[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
______
FULL BLAST: CONTRASTING MOMENTUM IN THE SPACE MINING ECONOMY
TO THE TERRESTRIAL MINING REGULATORY MORASS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-390 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom McClintock, CA Joe Neguse, CO
Paul Gosar, AZ Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, ASA Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Daniel Webster, FL Val T. Hoyle, OR
Doug LaMalfa, C Seth Magaziner, RI
Russ Fulcher, ID Jared Golden, ME
Pete Stauber, MN Dave Min, CA
Tom Tiffany, WI Maxine Dexter, OR
Lauren Boebert, CO Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Jen Kiggans, VA Emily Randall, WA
Cliff Bentz, OR Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Sarah Elfreth, MD
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Adam Gray, CA
Mike Collins, GA Luz Rivas, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Mark Amodei, NV Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Tim Walberg, MI Debbie Dingell, MI
Darren Soto, FL
Mike Ezell, MS Julia Brownley, CA
Celeste Maloy, UT
Addison McDowell, NC
Jeff Crank, CO
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Mike Kennedy, UT
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
William David, Chief Counsel
Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
LAUREN BOEBERT, CO, Vice Chair
MAXINE DEXTER, OR, Ranking Member
Lauren Boebert, CO Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Mike Collins, GA Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Mark Amodei, NV Vacancy
Nick Begich, AK Jared Huffman, CA, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing Memo..................................................... v
Hearing held on Tuesday, February 25, 2025....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona................................................. 1
Dexter, Hon. Maxine, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 3
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Cabrera, Misael, Director and Professor of Practice, School
of Mining and Mineral Resources, the University of Arizona. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Supplemental testimony submitted for the record.......... 11
Place, Steven, Senior Policy Advisor, AstroForge............. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Painter, Richard, Professor of Corporate Law, University of
Minnesota Law School....................................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Questions submitted for the record....................... 21
Shroff, Saurav, CEO, Starpath................................ 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar
Black Moon Energy Corporation, letter to the Committee... 46
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9999.001
.epsTo: House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members
From: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Staff, Michelle
Lane ([email protected]) and Lucas Drill
(Lucas.Drill@mail. house.gov) x52761
Date: February 24, 2025
Subject: Oversight Hearing titled ``Contrasting Momentum in the Space
Mining Economy to the Terrestrial Mining Regulatory Morass''
________________________________________________________________________
_______
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold an
oversight hearing titled ``Contrasting Momentum in the Space Mining
Economy to the Terrestrial Mining Regulatory Morass'' on Tuesday,
February 25, 2025, at 10:15 a.m. in 1324 Longworth House Office
Building.
Member offices are requested to notify Cross Thompson
([email protected]) by 4:30 p.m. on February 24 if their
Member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
Minerals, particularly critical minerals, are vital to
life today, tomorrow, and into the future.
Although the U.S. has countless mineral deposits within
its borders, long permitting timelines and anti-mining
policies advanced by progressive NGOs and previous
administrations have stymied domestic mining activity.
While timelines for developing domestic mining resources
grow, foreign adversaries like China increase their
foothold on the worldwide supply chain of production,
processing, and refining of critical and hardrock minerals,
making U.S. domestic supply chains increasingly vulnerable.
American space mining companies are leading a
technological revolution that may soon enable the
financially viable mining of natural resources from
celestial bodies.
The time is now to embrace both permitting reform for
domestic mining and new technologies that will ultimately
benefit all forms of mining as the United States seeks to
secure its domestic mineral supply chains.
II WITNESSES
Mr. Misael Cabrera, Director, Professor of Practice,
School of Mining and Mineral Resources, The University of
Arizona, Tucson, AZ
Mr. Steven Place, Senior Policy Advisor, AstroForge,
Washington, DC
Mr. Saurav Shroff, CEO, Starpath, Hawthorne, CA
Mr. Richard Painter, Professor of Corporate Law,
University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN
(Minority witness)
III BACKGROUND
Minerals are Vital to Modern Life
Minerals, particularly those listed as critical minerals by the
Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), are
integral to our modern way of life and will remain essential
indefinitely. Critical and other hardrock minerals are used in
countless applications, including consumer electronics, medical
devices, satellites, and military technologies essential to national
security. Minerals are also imperative to the development and use of
alternative energy technologies, including batteries.
The global demand for minerals is expected to rise exponentially in
the decades ahead. Notably, according to the World Bank, the growing
demand for minerals will increase nearly 500% by 2050.1 The
growing demand for minerals strongly correlates to the growing demand
for energy technologies such as EV batteries, solar photovoltaic (PV),
wind, and geothermal energy, which are more mineral-intensive than
fossil fuel technologies.2 Climate goals further drive the
demand for minerals. For instance, to achieve net-zero emissions
globally by 2050, the world will require a sixfold increase in mining
by 2040.3 Moreover, as new technologies that are yet to be
imagined materialize, the demand for mined minerals will only increase.
Yet, despite widespread acknowledgment of the importance of
critical and other hardrock minerals to our future, as well as mapped
mineral systems covering every state in the U.S.,4 America's
mineral supply chain is suffering. Due largely to permitting delays and
legislative restrictions that discourage domestic investment and
restrict long-term mineral supply, mineral extraction in the U.S. is
nonsensically slow.5 In fact, a 2024 study by S&P Global
found that U.S. critical mineral projects take an average of 29 years
from discovery to production--the second-longest in the
world.6 Only Zambia is less efficient in mining minerals
within its own borders.7 Worse yet, U.S.-based mining
projects also lose over one-third of their value due to delays during
the permitting process.8 Because of these self-inflicted
wounds, the United States is almost entirely reliant on foreign nations
to feed its need for minerals.
Dependence on Foreign Nations for Minerals Presents Serious Economic,
National Security, and Humanitarian Threats
The United States is alarmingly dependent on foreign nations to
meet its mineral demand. Of the 50 minerals identified by the U.S.
government as critical, America imports more than half of its supply
for 29 of them and all of its supplies for 12 more.9
Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, China dominates the world market in
both raw and refined products.10
Chinese mineral supply chains account for approximately 60% of
worldwide production and 85% of processing and refining
capacity.11 The United States is import-reliant on China for
26 of the 50 minerals 12 designated as
critical.13 China also dominates mineral refining,
accounting for 85-90% of global rare earth element mine-to-metal
refining.14 Notably, China refines 80% of the world's
cobalt, 60% of the world's lithium,15 and 65% of the world's
nickel,16 critical minerals that are integral for modern
technology and electric vehicles.
Relying on foreign nations, particularly China, for minerals has
clear economic, national security, and humanitarian implications. China
has repeatedly used its mineral supply dominance to strategically flood
markets, stifle foreign competition, and cripple industries through
export bans. For example, in 2023, after new Chinese-backed production
drove a steep decline in cobalt prices, Idaho Cobalt Operations (ICO),
America's only cobalt mine, was forced to suspend construction mere
weeks before it came online.17 Additionally, Chinese export
bans have pummeled U.S. mineral supply chains. In July 2023, China
curbed gallium and germanium exports, followed by high-purity and high-
quality graphite and rare earth elements mining, mineral processing,
and smelting technology later in the year.18 On August 14,
2024, China issued export restrictions on antimony, a mineral vital for
the defense industry.19 On December 3, 2024, China announced
export bans on ``dual-use'' technologies explicitly targeted at the
U.S. after the U.S. took steps to limit exports of semiconductor and
artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to China.20
Furthermore, whereas U.S. labor and environmental protections are
among the best in the world, China's and many other mineral-producing
nations are among the worst. For example, China-backed operations in
Congo have well-documented cases of forced and child labor in the
mining sector, with labor practices often labeled ``modern-day
slavery.'' 21 Similarly, workers in China-financed
industrial parks in Indonesia face abuses like unsafe conditions,
deceptive requitement, unpaid wages, restricted movement, and even
physical violence as a means of punishment.22
The United States cannot allow foreign governments to continue
locking mineral supply chains in a stranglehold. Instead, the U.S.
approach to mining ought to be two-fold: (1) streamline permitting and
mining processes to expand domestic mineral extraction; and (2) embrace
American companies investing in new technologies to expand American
mineral production.
Space Mining
Definitionally, space mining refers to mining for resources on
celestial bodies like moons, asteroids, and planets. Specifically, the
term ``space mining'' refers to two categories of activities:
1. Extractive Mining for Commercial Purposes: The extraction of
resources from asteroids, the Moon, Mars, or other celestial bodies and
their return to the Earth for commercial purposes. Examples include
mining asteroids for critical minerals and precious metals, such as
lithium, platinum, and rhodium.
2. In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU): Resources are extracted
from a celestial body to be used for other in-space
activities.23 An example includes mining for water on the
Moon to make fuel for lunar activity or a permanent Moon
presence.24
Domestic Governance Frameworks for Space Mining
51 U.S.C. Sec. 51302 directs the federal government to facilitate
and promote ``commercial recovery of space resources'' and to
discourage government barriers to such activities. Per 51 U.S.C.
Sec. 51303, U.S. commercial entities are entitled to any space
resources they obtain, including the use or sale of those resources.
USGS plays a key role in achieving 51 U.S.C. Sec. 51302's goals.
Foundationally, USGS is tasked with ``examination of the geological
structure, mineral resources, and products of the national domain.''
25 In 1962, Congress extended USGS' jurisdiction to include
resources ``outside the national domain'' if DOI determined that those
resources were important to national interests.26 One year
later, USGS founded its Astrology Science Center, which researches
planetary geology and maps celestial bodies.27 In 2015, USGS
explicitly applied its jurisdiction to space.28
Importantly, USGS actively analyzes natural resources on asteroids,
the moon, and other celestial bodies to, among other things, help
develop the domestic framework for space mining.29
Executive Order 13914, Encouraging International Support for the
Recovery and Use of Space Resources, was issued in April 2020 and
directed the Department of State, Department of Commerce, and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to take appropriate actions
to encourage international support for public and private recovery and
use of space resources.30 Other countries have also
``enacted domestic legislation permitting and regulating space mining
activities,'' such as Japan, Luxembourg, and the United Arab
Emirates.31
International Governance Frameworks for Space Mining
There are three main international governance frameworks for space
mining: the Outer Space Treaty, the Moon Agreement, and the Artemis
Accords.32
1. Outer Space Treaty: The Outer Space Treaty, executed in 1967, is
the foundational treaty governing space activities, with over 100
countries as signatories.33 Articles I and II of the Outer
Space Treaty pertain to space mining and ISRU. These Articles establish
outer space as the ``province of all mankind'' and prevent claims of
sovereignty in space.34
2. Moon Agreement: The Moon Agreement, signed in 1979 and executed
in 1984, is a multilateral agreement with 11 signatories.35
Article 11 of the Agreement states that the surface and subsurface of
the Moon and its resources cannot become the property of any country,
intergovernmental organization, or non-governmental
entity.36 The United States, Russia, and China have not
signed the Moon Agreement.
