction from whatever problems were going on in the 
East Coast at the time and cost too much money.
    I have heard the phrase ``unlimited money'' and ``billions 
of dollars'' tossed around. I want to be clear. We are talking 
about millions of dollars in research budget at the university 
level to help develop, again, dual-use technologies that will 
benefit us here on Earth and in space at the same time. And 
that should be one of the criteria that is applied to it.
    If you give money to NASA to help them do additional 
research on space resources on the moon and on asteroids, they 
have done remarkable things for, again, millions or hundreds of 
millions of dollars. We are not talking about billions of 
dollars in the programs in any way.
    And one of the great things about space is that the 
entrepreneurial revolution that has been going on is making 
space cheaper. The cost of access to space, space launch, and 
the cost of satellites has been dropping year, after year, 
after year, because we are commoditizing and commercializing 
something that used to be a government-run, bespoke program. 
So, this is not going to be expensive, and it is going to 
return benefits back to Earth.
    When somebody decided to do GPS, they were thinking about 
how can we help American troops or put smart bombs through a 
window. And nobody thought that it would create Uber, and that 
it would create Pokemon Go, and that it would be in everybody's 
pocket, and everybody's car, and every boat.
    Mr. Westerman. And along those lines, quickly, I have seen 
various numbers on the return on public investment in R&D. Do 
you have an off-the-cuff number?
    Dr. Autry. Sure, yes, I will give you my favorite number. 
Motorola did a study a dozen years ago on the value of GPS to 
trucking fleets in the United States, and they determined that 
a truck is $52,000 per year more efficient if it is GPS-
equipped, fuel, tires, driver time, et cetera. We have a 
million of those trucks in the United States. That is $52 
billion a year the United States gets back from its investment 
in just one space technology that happens to be about the same 
as the entire U.S. expenditure on space every year.
    Mr. Westerman. Exactly. And it is amazing to me that we 
would argue that investing in R&D is a bad investment.
    Mr. Milazzo?
    Dr. Milazzo. Yes, thank you for the question. I appreciate 
the opportunity to speak.
    One thing that kind of makes me sad here is that we 
actually have the opportunity to reach across the aisle and 
agree on quite a number of things that we are talking about 
here. We have talked about dual use, we have talked about 
ethics. We have talked about a lot of things that we seem to 
agree on, on both sides of this aisle here, and yet there is 
still a lot of acrimony.
    We can do lots of good for the environment while we are 
building up our capacity to mine in space. It is not going to 
happen tomorrow. It is on our doorstep, sort of, but it is not 
science fiction anymore. But at the same time, we are talking 
about dual-use technologies and approaches to making space 
mining accessible. You cannot do that without doing it here on 
the Earth.
    So, we have to approach this in a collaborative manner, 
rather than an acrimonious manner. My fear is that we are going 
to lose the ability to do both, improve our mining here on 
Earth, improve our environmental protections here on Earth, and 
lose our ability to do space mining simply because we are 
fighting and we can't come to some real agreements that we 
actually agree on across all of the different political 
spectrums.
    So, it makes me a little bit sad that we are having this 
fight when we don't really need to have it. We could come to a 
really good set of bipartisan agreements here, tri-partisan, 
multi-partisan, whatever, and really build a functioning 
standard for both mining in space and improving our mining here 
on Earth. Thank you.
    Mr. Westerman. I am out of time. I don't know if you want 
to allow Ms. Hanlon to answer that or not.
    Dr. Gosar. The gentlelady from New Mexico is recognized 
for----
    Ms. Stansbury. Aren't you going to let her answer?
    Dr. Gosar. You can let her answer.
    Mr. Westerman. All right, Ms. Hanlon.
    Ms. Hanlon. Thank you very much for the extra time.
    I would like to address the concept of why we are 
discussing space mining now, when we don't think we are going 
to see a return or even a piece of metal within 60, 80 years. 
The fact of the matter is that the technology that we are 
developing to mine other worlds can be used to benefit humanity 
here on Earth already. These technologies can be used to help 
us get into mines with robots instead of little children. The 
mining for water in particular may help us find water here on 
Earth in pockets where we have the driest areas. Extracting and 
using off-Earth resources is going to make it easier and more 
efficient for us to explore more of the universe and maybe find 
those dilithium crystals.
    So, we have to think about this not just about what the end 
goal is, but all of the things that we achieve on the way. And 
as we have seen, NASA puts out a magazine every year of all of 
the technologies that we have benefited from because they were 
either developed for space or they were spin-off technologies 