3. Artemis Accords: The Artemis Accords, initiated in 2020, are a
U.S.-led, non-binding multilateral agreement among nations that
establishes a set of principles and guidelines for space
exploration.37 Signing the Artemis Accords is a prerequisite
for participation in NASA's Artemis program, a robotic and human lunar
exploration program.38 Section 10 of the Artemis Accords
directs signatories to extract and utilize space resources in
accordance with the Outer Space Treaty.39
Space Mining Has Almost Limitless Potential
Natural resources on the Moon, Mars, and asteroids may improve
conditions on Earth and allow humanity to expand further into
space.40 Celestial bodies, such as moons and asteroids,
contain potentially enormous amounts of metals and minerals. For
example, the average geological concentration of certain metals is much
higher in metallic asteroids than on Earth.41 Researchers at
the Colorado School of Mines and the International Monetary Fund found
evidence that this is especially true for critical minerals such as
cobalt, nickel, platinum, and other metals.42 Notably, the
study found that metallic asteroids contain more than a thousand times
as much nickel as the Earth's crust in terms of grams per metric
ton.43
The density and abundance of minerals on celestial bodies makes the
economic potential for space mining almost incomprehensible. Asterank,
an asteroid database project that studies asteroid composition and
measures the potential value of over 6,000 asteroids that NASA
currently tracks, has determined that mining just the top 10 most cost-
effective asteroids, those that are both closest to Earth and greatest
in value, would produce a profit of around $1.5 trillion.44
Space Mining Supplements Mining on Earth
An emerging technology, mining minerals in space is currently not
possible without crucial support from the domestic mining industry. For
example, American space mining companies typically ``rideshare'' on
commercial spaceflight operations, many of whom utilize a large
quantity of stainless steel in building their rockets.45 The
mining companies themselves often build their own robotics systems,
which use both ``off the shelf'' and proprietary components, some of
which, like most modern communications systems, require critical and
rare earth minerals.46
In due course, the resources extracted from celestial bodies may
directly benefit domestic mining operations by increasing the
availability of necessary minerals. While regulatory burdens continue
to slow mining in the United States, foreign nations like China choke
off exports, and existing domestic mineral supplies shrink, minerals
mined in space could be used on Earth to build chips and machinery
necessary to support terrestrial mining and other industries.
The technologies developed for mining in space can be used to
advance domestic mining, improving operations. For example, advanced
imaging systems used to identify celestial bodies ideal for mining can
be used on Earth to more effectively identify the locations of natural
resources beneath the Earth's surface.47 Other technologies
with potentially significant crossover include robotics for surface and
subterranean exploration and material extraction, advanced navigation
systems, life support systems and lasers to break up extracted
materials.48
That advancements in space mining can and do benefit terrestrial
mining operations can be seen by observing coordination between the
domestic and space mining industries. Companies like Caterpillar and
Rio Tinto have not only invested in applying their existing mining
technologies to mining in space, but also in understanding how novel
space mining technologies can be applied to projects on Earth in harsh
conditions where modern machinery being used struggles to perform
adequately.49
Space Mining is a Reality, not a Pipe Dream
In contrast to the federal regulatory morass that stymies domestic
development of America's mineral resources, mineral extraction in space
is moving rapidly. Though this may seem like a far-off concept, private
industry in the U.S. has driven novel technological developments,
increased manufacturing capacity for spacecraft, and implemented ride-
share-like programs for rocket launches to reduce costs and timelines
for space missions.50 As a result of these developments,
U.S. companies like AstroForge, Karman+, Black Moon Energy Corporation,
and Starpath Robotics, are actively pursuing space mineral extraction
and are creating supply chains in space, with several promising
missions scheduled over the next few years.51
Not only can the minerals mined in space eventually be brought back
to bolster supply chains in the United States, but the technologies
developed for mining in harsh deep space conditions can be applied to
modern mining projects on Earth to more easily access and process
minerals.
In addition, mineral extraction in space also has the potential to
provide minerals, fuels, and elements that are not readily accessible
on earth, particularly Helium-3.52 Helium-3 is a non-
radioactive isotope that is identified as an ``ideal fuel for the
operation of a fusion reactor.'' 53 The significant presence
of Helium-3 on the Moon was initially confirmed by ``lunar samples
brought back to Earth from the Apollo 11, 12, 14-17 missions and the
Luna 16 and 20 missions.'' 54 The Black Moon Energy
Corporation (BMEC) has estimated that the Helium-3 gross resource on
the Moon is approximately 1.7 million metric tons.55 BMEC
has developed a plan to ``delineate and retrieve the Helium-3 resource
from the lunar surface and bring it to Earth'' for use in fusion
reactors.56
These efforts collectively represent a first step for the space
mining industry and a giant leap for mankind's ability to use natural
resources found in our universe effectively. As technology progresses
at a rapid pace, costs are further reduced, and collaboration in the
industry continues, the U.S. could not only develop the ability to
harness vast space resources but also apply these technologies to
mining operations on Earth to secure U.S. mineral supply chains.
Like most sectors, the mining industry has historically been driven
by new and innovative technology. Today, promising new technologies in
mapping, data, refining efficiencies, and more promise to upend the
industry just as updates in machinery, robotics, and basic safety
equipment did in years past.57 The time is now to embrace
both permitting reform for domestic mining and new technologies that
will ultimately benefit all forms of mining as the United States seeks
to secure its domestic supply chain. This is crucial not only for
developing emerging technologies but also for ensuring national
security.
.eps
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FULL BLAST: CONTRASTING MOMENTUM IN THE SPACE
MINING ECONOMY TO THE TERRESTRIAL MINING REGULATORY MORASS
----------
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gosar, Collins, Begich; Dexter,
Hernandez, and Huffman.
Also present: Representative Stauber.
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 Full
Blast: Contrasting Momentum in the Space Mining Economy to the
Terrestrial Mining Regulatory Morass.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
Therefore, I 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 ask unanimous consent that the following Members be
allowed to sit and participate in today's hearing: the
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Good morning everyone, and thanks to all our
witnesses who have traveled today to testify on this important
issue, contrasting momentum in the space mining economy to the
terrestrial mining regulatory morass. I would especially like
to welcome Professor Cabrera, who traveled here from the
University of Arizona. Thank you.
Last Congress the Committee held the first congressional
hearing on the prospect of extracting resources, including
critical minerals, in space. In the 119th Congress, with a new
administration in place that prioritizes development of our
Nation's resources, the time is ripe not only to revisit this
conversation from the perspective of both domestic and space
mining. Earlier this year news reports suggested a slightly
decent likelihood of an asteroid hurtling towards Earth until
further analysis greatly diminished that possibility. But it
could have been true. We could have been reliving, you know,
that movie.
While that is certainly a relief, the 1998 movie
Armageddon, which featured drilling on an asteroid, it no
longer seems like that is something from science fiction.
However, I am glad to say we were able to look at mining on
asteroids as a potential supply chain issue and national
security issue, rather than a last-minute need to save the
Earth.
But back to our purpose today. On his first day in office
President Trump, through several executive orders, declared a
national energy emergency and directed the Federal Government
to unleash our energy resources including critical minerals,
and to restore America's energy dominance.
Under previous weak leadership and misguided policies,
America ceded our ability to extract, refine, and process
critical minerals that are necessary for a vast array of modern
technologies. Filling this vacuum, China has risen to dominate
critical minerals supply chains worldwide. Instead of investing
in resource development to combat China, the feckless Biden
administration chose to double down on their misguided climate
policies, cancel or delay countless projects across the Nation,
and further encumber the Federal permitting process.
Due to the burdens of Federal permitting process, companies
that wish to extract minerals in the United States commonly
face decades-long timelines that makes the development of
natural resources nearly impossible to achieve. As American
companies fight to break through the Federal regulatory morass
that has held domestic resources development back for far too
long, this Committee is committed to working with the Trump
administration to knock down barriers and unleash our true
potential.
President Trump has made that clear, that while we will
unleash the golden era of American energy dominance, we must
also look to humanity's future in the stars. In his
inauguration address, President Trump stated that America will
``pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching
American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the
planet Mars.''
There is a reason China is so invested in space. It is
estimated that mining just the top 10 most cost-effective
asteroids, those that are both closest to the Earth and the
greatest in value, could produce a profit of around $1.5
trillion. Celestial bodies such as moons and asteroids contain
potentially enormous amounts of critical minerals, rare earths,
metals, and game-changing elements like helium-3, which has the
potential to power our future here on Earth through fusion
technology.
What seems like a far-off concept is no longer so. Resource
extraction in space is right around the corner, and America
must seize on that issue. In contrast to the regulatory morass
holding back our mining industry, a lighter regulatory
footprint has allowed the space resource industry to set a
rapid pace for development and innovation. Now our Nation is
well poised to harness the vast resources of space.
Since our last hearing a bit over a year ago, the space
resource extraction industry has made incredible progress with
new technological developments, increased manufacturing
capacity, and ride-share for launches, among other efforts
leading to reduced costs and shortened timelines for space
missions that will represent the first steps in establishing
mineral extraction and supply chains in space.
As we speak, American space mining companies are
aggressively pursuing the establishment of the first mineral
supply chain in space through the vast helium-3 reserves found
on the moon before China can do so. I challenge my colleagues
in this room to think about the powerful economic and national
security implications of these missions and profound duty to
ensure that both the domestic and space mining industries are
supported as they seek permitting reform as well as innovation
in their fields.
As we work to continue to unleash America's dominant
domestic resource development, we also work to keep government
out of the way in order to encourage the innovation and
progress that is needed. I look forward to this conversation
today.
And with that I recognize the Ranking Member for her
opening statement.
Doctor.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAXINE DEXTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for joining us today.
There is a debate to be had about whether space mining is
legal. We could discuss whether it is technologically feasible,
economical, within our jurisdiction, or if it is even safe. But
the key question for today is whether investing in such an
expensive venture at this time is necessary to meet our
critical mineral needs. The answer to that question is
decidedly no.
There have been dozens of hearings about how to meet our
critical and mineral needs in this Committee. Our side has
shown repeatedly that, through a whole supply chain approach
including recycling, a circular economy, product redesign,
treaties with other countries that have critical minerals, and,
yes, prudent and regulated new mines in the U.S., we have the
resources we need. The Government Accountability Office has
reached the same conclusion.
The Biden administration was taking numerous steps in the
right direction on all these fronts. The Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act provided vital investment funds to make
these advancements possible. My colleagues opposed both the
infrastructure bill and the Biden administration actions. In
fact, they are now actively working to tear them down, setting
back our country's efforts to secure critical minerals.
Now the majority is inviting companies to this Committee
with hat in hand, asking for billions and billions of tax
dollars, taxpayer dollars for an endeavor that is not necessary
to meet our critical mineral needs. They are pursuing these
unnecessary and expensive endeavors at a time when Elon Musk is
cutting billions of dollars and thousands of staff from our
government, cuts that represent actual threats to our economy,
national security, ability to address the climate crisis, and
our basic humanity.
If Musk thinks government spending is so out of control,
surely he would think space mining funding to be frivolous,
too, and cut Federal funding to the public and private sector
for it. But this is where the conflicts of interest truly shine
through. It turns out that being the leader of the so-called
Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, could prove very
beneficial for Elon Musk and his companies, even as it
devastates working families all over this country.
While Musk has been firing tens of thousands of our hard-
working public servants, he also has had over a dozen open
investigations into unsafe and unfair labor practices at both
Tesla and SpaceX. He has severed funding and is shuttering our
government agencies, even as he continues to add to his own
fortune of Federal Government contracts, contracts that now
total well over $20 billion. He demands total access to the
confidential databases of Federal agencies, including the IRS,
even as he was investigated for having covert meetings with
Putin and the Chinese Communist Party. He has $1.4 billion in
loans with the Chinese Government. He sends out emails
demanding employees justify their jobs in five bullet points,
creating a climate of fear and intimidation in the very
agencies charged with enforcing safety, health, and consumer
protections against his companies. Already, investigations into
his companies are starting to disappear.
Behind me, articles from the New York Times tell the story
nicely.
[Slide.]
Dr. Dexter. This one tells where his investments and the
money is coming from.
[Slide.]
Dr. Dexter. And the other is where Musk conflicts may be
lying. Sorry, I am trying to point and read at the same time.
The web of conflicts is far more extensive than I could explain
in only 5 minutes.
How does getting access to every American's tax information
help Musk increase government efficiency?
How does Musk getting access to the confidential business
information of his competitors lower the price of groceries for
Americans?
How does canceling investigations into Musk's companies
advance the priorities and dreams of the American people?
There are laws and even an agency, the Office of Government
Ethics, to deal with conflicts of interest like some of these
and many others. Typically, a government official with the
authority Musk has been given would be required to undergo a
process to ensure his investments are not clouding his
judgment. But so far he has provided no evidence that his
conflicts of interest are being investigated or supervised. He
hasn't faced questions from the nomination and Senate
confirmation process. He hasn't divested from his companies. He
hasn't even disclosed his holdings.
The White House press secretary indicated he would be
deciding whether and when to take action about his conflicts. I
suspect he will do nothing at all.
The damage he is wreaking on our working families has
already been incalculable. It will get worse over time, even if
stopped today. Are we to believe this is what the American
people voted for? I don't think so, and the polls confirm it.
Musk should divest or depart.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman. The gentleman from
California, the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, is now
recognized for his 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Greetings, Earthlings. For those who have been longing for
a sequel to the movie Spaceballs, this is your lucky day. For
everyone else, we can marvel at just how incredibly tone deaf
House Republicans are.
Here on Earth, Starman Musk's directives are doing real
harm to working families. Non-profits that provide food and
services to veterans, rural health clinics, food banks, many
others are laying off staff and suspending programs. The
National Park Service is trying to figure out how to run our
national parks this summer during tourist season with rangers
and biologists cleaning toilets. Fire safety projects are
suspended all over the West. We can't hire Federal
firefighters. We are on the verge of heading into fire season
woefully under-prepared and under-staffed.
This is a moment that screams out for congressional
oversight. We don't have inspectors general anymore because
Donald Trump fired them illegally. So if ever there was a
moment when Congress should be looking for waste, fraud, and
abuse, real waste, fraud, and abuse, and asking hard questions,
this is it. But instead we get Spaceballs 2. Not only a waste
of this Committee's time, but a tortured stretch of
jurisdiction.
The Natural Resources Committee has no jurisdiction over
space. But Republicans today are going to use it as an excuse
to pivot back to their favorite subject: attacking
environmental laws, claiming that regulations are bad because
when your only tool is that particular hammer, absolutely
everything looks like a nail, including space, apparently.
Why are we here? Why are we giving a national platform to
the AstroForge Corporation to make a pitch to venture
capitalists to raise money and to ask for Federal Government
subsidies, which is right here in Mr. Place's testimonies?
Let's see, underwrite a price floor, expand the energy loan
program for space mining. I mean, it does take some space balls
in this moment to come in and ask for Federal money, but that
is what we have got.
You know, it is getting hard to raise money, I think, for
space mining these days. Google and others are pulling back.
They are tired of lighting their money on fire. So what better
way to please Elon, who makes some of his money from
AstroForge, than to have a hearing like this to make it look
like space mining is a real thing, and to give them a platform
to pitch to the VCs? Get in on the ground floor.
No coincidence that this week one of Musk's SpaceX rockets
will launch a spacecraft developed by a mining startup,
AstroForge, as it turns out. They are seeking to make asteroid
mining a thing. Musk's companies, of course, reap immense
profits from taxpayer-funded contracts. SpaceX alone has
secured about $15 billion in NASA contracts, making it the
agency's largest private contractor. The Department of Defense
already relies heavily on SpaceX to launch satellites. In
total, Musk's 7 companies have received at least $20 billion in
government contracts and subsidies.
But despite all of this dependency and largesse for Mr.
Musk, he constantly works to weaken regulatory oversight to his
own financial benefit while simultaneously undermining the
various agencies tasked with holding him accountable. And now,
worse, inserting himself into these agencies, plundering the
data, feeding it into his AI model so that Grok can someday
replace many of these Federal employees. That is the conflict
of interest raging before our eyes, and our Republican
colleagues are whistling past the ethical graveyard.
Meanwhile, Mr. Musk, as he works to perfect this Grok AI
model, has been granted insane and illegal access to Federal
data and sensitive information. DOGE officials reportedly have
unrestricted access to NASA's personnel and contracting files.
This raises the disturbing possibility that SpaceX and other
Musk companies could gather proprietary information to give
themselves an advantage over competitors. This is a moment that
really does scream out for real oversight instead of
Spaceballs.
But at least we can say this about this brave, new dystopic
world that Elon Musk is bringing us. Clearly, we now have a
virtual Congress completely uninterested in fulfilling its
Article I responsibilities.
I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. I thought this hearing
was about mining. Wasn't it that? Not Elon Musk.
I am now going to introduce our witnesses.
Mr. Misael Cabrera, Director and Professor of School of
Mining and Mineral Resources at the University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona. Thank you.
Mr. Steven Place, Senior Policy Advisor, AstroForge,
Washington, D.C. I am sure you are going to be getting some
questions.
And then Mr. Richard Painter, Professor of Corporate Law,
University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Good seeing you again, Mr. Painter.
And Mr. Saurav Shroff, CEO, Starpath, Hawthorne,
California. Did I say that right?
Mr. Shroff. You did.
Dr. Gosar. Let me remind the witnesses that under our
Committee Rules we limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but
your entire statement will be placed in the record.
When you start your testimony, you will see a little green
light as it goes. Then, about a minute out, you will see it
turn yellow. When you see it red, kind of wrap it up. If you
could do that, we would appreciate that.
I am going to now recognize Mr. Cabrera for his first 5
minutes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MISAEL CABRERA, DIRECTOR AND PROFESSOR OF
PRACTICE, SCHOOL OF MINING AND MINERAL RESOURCES, THE
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
Mr. Cabrera. Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to this
hearing. It is an honor.
Today I am not speaking on behalf of the university, but as
a private citizen who understands the necessity for abundant
economic minerals for our country's and our planet's future.
Space mining is not the final frontier. Instead, it is the
first way station for deep space exploration and off-planet
minerals. Space mining presents an exciting alternative to the
regulatory and social challenges faced by the mining sector on
Earth.
Given the unprecedented global demand for the U.S.'s
dangerous over-reliance on foreign minerals, exploring space
mining is not just exciting, but wise. The University of
Arizona is well positioned to respond to the emerging space
mining landscape. The university houses innovation hubs like
the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, or LPL; the Arizona Space
Institute; the Space Systems Engineering Laboratory; and the
School of Mining and Mineral Resources.
For example, the LPL led the historic OSIRIS-REx Mission
that launched a rocket into space, navigated to the asteroid
Bennu, collected a sample, and brought it back to Earth. The
mission had little to do with space mining, but demonstrated
that foundational activities for mining asteroids are
plausible, if not yet economic. Analysis of asteroid Bennu
samples found cobalt, nickel, platinum, iridium, and other
metals at an extrapolated value of over $500 billion for the
whole asteroid. However, recovering just 121 grams of material
cost roughly $1.2 billion, an enormously negative return on
investment from a mineral economic standpoint.
Thus, maintaining a robust mineral supply requires that
Earth mining innovate simultaneously, if not ahead of its
celestial counterpart. Break-throughs in remote operations,
automation, AI, renewable energy sources for mining equipment,
water management, and responsible mineral extraction, all
crucial for mining and harsh, water-scarce environments, are
equally applicable to both space and Earth mining.
Further, terrestrial mineral supply undergirds all, yes,
all, technological advancement, including space mining. Thus,
domestic terrestrial mining must undergo dramatic innovation.
This call to action captures the scope and vision of the
Sustainable Mining Innovation and Lifestyle Enrichment
Initiative led by the University of Arizona and 18 educational,
governmental, community, and industrial partners.
However, technological innovation alone cannot unleash
domestic mineral supply. A key factor is streamlining the
Federal permitting process. The infographic I provided shows
that mines on Federal lands may have to adhere to over 50
regulatory requirements and decades-long delays before
producing a single ton of metal.
Another key factor in supply of terrestrial domestic
minerals is judicial reform. A USGS report on rare earth
elements indicates that 47 percent of the mines studied
experienced delays related to court challenges, and that 71
percent of the mines that had not yet achieved production were
involved in litigation. Ensuring that citizens retain the right
to challenge government decisions while eliminating incentives
for abuse and unnecessary delays is long overdue.
As global demand for minerals intensifies, space mining
faces significant cost and technological challenges, while
Earth mining deals with a cumbersome regulatory framework.
Strategic foresight, investment, regulatory modernization, and
scientific advancements are essential for both areas.
Institutions like the University of Arizona are prepared to be
dynamic catalysts, promoting the interdisciplinary solutions
needed to tackle these complex issues. Success depends on
balancing Earth's resources with the potential for space,
guiding humanity towards a future rich in resources and
exploration.