of stuff that was developed for space.
    The opportunities that are presented by space mining 
technology are truly boundless. Thank you.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from the Full Committee. 
The gentlelady from New Mexico, the Ranking Member, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want 
to dig in just a moment about the budget, and R&D, and spin-off 
technologies.
    I am a huge proponent of Federal R&D to help support 
economic growth and opportunity. I think part of why you are 
seeing some partisan back-and-forth on this Committee is that 
this is a hearing that actually should be in the Science and 
Space Committee, which is actually a bipartisan committee that 
works a lot on these issues of space technology. So, it is very 
unusual to have a hearing on this topic where we deal with 
public lands and waters. So, there is a real, I think, 
jurisdictional question, though I do respect the Chairman for 
his perspective on this. But I think that is part of the issue.
    I used to work at OMB. I used to do the Earth science for 
the budget for the Department of the Interior. That means I did 
USGS' budget and I worked on satellite budgets. And the Federal 
Government spends billions of dollars every year subsidizing 
commercial space exploration and technologies. It is billions. 
And space mining research and technology done at universities 
through NSF grants is a very small subsection of Federal R&D 
monies.
    And certainly, there are lots of spin-offs that come from 
Federal R&D. And I am glad the Chairman mentioned the heat 
resistant tiles because my grandfather, John Stansbury, who was 
an engineer, actually worked for the plastics company that 
perfected those tiles. So, we have a medal from John F. Kennedy 
that is still in my family from that era.
    But there are legitimate questions here, public policy 
questions about where we spend our money in the near term and 
the long term, and also how we approach this question of the 
commons, and where we prioritize our funding, and whether or 
not it makes sense to try to out-compete China by unilaterally 
spending billions of dollars to help subsidize a private 
industry that is 60 to 80 years out in the future, rather than 
using international cooperation to try to pursue this.
    And I think this goes to the bigger questions that the 
United States has engaged in since the onset of the Cold War 
and the arms race, and the militarization and commercialization 
of space. And space is a commons. There are different treaties, 
of course, that govern it. But certainly, when we started 
sending satellites up into space we just thought it was a vast 
unknown space where we could just put whatever technology up 
there. And now we have literally thousands of space junk 
objects in space that are a hazard to both our military 
establishment, as well as the private sector, because we did 
not regulate those commons. So, now it is a huge and massive 
problem for all of us.
    But I also think it is important to acknowledge that we are 
not going to out-China China. I mean, first of all, China is a 
state-run economy. Almost every enterprise in China has some 
tie to the Communist Party, right? It is a state-run economy. 
China is also an authoritarian, non-democratic place at this 
particular moment. Part of why they have been successful in 
undertaking aggressive economic activity on every single 
continent and now in space is because it is not a free place 
right now.
    And the United States is a democracy. And we do have free 
enterprise here. And while I do support using Federal dollars 
to help support R&D, and exploration, and pursue ideas that are 
important to the future, we are not going to out-compete China 
on this particular issue in this particular moment.
    But what we do know is that we have to solve our problems 
here on Earth. And I think that part of why we are seeing, as I 
said, contentious conversation here in this Committee is 
because this Committee's jurisdiction is really about solving 
problems on Earth, not in space.
    So, I appreciate all of your comments, and I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman. If we are going to pay 
our fair share and we talk about benefits, we ought to be 
bringing up the OPT program, the Optional Practical Training 
program. Here is where the biggest of businesses get the 
biggest bang for the buck. They don't put their money into the 
Social Security and Medicare fund, but they are treated like 
everybody else. So, if we are going to go down that line, we 
better take care of that.
    Ms. Hanlon, can you elaborate basically on Article II of 
the 1967 Outer Space Treaty? The question I have is can you 
elaborate on how any country or private party can establish a 
resource extraction operation if territory cannot be claimed on 
a celestial body?
    Ms. Hanlon. Yes, absolutely. Article II says that no 
territory in space may be claimed by any nation by sovereignty 
or by any other means. Therefore, while we do have a structure 
where we have this freedom of access and use of space, we are 
not permitted to actually plant a flag and say, ``This is 
mine.''
    Again, the concept of property is an exclusion one. We 
don't want people to come in, and not necessarily for malicious 
reasons, but because, for example, on the moon, the lunar 