And I am happy to address any questions that you may have.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cabrera follows:]
Prepared Statement of Misael Cabrera, PE
Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to this hearing. My name is
Misael Cabrera, and I serve as the Director of the School of Mining &
Mineral Resources at the University of Arizona. The school was
established to meet the urgent need for responsibly sourced mineral
supplies for future generations. We do this through industry-advancing
research, and by developing the interdisciplinary mining and minerals
workforce of tomorrow. Today, I am not speaking on behalf of the
university but as a private citizen who understands the necessity for
abundant, economic minerals for our country's and our planet's future.
Space mining is not the final frontier; instead, it is the first
way station in revolutionizing deep space exploration and providing
off-world sources of minerals for the human species. Space mining
presents an exciting alternative to the regulatory and social
challenges faced by the mining sector on Earth. Given the unprecedented
global demand for minerals required to support population growth, and
technological advancements in medicine, artificial intelligence (AI)
computing, defense, transportation, and renewable energy, exploring
space mining is not only exciting but also wise. This alternative could
fundamentally change how humanity utilizes resources on and beyond our
planet, especially as mining grapples with increasing environmental and
bureaucratic complexities on Earth. Here in the U.S., the potential for
space mining is further fueled by a growing awareness of our dangerous
over-reliance on foreign sources of critical minerals and the recent
technological advancements in space flight.
In stark contrast to the burgeoning potential of space mining,
Earth extraction is hindered by lengthy permitting delays and court
challenges--especially in the U.S. The exhaustive regulatory regime
means that obtaining approvals for mining operations can span years, if
not decades, severely throttling the introduction of new supply streams
into the global market and domestic supply. Attachment 1 presents the
rigorous regulatory journey for hard rock mines. Mining operations on
federal lands may have to adhere to over 50 regulatory requirements
before producing a single ton of metal. These requirements, coupled
with unimproved administrative processes that implement them, create
decades-long delays that strain the supply chains, making the
possibility of off-world alternatives attractive to both investors and
start-ups.
The regulatory landscape for space mining remains markedly less
developed than its terrestrial counterpart. While providing a
foundational legal framework, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 posits
outer space as the province of all humankind (UNOOSA, 1967). This
treaty offers limited guidance regarding the proprietorship of
celestial resources. A subsequent Moon Treaty sought to prevent
ownership claims over celestial bodies but has received limited
ratification globally, resulting in ambiguous regulatory
interpretations (UNOOSA, 1984). The absence of international regulatory
consensus has opened the doors to legislation in individual countries.
For example, the U.S. Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 empowers
American enterprises in space resource acquisition, fostering a more
structured regulatory trajectory for such operations (U.S. Congress,
2015). Other countries like Luxenberg (Luxembourg Space Agency, 2017)
and Japan (Library of Congress, 2021) have passed similar laws.
Federal and private-sector investments in space exploration further
buoy the current momentum. These investments manifest in billions of
dollars allocated to developing technologies and infrastructures
necessary for successful space mining initiatives (Space Foundation,
2024). This is coupled with many start-ups eager to capitalize on the
emerging space economy's opportunities (Sriram & Singh, 2024).
The state of Arizona and its land grant institution, the University
of Arizona, are well-positioned to respond to the emerging space mining
landscape. The university houses innovation platforms like the Lunar
and Planetary Laboratory, the Arizona Space Institute, the Space
Systems Engineering Laboratory, and the School of Mining & Mineral
Resources. With a long history of space exploration, the university has
contributed to key achievements, from helping Americans reach the moon
in 1969 to developing the first spacecraft to orbit close to the sun in
2018 (Jones, 2021). Additionally, the university participates in the
Arizona Space Commission, established through Arizona House Bill 2254,
which aims to promote research and development in space exploration
(Arizona State Legislature, 2023).
For example, the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory partnered with NASA
to lead the historic OSIRIS-REx \1\ Mission that launched a rocket into
space, navigated to the asteroid Bennu, collected a sample, and safely
brought it back to Earth. The mission aimed to better understand the
early solar system and the origins of life on Earth (Lauretta et al.,
2017), and key insights and discoveries are already being published
(McCoy et al., 2025). An added benefit of the mission is that the
OSIRIS-REx team demonstrated that all the foundational activities for
space mining are plausible, if not yet economic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification,
Security-Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS Rex)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary analysis of asteroid Bennu samples indicates the
presence of iron, cobalt, nickel, platinum, and iridium, among other
metals. Extrapolating the concentrations of the known elements to the
asteroid as a whole and assuming current market prices for metals
suggests that the value of the asteroid Bennu could reach upwards of
$500 billion (Lauretta, personal communication, February 18, 2025). As
exciting as that sounds, the cost to recover just 121 grams of material
from Bennu was roughly $1.2 billion (Fishman, 2023)--millions of
dollars per gram, far greater than the market value of even the most
precious of metals. From a mineral economics perspective, that is an
enormously negative return on investment. The cost of developing
infrastructure conducive to mining in space represents a formidable
obstacle yet to be surmounted. Therefore, ongoing innovation, research,
and investment, especially in cost-effective propulsion and mining in
harsh, waterless environments, remain crucial to transitioning from
plausibility to economic applicability.
History teaches us that economics is as essential as technology in
free societies. For instance, the Detroit Electric sedan, despite
having Clara Ford--wife of the founder of the Ford Motor Company--among
its customers, could not compete with the economy of the Ford Model T
after 1939 (Sadler, 2022). Only recently--roughly four decades later--
have electric vehicles been able to compete with traditional internal
combustion automobiles in the global marketplace. Unfortunately, our
domestic mineral supply cannot wait that long.
Thus, domestic Earth mining must innovate simultaneously, if not
ahead of its celestial counterpart. Breakthroughs in remote operations,
automation, AI, renewable energy sources for mining equipment, water
management, and responsible mineral extraction--all crucial for mining
in harsh, water-scarce environments--are equally applicable to both
space and Earth mining. However, dramatically reducing propulsion
costs, a monumental technological challenge, is uniquely essential to
make space mining economically viable.
Further, an abundant, economic, terrestrial mineral supply must
undergird every technological advancement, including space mining,
until it becomes self-sustaining. Domestic mining can undergo a
revolution by leveraging automation and AI, energy efficiency, green
leaching technologies, waste valorization, reuse, and management,
creating a flywheel of multi-sector benefits for the host communities.
This captures the scope and vision of the Sustainable Mining Innovation
and Lifestyle Enrichment (SMILE) initiative, led by the University of
Arizona in partnership with 18 educational, governmental, and
industrial organizations.
Mining technology innovation alone will not unleash domestic
terrestrial mineral supply--especially in the U.S. A key factor in
developing a reliable domestic minerals supply chain is streamlining
the Federal Government's permitting process. With layers of regulatory
oversight from local, state, and federal levels, it is imperative to
identify and eliminate duplication and waste from mine permitting
without reducing opportunities for public input or limiting the
comprehensiveness of environmental reviews. Real-world experience at
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality demonstrates that up to
90% of the total elapsed time associated with state permitting is
waiting and that permitting time frames for even the most complex
permit can be reduced by 60% or more (ADEQ, 2021).
Similar thought leadership is at the root of the U.S. Federal
Permitting Improvement Steering Council's FAST-41 \2\ process. FAST-41
for Infrastructure Permitting is a ``coordinated framework for
improving the federal environmental review and authorization process,''
and on May 8, 2023, the South32 Hermosa project was the first mining
initiative to gain FAST-41 coverage (Permitting Dashboard, 2023). I
recommend that this process be applied to new major mining and
processing projects that will produce any critical mineral or material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
(FAST-41)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another key factor in the supply of terrestrial domestic minerals
is judicial reform. Ensuring citizens retain the right to challenge
government decisions while eliminating incentives for abuse and
unnecessary delays is long overdue. In 2010, the USGS published a
report on rare earth elements indicating that 47% of the mines
experience delays related to court challenges and that 71% of the mines
that had ``not yet achieved'' production were involved in litigation
(Long et al., 2010). Legislative proposals like the 118th Congress's HR
1 aimed to balance these needs, and I encourage this Congress to
continue developing these concepts.
As global demand for minerals intensifies, space mining faces
significant cost and technological challenges, while Earth mining deals
with a cumbersome regulatory framework. Strategic foresight,
investment, regulatory modernization, and scientific advancements are
essential for both areas. Institutions like the University of Arizona
are prepared to be dynamic catalysts, promoting the interdisciplinary
solutions needed to tackle these complex issues. Success depends on
balancing Earth's resources with the potential of space, guiding
humanity toward a future rich in resources and exploration.
References Cited
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (2021). ADEQ 8-year
continuation fact sheet. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
https://static.azdeq.gov/about/adeq_8yr_continuation_fs.pdf
Arizona State Legislature. (2025). H.B. 2254, 56th Legislature, 2nd
Regular Session. Relating to the Arizona Space Commission. https://
www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2r/bills/hb2254h.htm
Fishman, C. (2023, September 23). How NASA's mission to the Bennu
asteroid happened--and what's next. Fast Company. Retrieved from
https://www.fastcompany.com/90956530/nasa-osiris-rex-bennu-asteroid-
space-mission
H.R. 2262--114th Congress (2015-2016): U.S. Commercial Space Launch
Competitiveness Act. (2015, November 25). https://www.congress.gov/
bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262/text
Jones, S. (2021, May 12). I need space: The history of the
university's involvement in NASA missions. The Daily Wildcat. https://
wildcat.arizona.edu/133857/news/i-need-space-the-history-of-the-
universitys-involvement-in-nasa-missions/
Lauretta, D. S., et al. OSIRIS-REx: sample return from asteroid
(101955) Bennu. Space Science Reviews 212 (2017): 925-984.
Library of Congress. (2021, September 15). Japan: Space Resources
Act enacted. Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-
legal-monitor/2021-09-15/japan-space-resources-act-enacted/
Long, K.R., Van Gosen, B.S., Foley, N.K., & Cordier, D. (2010). The
principal rare earth elements deposits of the United States--A summary
of domestic deposits and a global perspective. U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5220, 96 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/
sir/2010/5220/
Luxembourg Space Agency. (2017, July 20). Law of July 20th, 2017 on
the exploration and use of space resources. Luxembourg Space Agency.
https://space-agency.public.lu/en/agency/legal-framework/law-
space_resources_english_translation. html
McCoy, T.J., Russell, S.S., Zega, T.J., et al. (2025). An evaporite
sequence from ancient brine recorded in Bennu samples. Nature, 637,
1072-1077. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08495-6
Permitting Dashboard, Federal Infrastructure Projects. (2023, July
10). Accessed July 10, 2023. https://www.permits.performance.gov/fpisc-
content/permitting-council-announces-first-ever-critical-minerals-
mining-project-gain-fast-41
Sadler, B. (2022, January 26). The Detroit Electric and its place
in automotive history. MotorCities National Heritage Area*. https://
www.motorcities.org/story-of-the-week/2022/the-detroit-electric-and-
its-place-in-automotive-history
Space Foundation. (2024, July 18). The Space Report 2024 Q2.
https://www.spacefoundation.org/2024/07/18/the-space-report-2024-q2/
Sriram, A., & Singh, J. (2024, April 11). Space startups see
funding surge as government spending remains high, report says.
*Reuters*. https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/space-startups-see-
funding-surge-government-spending-remains-high-report-says-2024-04-11/
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). (1967).
Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the
exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other
celestial bodies. United Nations. https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/
ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. (1984). Agreement
governing the activities of states on the moon and other celestial
bodies. United Nations. https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/
spacelaw/treaties/moon-agreement.html
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9390.001
.eps__
Dr. Gosar. I recognize Mr. Place for 5 minutes.
I didn't even follow my own rules.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN PLACE, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, ASTROFORGE
Mr. Place. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman
Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter, Mr. Huffman, and the rest of the
Committee. My name is Steve Place, and I am the Senior Policy
Advisor for AstroForge, an American asteroid mining company
based in Seal Beach, California.
Tomorrow at 7:15 p.m. Eastern AstroForge will launch the
first privately-funded deep space mission in history. This
mission brings AstroForge one step closer to our goal of
securing critical resources for America. This mission
exemplifies what a small group of dedicated Americans can
achieve when they set out to explore what is possible in space
to improve life here on Earth.
As members of this Committee, you recognize that America's
leadership in manufacturing, energy, and defense requires a
reliable supply of resources. We are here today to urge this
Committee to recognize that asteroid mining must be part of
America's mining future.
Right now 96 percent of platinum group metals comes from
China, Russia, and South Africa. Our modern lives rely on these
critical resources. Smart phones, cars, computers all require
platinum group metals. Our supply is rapidly dwindling, and we
will run out if something does not change. We currently have no
viable alternative to this problem, other than going off world
and looking to space for a solution, and we think America
should lead the way.
The good news is Earth is surrounded by ore-rich bodies
known as metallic asteroids. They contain an almost unlimited
supply of platinum group metals. We know this because our
planet is impacted by thousands of these asteroids every year.
We just call them meteorites. This is not a secret. Our
adversaries are well aware that the future of mineral security
on Earth depends on the ability to secure these resources from
space. We must be the first to develop this technology so our
Nation can lead what will be the most significant shift in raw
material sourcing in human history.
Here is AstroForge's roadmap to make sure that the United
States leads the way. Our first mission in 2023 tested an early
version of our refining technology in low Earth orbit. Tomorrow
our second mission will fly to an asteroid and confirm its
metallic makeup. Our third mission, planned for 2026, just next
year, will land on an asteroid and directly measure its ore
concentration. Once we complete these missions, AstroForge will
manufacture a fleet of small autonomous spacecraft, each about
200 kilograms in size, that can be launched on any available
rocket. These spacecraft will travel to asteroids, land on
them, and will mine and refine the platinum group metals on the
surface of the asteroid itself. We will then transport these
refined materials back to Earth to be sold.
We have five recommendations for this Committee to
champion, recognizing that some of them will require
collaboration with other committees and regulatory bodies.
No. 1, create a space resource consortium to establish a
center of gravity for investment in innovation.
No. 2, underwrite a price floor for off-take agreements or
become the off-taker of last resort for space resource
companies to provide pricing stability. At the end of the day,
both terrestrial and space miners are competing against a
State-backed monopoly like China that dominate and manipulate
spot-driven markets.
No. 3, expand the Department of Energy's loan program to
include space-based critical mineral projects.
No. 4, empower NASA to collaborate with commercial space
companies on deep space missions. The success of NASA's CLPS
mission shows that commercial partnerships work. AstroForge
could enable NASA to do more deep space missions at a much
lower cost.
And finally, No. 5, allow commercial deep space companies
to easily access NASA's Deep Space Network, or DSN.
Communicating with spacecraft at long distances is very
difficult using commercial technology, and making the DSN more
accessible would drive innovation.
We look forward to discussing these recommendations with
you.
I will leave you with this. Future generations will look
back on this moment as an inflection point where America
established its mineral independence. This Subcommittee has the
chance to be remembered as the leaders who saw a glimpse of the
future and decided to help forge it.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Place follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven Place, Senior Policy Advisor,
AstroForge, Inc.
Tomorrow, at 7:15 p.m. Eastern time, AstroForge will launch the
first privately funded deep space mission in history. This mission
brings AstroForge one step closer to our goal of securing critical
resources for America. This mission signifies what a small group of
dedicated Americans can achieve when they set out to explore what's
possible to improve the quality of life here on Earth.
As members of this Committee, you recognize that America's
leadership in manufacturing, energy, and defense requires a reliable
supply of raw resources. We are here today to urge this Committee to
recognize that asteroid mining must be part of America's mining future.
Right now, 96% of Platinum Group Metals come from China, Russia,
and South Africa. \1\ Our daily modern lives rely on the capabilities
enabled from these critical resources--smartphones, cars, and
computers, all require Platinum Group Metals--and our supply is rapidly
dwindling. \2\ We will run out if something does not change. We
currently have no viable solution to this problem other than going off
world and looking to space for the solution. America should lead the
way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cohen. A. (2022, January 13). China And Russia Make Critical
Mineral Grabs in Africa While the U.S. Snoozes. Forbes. https://
www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/01/13/china-and-russia-make-
critical-mineral-grabs-in-africa-while-the-us-snoozes/?sh=55c9cacd6dc4
\2\ Schulte, R.F. (2024). Mineral Commodity Summaries, January
2024. USGS. https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024-platinum-
group.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The good news? Earth is surrounded by ore-rich bodies, known as
metallic asteroids. They contain an almost unlimited supply of the
Platinum Group Metals. We know this because our planet is impacted by
thousands of these asteroids every year, we just refer to them as
meteorites. They contain the highest ore grades ever discovered, and
the leading theory suggests that all known platinum group metal mines
on Earth originated from ancient asteroid impacts.
This is not a secret. Our adversaries are well aware that the
future of mineral security on Earth depends on the ability to secure
these resources from space. \3\ We must be the first to develop this
technology and give our nation a lead in what will be the most
significant shift in raw material sourcing in human history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Aedan Yohannan, ``China's Space Strategy Dwarfs U.S.
Ambitions,'' American Foreign Policy Council, March 11, 2024 https://
www.afpc.org/publications/articles/chinas-space-strategy-dwarfs-u.s-
ambitions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AstroForge's roadmap to make sure the United States leads the way
is as follows: Our first mission in 2023 tested an early version of our
refining technology in Low Earth Orbit.
Tomorrow, our second mission will fly to a near-Earth asteroid and
confirm the asteroid's metallic makeup. \4\ Our third mission, planned
for 2026, will land on an asteroid and directly measure its ore
concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon completion of these three missions, AstroForge will
manufacture a fleet of small autonomous spacecraft, each 200 kg in
size, that can be launched on any available rocket. These spacecraft
will travel to targeted asteroids, land on them, and will mine and
refine the Platinum Group Metals on the surface of the asteroid. We
will then transport these refined materials back to Earth to supply
these necessary materials to drive our nation's industry and commerce.
Our five requests for this Committee to champion are as follows,
recognizing that some of these will require collaboration with other
Committees and regulatory bodies:
1. Create a space resource consortium to align private and public
efforts and create a center of gravity to drive innovation and
investment for space resources.
2. Underwrite a price floor for offtake agreements or become the
offtaker of last resort for space resource companies to de-risk
investments and provide pricing stability, as has been recommended for
the terrestrial mining market. \5\ This is important, because at the
end of the day we are competing against state-backed monopolies like
China that dominate and manipulate spot-driven markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ashley Zumwalt-Forbes, ``Mining Financing Post,'' LinkedIn,
February 15, 2025
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ashleyzumwalt_mining-financing-
infographic-activity-729509295 5868999680-
Q5e?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAALITNoBvvIQW1 Ka-
BqZj_VlInvhGwZe-kc
3. Expand the Department of Energy's Loan Program to include space-
based critical mineral projects. The funding exists but currently
applies only to terrestrial projects. A simple rule change could unlock
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
breakthroughs and new sources of capital.
4. Empower NASA to collaborate with commercial companies on deep
space missions. The success of NASA's CLPS missions show that
commercial partnerships work. AstroForge could enable NASA to do more
deep space missions at a much lower cost.
5. Allow Commercial Deep Space companies to easily access NASA's
Deep Space Network (DSN), communicating to spacecraft at long distances
is very difficult using commercial technology, making the DSN more
accessible would unlock a huge bottleneck.
Future generations will look back on this moment as an inflection
point for America's mineral independence. And this subcommittee has the
chance to be remembered as the leaders who saw a glimpse of the future
and decided to help forge it.
APPENDIX
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9390.004
.eps__
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Place. I now recognize Mr.
Painter for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD PAINTER, PROFESSOR OF CORPORATE LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL
Mr. Painter. Mr. Chairman Gosar and Ranking Member Dexter,
members of the Committee, especially The Honorable Pete Stauber
of the great State of Minnesota, I am very, very pleased to
appear before you today.
I am not an expert on space mining. I have done a lot of
work in corporate finance and corporate law over the years, and
these are intriguing ideas that could yield great economic
benefit and, if pursued at risk, and great risk to investors in
the private sector, the return should go to the investors in
the private sector. If space mining is pursued at the expense
of the taxpayers and at the risk of the U.S. Government, the
taxpayers should receive their due return.
So those who bear the risk should receive the return. And
if there is a joint venture between the corporate world and the
U.S. Government, it is absolutely essential that the bargaining
with respect to risk and return be arm's length bargaining, and
that the U.S. Government officials who are involved with this
process, making decisions about what to do with our money, with
taxpayer money, be free of conflict of interest. That is what
is essential.
I am a government ethics lawyer. I served as the chief
ethics lawyer for the George W. Bush administration. I have
taught law at the University of Minnesota, government ethics,
and corporate law now for almost 18 years. I am not here, of
course, to speak on behalf of the State of Minnesota, my
employer, but to speak out as a citizen about my concern that
taxpayer money be spent on projects that benefit the taxpayer,
and that our government officials be free of conflicts of
interest.
In my written testimony I summarized some of the critically
important rules, the most important of which is the criminal
conflict of interest statute, 18 United States Code 208. I
explained to incoming cabinet officials and White House
officials in the Bush administration it is a criminal offense
for a U.S. Government official to participate in a particular
matter that has a direct and predictable effect on their own
financial interests, including a company they own stock in.
And it is critically important that that rule be enforced
not only by the Justice Department, but proactively by the
executive branch. The Office of Government Ethics plays a
critical role, and I was disappointed to see that the Director
of the Office of Government Ethics was fired a very short time
ago.