regolith is very, very destructive. And if somebody drives too 
close to another operative machinery or one of our heritage 
sites, we will see a lot of damage done to that machinery.
    The interesting thing, the conflict within the treaty is 
that Article XII of the Outer Space Treaty actually anticipates 
that countries will have habitats and installations on other 
celestial bodies. And it states in Article XII that you must 
give access to other nations to your installation on the basis 
of reciprocity. So, what we have in the Outer Space Treaty, 
what we have in international space law right now is a lot of 
conflict within the treaty itself about what it means. What 
actually does it mean when you build an installation on the 
moon? What actually can you do? Can you exclude other people or 
not?
    Dr. Gosar. What makes it enforceable?
    Ms. Hanlon. There are no enforcement provisions under the 
Outer Space Treaty whatsoever. At this point right now, if 
there is an argument, a claim made, we must go through 
``diplomatic channels,'' and those are arbitral. And then, 
after that, you can go to the International Court of Justice to 
an arbitral panel. Again, these things will take years to get 
through.
    And the concepts, there is no bright line rule. We are 
using this concept of due regard, which is a balancing test, 
which means that even as you look at these issues, as we look 
for private investors in space, we can't tell them that you can 
protect your property in space because we don't know what due 
regard means.
    Dr. Gosar. So, without an investment, Dr. Autry, right now, 
what stops China from eliminating us from even being a player 
in this space?
    Dr. Autry. Repeat that.
    Dr. Gosar. Yes. With some of the questions I asked you 
about the laser technology, what would stop us if we don't get 
involved now in space from China eliminating us even being part 
of the process?
    Dr. Autry. What we need to do is move quickly. We need to 
move with alacrity and, again, to address this issue of money. 
I never said anything about billions of dollars. If billions of 
dollars are being spent somewhere else, that is great. I am 
talking about a reasonable amount of money for the NASA science 
budgets, for the Department of Energy and NASA science work, 
and a reasonable amount of money for academic institutions to 
help solve problems here on Earth that will also be applicable 
in space. We need to do those things. We need to do them now, 
or we could be blocked from access to space, as Michelle said.
    And I completely agree with Dr. Milazzo that we could have 
a very non-partisan agreement here among the panelists. The 
concerns he has are real concerns, and need to be addressed 
simultaneously to us moving forward with alacrity because we 
are in a race we didn't necessarily choose to be in with a 
competitor who has proven to be a cheat here on Earth, and they 
are going to do that in space. And if we don't move now, we are 
going to hand that field to them.
    Dr. Gosar. So, we are talking about dual use at Resolution 
Copper. My colleague from Arizona brought up Resolution Copper. 
Here is a company that spent $2 billion just cleaning up a mine 
site, making sure they have all the water they need and all of 
that aspect. And here they were going to use robotics at 7,000 
feet and below to mine this copper. This was going to be 
utilized for the future of technological mining on asteroids. 
That would be a dual use, right?
    Dr. Autry. Absolutely, along with autonomous AI robots, as 
Michelle mentioned, to get the kids out of the cobalt mines in 
Africa, and power systems that Dr. Milazzo referred to that 
will have real benefits here on Earth.
    Dr. Gosar. So, I am going to get in another question. What 
is our dollar backed by?
    Dr. Autry. Delusion.
    Dr. Gosar. There you go. But if we actually had a good 
supply of rare Earths, this could be a backing for our holding, 
monetary funding. That is how expensive and how important these 
are. We have even set up a consortium with Canada to try to get 
enough of these around.
    Last but not least, I am aware of some different smelting 
processes that are now being pursued or actually pushed 
forward. Smaller, but they get everything out of the ore. Are 
you familiar with any of these?
    Dr. Autry. It is not my area of expertise, but yes, I am 
familiar with advanced smelting processes. We have seen a 
revolution here in the United States going to electric smelting 
for steel, for instance, at Nucor Steel, and space technology 
presents the opportunity for us to explore unique smelting and 
processing applications.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, I just have to tell you, when I was a 
dentist, the ability to use ceramics on just a disease part was 
amazing. Amazing. I could put something in, and the color 
coding, I would say find it, and it is just amazing what is 
coming around with this technology. And you had firsthand 
knowledge of it.
    With that being said, I thank all the witnesses for your 
valuable testimony and the Members for their questions.
    The members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on December 15. The hearing record will be held open for 
10 business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, I adjourn this meeting.