The U.S. Congress plays a critical role, as well.
Oversight, that is the role of this Committee and other
committees of both houses, to make sure that criminal conflicts
of interest do not exist in our government, and that every U.S.
Government employee, including special government employees,
complies with the statute.
And second, there are financial disclosure rules that have
been in place since 1978, in the Ethics in Government Act of
1978. Public financial disclosure is required in all three
branches of government. Members of this Committee file a public
financial disclosure form. The top 100 commissioned officers in
the White House fill out a publicly-available financial
disclosure form. And, of course, the judges and justices of our
courts. It is essential that the most important officials in
all three branches of government disclose their finances.
It is inappropriate for the government in the executive
branch or in any branch to appoint someone as a special
government employee, say, well, they are only serving part
time, and therefore we are going to hide the financial
disclosure report if that person is performing functions where
there is a decision-making role in the U.S. Government or an
advisory role to the President of the United States at the
highest levels.
And we need to make sure that the public has access to
information about financial conflicts of interest of government
officials who are involved in space mining or in any other
decisions that affect the American taxpayer. We are paying for
this government with very high rates of taxation in this
country, and now with cutting back many essential services
across the board in our country. And we have a massive Federal
Government deficit, and it is our right as citizens to know
what the financial conflicts of interest are of the people who
are making decisions on behalf of our government, whether it is
about space mining or any other subject matter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Painter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard W. Painter
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee: Thank
you for inviting me to testify today.
I am a law professor at the University of Minnesota, and I was the
chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005
to 2007. I specialize in corporate law, securities regulation, lawyers'
ethics, and government ethics. I am also the Associate Reporter for the
American Law Institute's Principles of Government Ethics which will be
published later this year.
I do not appear before you to advocate for or against space mining.
Mining here on earth is important to our economy and national security,
although some proposed projects involve unacceptable environmental
risks. Arne Carlson, a former Republican Governor of Minnesota, and I
have expressed concern about proposals by foreign billionaires to open
sulfide mines near the Boundary Waters. \1\ If space mining is an
alternative that will increase supply of precious metals at reasonable
cost, it is a concept worth exploring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Colleen Connolly, Former Gov. Arne Carlson is 88 and battling a
massive mining conglomerate, Minnesota Reformer, June 8, 2023, https://
minnesotareformer.com/2023/06/08/former-gov-arne-carlson-is-88-and-
battling-a-massive-mining-conglomerate/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space mining could yield minerals worth billions, even trillions of
dollars. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Andrew Wong, Space mining could become a real thing--and it
could be worth trillions, CNBC, May 15, 2018, https://www.cnbc.com/
2018/05/15/mining-asteroids-could-be-worth-trillions-of-dollars.html
(``Noted astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, among others, have claimed
that the world's first trillionaire will make his or her fortune in
space minerals. According to NASA, the minerals that lie in the belt of
asteroids between Mars and Jupiter hold wealth equivalent to a
staggering $100 billion for every person on Earth.'' ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But who should pay for space mining, and who should reap the
rewards? A space mining project funded by the government should return
profits to taxpayers. A space mining project funded by private
enterprise should return profits to the owners of that enterprise. A
space mining project funded both by the government and by private
enterprise should distribute cost, risk and return equitably between
taxpayers and private companies that pay for it. Negotiations between
the government and companies in space mining projects must be at arm's
length and free of financial conflicts of interest.
This is where federal conflict of interest statutes and financial
disclosure requirements are critically important. Federal officers are
prohibited from participating in government matters that affect their
financial interests. Senior federal officers also are required to
publicly disclose their assets, liabilities, income and other financial
information so the public can know whether they are complying with
conflict-of-interest rules. Federal officers involved with a space
mining program will need to comply with these rules to assure there is
not a massive waste of taxpayer money. I discuss those rules in more
detail below.
Elon Musk, Space X and Space Mining
Since the beginning of the 20th Century, presidents have brought
successful businesspeople into their administrations to advise on
operation of the United States Government. The Government spent $6.75
trillion in 2024, and the total Government debt is now about $36
trillion. Something needs to be done, and a business expert like Elon
Musk can bring new ideas that will help.
Space exploration and space mining are among Mr. Musk's many
intellectual interests. Space mining is also one of his many financial
interests. Space X is forming partnerships with asteroid-mining
companies. As reported last month in Space.com:
``A U.S. asteroid-mining company has announced the target space
rock for its upcoming test mission. California-based AstroForge
has identified asteroid 2022 OB5 as the destination for its
Mission 2 spacecraft, named Odin, which is set to launch next
month, SpaceNews reports. The Odin spacecraft will be flying as
a secondary payload aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, which will
send Intuitive Machines' IM-2 lander toward the moon.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Andrew Jones, Space mining company AstroForge identifies
asteroid target for Odin launch next month, Space.com, January 31,
2025, https://www.space.com/space-exploration/tech/space-mining-
company-astroforge-identifies-asteroid-target-for-odin-launch-next-
month;
Five years ago in 2020, Mr. Musk's likelihood of success in space
mining was sufficiently serious that some financial experts believed he
would increase gold supply and drive down the price of gold and other
precious metals. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Billy Bambrough, Winklevoss Twins Tell Barstool's Dave Portnoy
To Pick Bitcoin Over Gold Due To Elon Musk's `Space Mining', August 14,
2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/08/14/
winklevoss-twins-tell-bar-stools-dave-portnoy-to-pick-bitcoin-over-
gold-due-to-elon-musks-space-mining/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Musk can bring useful ideas to the Trump Administration,
including in space mining.
We must recognize two caveats, however.
First, the aim of government is fundamentally different from a for-
profit corporation. Government exists to serve the people, to provide
essential services while minimizing tax burdens on the middle class and
curtailing deficits that shift costs to future generations. For profit
companies by contrast focus primarily on profits, although some
business leaders also are aware of their fiduciary obligations to the
public. \5\ Because of the fundamentally different objectives in the
private and public sector, some ideas from business will work in
government, and others not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Richard W. Painter, The Conservative Case for ESG, 9 University
of Pennsylvania Journal of Law & Public Affairs 151 (2024)
Second, the laws that Mr. Musk and everyone else in the
Administration must comply with include conflict-of-interest statutes
and regulations, financial disclosure statutes and regulations and
other ethics rules intended to safeguard the integrity and efficiency
of the United States Government, and our national security. As a
federal employee Mr. Musk will work for the benefit of the United
States, not himself.
The conflict-of-interest statute
The conflict-of-interest statute imposes criminal penalties on any
executive branch officer or employee (except the president and vice
president) \6\ who:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ I believe this conflict-of-interest prohibition also should
apply to the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress. See
Getting the Government America Deserves; How Ethics Reform Can Make a
Difference, Chapter 2 (Oxford University Press 2009).
``participates personally and substantially as a Government
officer or employee, through decision, approval, disapproval,
recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or
otherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding, application,
request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim,
controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular
matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, minor child,
general partner, organization in which he is serving as
officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee, or any
person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has any
arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
interest.'' 18 U.S.C. Section Sec. 208(a).
This statute applies not just to matters in which there are
identifiable parties but to any ``particular matter.'' A particular
matter may involve specific parties (for example a government contract,
permit or case) or a particular matter of general applicability focused
on the interests of a discrete and identifiable class of persons (for
example an industry such as space exploration or space mining) \7\ A
particular matter will have a direct effect on a financial interest if
there is a close causal link between a government decision or action in
the matter and any expected effect of the matter on the financial
interest. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``The term particular matter encompasses only matters that
involve deliberation, decision, or action that is focused upon the
interests of specific persons, or a discrete and identifiable class of
persons. Such a matter is covered by this subpart even if it does not
involve formal parties and may include governmental action such as
legislation or policy-making that is narrowly focused on the interests
of such a discrete and identifiable class of persons. The term
particular matter, however, does not extend to the consideration or
adoption of broad policy options that are directed to the interests of
a large and diverse group of persons.`` 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2635.402 (b)(3)
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-XVI/subchapter-B/part-
2635/subpart-D/section-2635.402
\8\ ``(i) A particular matter will have a direct effect on a
financial interest if there is a close causal link between any decision
or action to be taken in the matter and any expected effect of the
matter on the financial interest. An effect may be direct even though
it does not occur immediately. A particular matter will not have a
direct effect on a financial interest, however, if the chain of
causation is attenuated or is contingent upon the occurrence of events
that are speculative or that are independent of, and unrelated to, the
matter. A particular matter that has an effect on a financial interest
only as a consequence of its effects on the general economy does not
have a direct effect within the meaning of this subpart. (ii) A
particular matter will have a predictable effect if there is a real, as
opposed to a speculative possibility that the matter will affect the
financial interest. It is not necessary, however, that the magnitude of
the gain or loss be known, and the dollar amount of the gain or loss is
immaterial.'' 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2635.402 (b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some federal employees are part time special government employees
(SGEs) who work with or without compensation. \9\ This statute applies
to SGEs as well as full time officers and employees with very narrow
exceptions. A SGE serving on a committee governed by the Federal
Advisory Committee Act may participate in particular matters of general
applicability where the disqualifying financial interest arises from
the SGE's non-Federal employment. However, the matter may not have a
``special or distinct effect'' on either the SGE or the SGE's non-
Federal employer, other than as part of a class, and this exception
does not cover interests arising from the SGE's ownership of stock or
other financial interests in the employer. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A ``special Government employee'' is defined as an employee
``who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform, with
or without compensation, for not to exceed one hundred and thirty days
during any period of three hundred and sixty-five consecutive days,''
18 U.S. Code Sec. 202(a).
\10\ ``A special Government employee serving on an advisory
committee within the meaning of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app.) may participate in any particular matter of general
applicability where the disqualifying financial interest arises from
his non-Federal employment or non-Federal prospective employment,
provided that the matter will not have a special or distinct effect on
the employee or employer other than as part of a class. For purposes of
this paragraph, ``disqualifying financial interest'' arising from non-
Federal employment does not include the interests of a special
Government employee arising from the ownership of stock in his employer
or prospective employer.'' 5 C.F.R. 2640.203(g), https://www.ecfr.gov/
current/title-5/chapter-XVI/subchapter-B/part-2640#2640.203
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some examples:
A full-time federal employee or SGE may not advise NASA or the
White House on NASA's budget for space mining if the employee owns
stock in a company that will financially benefit from NASA spending
money on space mining.
A full-time federal employee or SGE may not advise NASA or the
White House on regulatory matters pertaining to space mining if the
employee owns stock in a company that will be affected financially by
NASA's regulation of space mining.
A SGE serving on a federal advisory committee who is an employee of
a company that has a financial interest in space mining, but who does
not own stock in the company, might be permitted to participate in the
above matters provided the matter does not have ``special or distinct
effect'' on the company that is his employer.
Financial Disclosure
Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 \11\ and federal
regulations thereunder senior government officials holding ``covered
positions'' \12\ must file public financial disclosure Form 278. \13\
This includes ``civilian employees in the Executive Office of the
President (other than special Government employees) who hold
commissions of appointment from the President.'' \14\ There are
approximately one hundred commissioned officers in the White House
(Assistants to the President, Deputy Assistants to the President, and
Special Assistants to the President), and all file a public financial
disclosure form 278.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 13101-13111: Financial Disclosure
Requirements of Federal Personnel.
\12\ These ``covered positions'' include the President and the Vice
President; officers and employees (including special Government
employees, as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 202) in positions that (1) are
paid under a system other than the General Schedule (e.g., Senior
Executive Service) and (2) have a rate of basic pay equal to or greater
than 120% of the minimum rate of basic pay for GS-15 of the General
Schedule; members of the uniformed services whose pay grade is O-7 or
above; and officers or employees in any other positions determined by
the Director of the Office of Government Ethics to be of equal
classification; administrative law judges; employees in positions which
are excepted from the competitive service because of their confidential
or policy-making character, unless the position has been excluded from
the public financial disclosure requirements by the Director of the
Office of Government Ethics; the Postmaster General, the Deputy
Postmaster General, each Governor of the Board of Governors of the U.S.
Postal Service, and officers or employees of the U.S. Postal Service or
Postal Regulatory Commission in positions for which the rate of basic
pay is equal to or greater than 120% of the minimum rate of basic pay
for GS-15 of the General Schedule; the Director of the Office of
Government Ethics and each designated agency ethics official; and
civilian employees in the Executive Office of the President (other than
special Government employees) who hold commissions of appointment from
the President.'' U.S. Office of Government Ethics, Public Financial
Disclosure Guide, Appendix A, Definitions. (emphasis added) https://
www.oge.gov/web/278eGuide.nsf/Definitions
\13\ The OGE Form 278e has nine substantive Parts: Part 1--Filer's
Positions Held Outside United States Government; Part 2--Filer's
Employment Assets & Income and Retirement Accounts; Part 3--Filer's
Employment Agreements and Arrangements; Part 4--Filer's Sources of
Compensation Exceeding $5,000 in a Year; Part 5--Spouse's Employment
Assets & Income and Retirement Accounts; Part--Other Assets and Income;
Part 7--Transactions; Part 8--Liabilities; Part 9--Gifts and Travel
Reimbursements.
\14\ U.S. Office of Government Ethics, Public Financial Disclosure
Guide, Appendix A, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A SGE in the White House does not have to file the Form 278 but
instead files a private financial disclosure Form 450. During my time
in the Bush White House the only SGEs I encountered served on boards
and commissions appointed by the President, for example the President's
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. The President did not for any
significant time frame appoint a SGE ``part time'' to perform the
functions of a senior White House official such as an Assistant to the
President. Using the SGE designation in this manner would be an obvious
and inappropriate circumvention of the requirement that senior White
House officials publicly disclose their finances.
I am aware of only one exception to this prior to 2025; it was
wrong; and I said it was wrong. Antia Dunn took a temporary role on
President Biden's staff as a ``special government employee'' which,
pursuant to 3 U.S.C. 101(f)(8) exempted her from the public financial
disclosure requirement (Form 278) that is required for all senior
advisors to the President and other senior employees of the Executive
Office of the President. \15\ After I and other ethics lawyers publicly
objected to this arrangement, in August 2022 Ms. Dunn reversed course
and became a full time White House employee, filling a financial
disclosure Form 278.\16\ Ms. Dunn had significant assets the public had
a right to know about, but she was no billionaire. She certainly was no
Elon Musk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Haisten Willis, Anita Dunn courts controversy while taking
charge in Biden White House, Washington Examiner, September 20, 2023,
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2586994/anita-dunn-courts-
controversy-while-taking-charge-in-biden-white-house/
\16\ Caitlin Oprysko, Anita Dunn finally discloses her corporate
clients, POLITICO, August 12, 2022 (``Richard Painter, the chief White
House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, said that
Dunn and her husband's extensive investment portfolio raised another
set of conflicts'') https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-
influence/2022/08/12/anita-dunn-discloses-corporate-clients-00051541
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applying the Conflict-of-Interest rules and Disclosure rules to Mr.
Musk
Mr. Musk as a federal employee may not participate in a government
matter that affects his financial interest. \17\ He has a control
interest in Space X which is poised to lead the way in space mining,
potentially earning Mr. Musk billions of dollars if projections about
the value of minerals in space are correct. He has every right to
pursue this as a private venture, but as a federal employee he cannot
legally at the same time advise the Government on space mining or make
decisions for Government agencies that affect space mining. Like
countless other successful business leaders before him who entered
public service, he must either divest his financial interest in space
mining or recuse from government matters that affect space mining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Another area of concern is Mr. Musk's financial conflicts of
interest in the efforts of DOGE to dramatically scale back or close the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Richard W. Painter, So
Elon Musk works for the government. That comes with obligations. As a
``special government employee,'' he must abide by conflict-of-interest
laws and the Emoluments Clause, Minnesota Star Tribune, February 17,
2025. Tesla like other car manufactures, finances consumer car loans
that are regulated by CFPB. Musk is also enhancing X with a new digital
payment platform, a consumer finance vehicle also regulated by CFPB. On
February 6, Musk's employees--presumably DOGE employees--reportedly
entered CFPB headquarters seeking access to sensitive CFPB information,
including staff records, industry data, and personally identifiable
consumer information. Bobby Allyn, Laurel Wamsley, and Chris Arnold,
Musk's team takes control of key systems at Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, NPR, February 7, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/02/
07/g-s1-47322/musks-team-takes-control-of-key-systems-at-consumer-
financial-protection-bureau The next day, Mr. Musk tweeted ``CFPB
RIP.'' https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1887979940269666769?s=46&mx=2.
DOGE also is gaining access to confidential corporate data of X's
competitors that the CFPB obtained from Amazon, Apple, Facebook,
Google, and others. CFPB Orders Tech Giants to Turn Over Information on
their Payment System Plans Orders will help CFPB monitor for data
surveillance, access restrictions, and other consumer protection risks
as payments technologies and markets evolve, Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, October 21, 2021, HTTPS://WWW.CONSUMERFINANCE.GOV/
ABOUT-US/NEWSROOM/CFPB-ORDERS-TECH-GIANTS-TO-TURN-OVER-INFORMATION-ON-
THEIR-PAYMENT-SYSTEM-PLANS/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration perhaps could have hired Mr. Musk as a
government contractor, like a defense contractor, but then other rules
would apply, such as competitive bidding for most contracts.
Regardless, he is not a government contractor. Mr. Musk is a government
employee. He is bound by the conflict-of-interest statute.
Mr. Musk's companies are government contractors, however, and hence
the conflict of interest for him as a government employee. In fact, his
companies have about $22 billion in government contracts, $15 billion
with NASA and billions more with the Department of Defense. \18\ If he
were to participate in government matters affecting these contracts, he
would stand on both sides of transactions potentially worth billions of
dollars, and likely would violate the conflict-of-interest statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Elon Musk's US Department of Defense contracts, Reuters,
February 11, 2025 (``SpaceX's CEO Gwynne Shotwell has said the company
has about $22 billion in government contracts. The vast majority of
that, about $15 billion, is derived from NASA.''), https://
www.reuters.com/world/us/elon-musks-us-department-defense-contracts-
2025-02-11/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Musk also should publicly disclose his financial information
like every other senior official in the White House. Calling him a SGE
to avoid the disclosure requirement of OGE Form 278 is a charade. Mr.
Musk's duties in the Trump Administration in the past four weeks have
already far exceeded the duties of any SGE who has ever served in the
Executive Branch. The impact of Mr. Musk's decisions and
recommendations on the Government also has far exceeded that of any SGE
who has ever served. Once he exceeds the 130-day limit on government
work of a SGE the inappropriateness of his SGE designation will be even
more obvious. Disclosure law avoidance at some point becomes disclosure
law evasion, which like tax evasion is illegal. At best Musk, if he
does not disclose his finances, is in an in-between area of law
``avoision'' a practice popularized in both tax loophole literature
\19\ and even on T.V. by Bart Simpson (``Krusty the Clown goes to jail
for tax avoision!''). \20\ Such circumvention of the law is
fundamentally dishonest and would be entirely inappropriate for a
public servant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ARTHUR SELDON ET AL. TAX AVOISION (London School of Economics
1979).
\20\ I Don't Say Evasion, I Say Avoision (The Simpsons), YOUTUBE
(Jan. 30, 2016), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpEaFmK3lrY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, space exploration and space mining involve matters
important to our national security. Laws protecting national security--
including laws requiring government contractors with access to
classified information to report their contacts with foreign nationals
\21\--must be obeyed. \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual
(NISPOM), 32 CFR Part 117.
\22\ Kirsten Grind, Eric Lipton and Sheera Frenkel, Elon Musk and
Space X Face Federal Reviews After Violations of Security Reporting
Rules, New York Times, December 17, 2024 (``Elon Musk and his rocket
company, SpaceX, have repeatedly failed to comply with federal
reporting protocols aimed at protecting state secrets, including by not
providing some details of his meetings with foreign leaders, according
to people with knowledge of the company and internal documents.''),
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/17/technology/elon-musk-spacex-
national-security-reporting.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The Executive power is vested in the President, \23\ but he is not
a king who can empower a vassal to do anything he wants to do. The
President must take care that the laws of the United States are
faithfully executed, \24\ and he must obey the orders of the judicial
branch. \25\ Commissioned officers, both civilian and military, swear
an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not to the President. \26\
The Supremacy Clause is clear that the Constitution and laws of the
United States are the supreme law of the land. \27\ Among these laws
are those that pertain to financial conflicts of interest, financial
disclosure and national security. These laws are not optional; they
must be obeyed. \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 1.
\24\ U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3.
\25\ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (``It is emphatically
the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.''). Fringe
legal scholars of the left and right occasionally urge liberal or
conservative presidents respectively to disobey orders of the Supreme
Court. See e.g. Ryan D. Doerfler and Samuel Moyn, The Constitution Is
Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed, New York Times, Aug. 19, 2022
(stating that Congress should rewrite the Constitution without going
through the Amendment process and that ``Congress would be pretty
openly defying the Constitution to get to a more democratic order--and
for that reason would need to insulate the law from judicial review.''
No Congress and no president in the 20th or 21st Century has done that.