    [Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Gosar

                        Statement for the Record
                            AstroForge, Inc.

INTRODUCTION:

    AstroForge is a commercial deep space mining company focused on 
extracting critical minerals from asteroids. Our mission is to 
autonomously mine Near-Earth Asteroids (NEAs) for precious and rare-
earth metals with the intent of aiming to reduce the United States' 
dependence on foreign critical mineral supply chains. Our first 
mission, a prototype of our in-space refinery, launched in April 2023 
and is currently in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Our second mission, which 
will target, track, and image a Metallic asteroid approximately 30 
million miles away, will launch in Spring of 2024.

    Currently, the United States relies on geopolitical adversaries for 
these materials, sourced through traditional mining and refining 
methods.\1\ Critical minerals like Platinum, Iridium, and Cobalt, are 
fundamental raw materials that modern technologies rely on \2\--they 
are abundant on asteroids \3\--but without steady access to supply and 
transparent pricing here on Earth, our technological progress and 
industrial base will be severely and irreparably weakened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See e.g., Critical mineral resources of the United States--
Economic and environmental geology and prospects for future supply: 
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802 (Klaus J. Schulz, John 
H. DeYoung, Jr., Robert R. Seal II & Dwight C. Bradley eds., 2017), 
http://doi.org/10.3133/pp1802; Sara Schonhardt & E&E News, U.S. Looks 
to Mongolia, Wedged between China and Russia, for Critical Minerals, 
Sci. Amer. (Jul. 31, 2023), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/
u-s-looks-to-mongolia-wedged-between-china-and-russia-for-critical-
minerals/.
    \2\ Notice of Final Determination on 2023 DOE Critical Materials 
List, 6450-01-P, U.S. Dep't Energy (July 28, 2023), https://
www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/preprint-frn-2023-critical-
materials-list.pdf; Press Release, U.S. Geological Survey Releases 2022 
List of Critical Minerals, U.S. Geological Survey (February 22, 2022), 
https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/us-geological-survey-
releases-2022-list-critical-minerals.
    \3\ Kevin M. Cannon, Matt Gialich & Jose Acain, Precious and 
structural metals on asteroids, 225 Planetary & Space Sci. (Jan. 2023), 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063322001945.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS ASTEROID MINING POSSIBLE?

    Short answer: Based on recent missions, advances in deep space 
exploration and technology, and coupled with the United States' 
trademark ingenuity, we think it will be very possible--not in 60 
years, but before the end of this decade.

    The skepticism around asteroid-related missions is understandable, 
given the complexity and novelty of space exploration. However, there 
have been several successful government-led missions to asteroids that 
highlight our growing capabilities in space technology and exploration.

    The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) executed two 
successful missions, Hayabusa \4\ and Hayabusa2,\5\ which both 
collected samples from asteroids. The National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) executed three successful missions, NEAR 
Shoemaker,\6\ DART,\7\ and OSIRIS-REx,\8\ which accomplished a range of 
asteroid related objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Nat. Aeronautics & Space Admin., Hayabusa, https://
science.nasa.gov/mission/hayabusa/ (last accessed Dec. 26, 2023).
    \5\ Nat. Aeronautics & Space Admin., Hayabusa2, https://
science.nasa.gov/mission/hayabusa-2/ (last accessed Dec. 26, 2023).
    \6\ Nat. Aeronautics & Space Admin., NEAR Shoemaker, https://
science.nasa.gov/mission/near-shoemaker/ (last accessed Dec. 26, 2023).
    \7\ Nat. Aeronautics & Space Admin., Double Asteroid Redirection 
Test (DART), https://science.nasa.gov/mission/dart/ (last accessed Dec. 
26, 2023).
    \8\ Nat. Aeronautics & Space Admin., OSIRIS-REx, https://
science.nasa.gov/mission/osiris-rex/ (last accessed Dec. 26, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Government-led missions to explore asteroids have been a huge 
success. However, past commercial ventures to mine asteroids have 
failed for two big reasons:

  1.  Launch costs were too high. 10+ years ago, launch costs were as 
            much as 13,000% more expensive. This dramatic reduction in 
            costs, coupled with a more robust space economy, allows 
            AstroForge to use its resources on focused innovations.

  2.  Focus on inefficient off-asteroid mining and refining. Past 
            commercial asteroid mining endeavors revolved around 
            hauling large chunks of asteroids closer to Earth to refine 
            them, which is simply not energy efficient or cost 
            effective. Our proprietary approach to mining and refining 
            asteroids in-situ is better.

    There is still significant work to be done to scale these endeavors 
to match the capacity of mining critical minerals that would 
substantially benefit the United States. The path forward is getting 
clearer and can be strengthened with government support. We continue to 
innovate each day to make this a reality.

OUR APPROACH TO ASTEROID MINING

    Boiling it down, AstroForge's innovative approach to mining in deep 
space involves three fundamental moments:

 1.  Targeting Metallic Near-Earth Asteroids: AstroForge aims to dock 
            with these asteroids, which are primarily composed of iron, 
            using electromagnets.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
            
                    Figure #1--Round Trip Mission

 2.  In-Situ Mining and Refining: AstroForge plans to mine and refine 
            precious and rare-earth metals directly on the asteroid. 
            This process includes laser ablation, mass separation using 
            mass spectrometry, and magnetic collection of the refined 
            metals.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
            

                  Figure #2--Prototype forge, currently in low 
earth orbit.
 3.  Return to Earth: After extracting approximately a metric ton of 
            precious and rare-earth metals, which are currently valued 
            between $70M to $100M, the mission will return to Earth.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
            

                  Figure #3--Launch vehicle test for second 
mission in 2024

    Our ideal mission profile, illustrated in Figure #1, is 
approximately two years. In the ideal end-state of our technology, we 
will have many autonomous missions occurring simultaneously to maximize 
success and the volume of collection.

WHY SHOULD THIS COMMITTEE ACT NOW?

    The House Committee on Natural Resources is uniquely positioned to 
support this innovation since space resources are natural resources. In 
the not-so-distant future, innovations in space mining will also 
trickle down into terrestrial mining, creating a dual-use innovation 
loop that the United States has successfully created in the past and 
led to ground-breaking technologies like GPS, memory foam, and LEDs.

    Nearly all modern technology relies on precious and rare-earth 
metals. To keep pace with consumer demand, technological innovation, 
and a dwindling terrestrial supply, the United States needs to develop 
better ways to consistently access these critical resources. America's 
boundless innovation is its super power, however the raw materials to 
fuel that innovation could be a severe bottleneck to the future of 
computer chips, green technology, and energy independence. The 
Department of Energy has listed multiple precious and rare-earth 
minerals as ``critical'' on the path toward the United States' 2050 
climate change goals.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See U.S. Dep't Energy, What Are Critical Materials and Critical 
Minerals?, https://www.energy.gov/cmm/what-are-critical-materials-and-
critical-minerals#::text=Critical%20 
materials%20for%20energy%3A%20aluminum,silicon%2C%20silicon%20carbide%20
and%20 terbium (last accessed Dec. 27, 2023).

    Our imperative to innovate is made even more clear by geopolitical 
pressures to our critical mineral supply chain. Right now, China and 
Russia control or influence the mining and refining process of many of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the critical minerals on which American industry relies.

AMERICA NEEDS TO BE THE FIRST

    The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is trying to mine asteroids 
\10\--we need to do it first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See e.g., Tim Marshall, China's Bid to Win the New Space Race, 
WIRED (Apr. 12, 2023), https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-space-
race.

    If asteroid mining is possible, the United States needs to have 
that first-mover advantage. The United States is already reliant on 
China for many critical minerals and we cannot risk ceding another 
major supply chain for these massively important raw materials.
    In the off-chance that asteroid mining for critical minerals is not 
economically feasible, learning more about deep space and building 
commercial deep space capabilities still has enormous value. The United 
States cannot miss this opportunity for downstream innovations, instead 
we should reap their benefits.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS

    Below are six recommendations to Congress that could rapidly 
advance deep space mining innovation for commercial companies in the 
United States.

  1.  Develop a strategy to support a broader commercial deep space 
            economy that allows commercial companies in the United 
            States to lead and innovate.

  2.  Provide funding for research and development for deep space 
            mining, specifically for the critical minerals that the 
            United States has deemed critical to industry and defense.

  3.  Allocate additional funding to NASA's Space Technology Mission 
            Directorate (STMD), NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts 
            (NIAC) Program, and NASA and JPL's Small Bodies Group, for 
            the continued exploration of near-earth asteroids.

  4.  Clearly direct the United States Space Force to support and 
            protect critical mineral supply chains in deep space.

  5.  Direct the Department of Energy to prioritize deep space mineral 
            acquisition within their critical minerals innovation 
            programs.

  6.  Urge the Department of Commerce to allocate CHIPS funding towards 
            deep space mineral acquisition to bolster raw material 
            availability for chip manufacturing.

CONCLUSION

    AstroForge is ready to engage with the committee to further discuss 
its plans and the broader implications for U.S. leadership in space. We 
believe our mission aligns closely with national interests in 
technology, defense, and economic independence.

                                 [all]