\26\ ``I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
same.'' Officer's oath. 5 U.S. Code 3331. As an Associate Counsel to
the President appointed by George W. Bush, I took that oath in 2005,
swearing allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. I did not
swear allegiance to any person, even the President.
\27\ U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2.
\28\ I discuss the importance of ethics statutes and rules for the
efficiency and integrity of government in my book Getting the
Government America Deserves; How Ethics Reform Can Make a Difference
(Oxford University Press 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presidential power comes with responsibility, and it is the duty of
Congress to assure that the Executive Branch is held accountable. \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ I discuss the extent and limits on presidential power in a
wide range of areas, including appointment of White House staff in a
forthcoming book co-authored with E. Thomas Sullivan, The Presidency:
Power, Responsibility and Accountability (Cambridge University Press
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Musk brings promise to the Trump Administration, but also a
serious risk unless the President, Mr. Musk, and their advisors assure
that the affairs of the United States Government are carried out free
of conflict of interest. Space exploration and space mining, where
enormous wealth is potentially at stake but also national security, is
one of the most critical areas where Government employees must comply
with the law.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Richard W. Painter, Professor of
Corporate Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Mr. Painter did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Dexter
Question 1. In July 2023, before SpaceX launched its Falcon Heavy
rocket from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) informed the company that a new facility it had
built to fill rocket engines with fuel had not yet passed the required
safety checks. SpaceX launched anyway, so the FAA fined the company.
Now the FAA is facing significant staffing cuts and restructuring under
the directives of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Both
SpaceX and DOGE are led by Elon Musk.
Is it legal to allow someone with direct financial and operational
stakes in aerospace regulation to oversee the agency's downsizing?
Question 2. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notified
SpaceX on March 13, 2024, that its deployment of its launchpad deluge
system was in violation of the Clean Water Act. SpaceX ignored the
warning and operated the system again on March 14. In fact, SpaceX
deployed the system multiple times before eventually applying for a
permit on July 1. In a separate case, EPA fined SpaceX $148,378 for
releasing liquid oxygen and tens of thousands of gallons of water into
wetlands bordering the Boca Chica launch site on several occasions
without a permit.
Who is responsible for ensuring Musk is recused if EPA were to
pursue regulatory actions and fines against SpaceX?
How can Congress and federal agencies ensure that Musk does not use
his role to expedite permits, reduce fines, or otherwise weaken
environmental enforcement in ways that directly benefit his companies?
What safeguards, if any, are in place to prevent Musk from using
his position to weaken or delay environmental regulations that could
hold SpaceX accountable for violations?
Question 3. X (formerly Twitter) made a deal with Visa to offer a
mobile payments service similar to Venmo or PayPal. The service would
be directly regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB), which has a track record of bringing cases against payment
companies. But DOGE aims to eradicate the CFPB. Elon Musk recently
wrote ``CFPB RIP'' on X.
In your legal opinion, does Musk's attempt to dismantle the CFPB
while it is responsible for regulating a service provided by his
company represent a conflict of interest? If so, why should the
American public be concerned?
How does Musk's public stance to dismantle the CFPB, combined with
his business interests, impact the credibility of DOGE's mission and
decisions regarding financial regulation?
Question 4. SpaceX, which runs the Starlink service, secured a 1.8
billion dollar classified contract in 2021 and serves as the Pentagon
and NASA's primary rocket provider. The Pentagon also pays Starlink
millions to supply Ukraine with internet access. However, Elon Musk was
being investigated for his secret meetings with Vladimir Putin that
were revealed by the Wall Street Journal. The full extent of Musk's
defense contracts is unknown since many of them are classified.
Who is responsible for ensuring Musk is recused if he were to
encounter a potential conflict of interest regarding his federal
defense contracts while he is leading DOGE?
Without assurances that President Trump is going to enforce any
mitigation of Musk's conflicts of interest, how can the public be
assured that the Department of Government Efficiency isn't directing
more taxpayer money into Musk's ventures?
Question 5. Through DOGE, Musk has gained access to agency data
systems and sensitive information. For example, it has been reported
that DOGE associates have been granted unrestricted access to NASA's
personnel and contracting files. This access could provide SpaceX with
insider information, potentially giving it an unfair advantage over
competitors by accessing their proprietary information.
Considering Musk's direct ties to SpaceX, would you consider his
role overseeing NASA's data systems an example of a conflict of
interest?
Why is it a problem that Musk has access to sensitive information
from NASA while simultaneously running a private space company?
Question 6. The sweeping funding cuts and mass layoffs implemented
by DOGE under Musk's leadership have had devastating effects on working
families who depend on stable employment and public services. Among
those abruptly let go without cause are single parents, veteran
employees, and public servants who dedicated years to improving their
communities--only to find themselves jobless overnight. Meanwhile, Musk
continues to secure new multi-billion-dollar government contracts for
his private ventures, funneling taxpayer money into his corporate
empire while slashing jobs and gutting public services.
Do you consider it a problem that the federal government is
rewarding this behavior by continuing to provide Musk with lucrative
contracts?
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Painter. And now, Mr. Shroff, you
are up to 5 minutes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF SAURAV SHROFF, CEO, STARPATH
Mr. Shroff. Chairman Gosar and members of the Subcommittee,
I am grateful to testify on behalf of Starpath about the
exciting opportunities developing in space mining.
Right now the United States has a historic opportunity to
develop low-cost travel to the moon and Mars. Soon it will be
possible to use a rocket to fly to a moon base, much like we
use airliners to fly to airports like JFK today. Building this
future will be exciting, unlike anything you and I have ever
seen, blending the patriotic unity of the Apollo program from
the 1960s with the economic stimulus of the Union Pacific
Railroad.
This future is closer than you might think. To enable low
cost access to the moon and Mars, you need two main components.
First, you need a fully and rapidly reusable rocket.
Thankfully, SpaceX is solving this with its new Starship
rocket. Starship is the most powerful rocket ever made by the
human species. By conducting seven, and counting, orbital test
flights, SpaceX has demonstrated many, if not most, of the
technologies required for full and rapid reuse. These are
incredible feats of American engineering, and we should be
proud.
The second element may be less discernible to those
unfamiliar with our industry. To unlock low-cost access to the
moon and Mars requires a rocket propellant mine and refinery on
the moon and Mars, in layman's terms, a gas station. Broadly
speaking, it is impossible to operate a mission to and from the
moon or Mars without refueling.
Fortunately, Starpath, the company I am proud to represent
today, has built the world's most advanced system for mining on
the moon and Mars. In a few short days this system will be
operational at our headquarters in Los Angeles, and we invite
members of the Committee to come visit. By mid next year we
will be ready to ship a refinery for the surface of the moon
that is twice as powerful as the most powerful satellite ever
made, the International Space Station, at a fraction of the
cost. The following year our capacity will reach 20 times that
of the ISS, and the following year 200 times. In less than 4
years the system will be large enough to support a city of
10,000 inhabitants on Mars. That is pretty cool. In doing so,
we will put the United States at the top of a global
leaderboard.
Space mining can drive down space transport costs by over
10 or 100 times, unlocking immense economic potential.
Meanwhile, China is aggressively advancing. Last year the
Chinese sent a mission to collect and return samples from a
natural resource-rich area of the moon. This was the same year
we canceled our VIPER moon mission which cost the taxpayer $800
million. If they win, they will control land and resources on
the moon and Mars and, worse, be viewed by the rest of the
world as the leader at the frontier. That is unacceptable. The
United States invented this game with Apollo in the 1960s, and
we intend to win. In order to do so we believe that the
government needs to excel in three areas.
First, we need to launch rockets fast. Right now the FAA
and groups like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and I am
pro-fish, by the way, have an approval cadence that is slower
than rocket launches themselves. This delays critical timelines
for Starpath and for NASA.
Second, congressional funding for NASA must align with this
administration's goals to stay competitive in the global race
for space resources. NASA has outlined a plan for a space
mining contract called Lift-1. The contract would provide the
necessary financial kickstart for a space resources-driven
economy, and will return more to the taxpayer in reduced cost
of access to space than its own line item cost. So to repeat,
will return more to the taxpayer in reduced cost of access to
space than its own line item cost. Moreover, Lift-1, the way we
envision it, will put the United States at the uncontested
front of this global race now. Lift-1 needs to happen.
Third, we need to modernize planetary protection rules. In
the 1960s we signed the Outer Space Treaty, which describes
planetary protection, a well-intentioned rule set designed to
protect planetary science. As it stands today, planetary
protection is in direct conflict with NASA and the President's
stated objectives to put humans on Mars. If unchanged, they may
be the reason we lose on the global stage. They deserve
examination and a modern refresh.
Taking it easy has never been the American way. My parents
moved here in the 1980s for a country that strives to be the
best, and that drive is what keeps me here. The choice is
clear: either America paves the way in the new space race and
American companies own the market for space resources, or we
cede leadership to China. What future do we want?
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shroff follows:]
Prepared Statement of Saurav Shroff, CEO, Starpath Robotics Inc.
Chairman Gosar and members of the subcommittee, Starpath
appreciates the opportunity to testify about the exciting opportunities
developing in space mining. This timely hearing indicates the
Committee's recognition of the importance of America staying on t he
forefront of this emerging industry.
Starpath is building a rocket propellant mine and refinery for the
Moon and Mars at mega scale. This means that Starpath designs and
builds three main categories of equipment as part of a vertically
integrated system. The first is equipment that can mine and transport
huge amounts of raw resources on the surface of the Moon and Mars. The
second is equipment that can process those resources into highly
valuable commercially salable products including rocket propellant,
water, and eventually exportable goods like Helium-3, which is an
important natural resource that can only effectively be sourced from
the Moon. The final category is equipment to cheaply generate huge
amounts of power for both aforementioned components. Starpath will be
an important part of the United States' domination of our adversaries
in the new space race and it won't even be close.
Right now, the United States has the opportunity to develop low
cost travel to the Moon and Mars. Soon, it may be possible to use a
rocket to fly to a Moon base much like we use airliners to fly to
airports like JFK today. Building this future could combine the
inspiring and patriotic unifying effects of the Apollo program from the
1960s with the stimulating economic activity of the construction of the
Union Pacific railroad in the 1860s.
This future is closer than you might think. Enabling low cost
access to the Moon and Mars requires two main components.
The first is a fully and rapidly reusable rocket. Amazingly,
SpaceX, an American company, is expeditiously developing its new
Starship rocket, which will be exactly that. Starship is the most
powerful and largest flying object ever made by the human species.
SpaceX has successfully flown and publicized seven orbital test
flights, and demonstrated many if not most of the technologies required
for full and rapid reuse. These technologies include catching their
booster stage out of mid air with giant mechanical arms, and high
velocity reentry of their upper stage into the Earth's atmosphere.
These are incredible feats of American engineering, and we should be
proud.
The second element may be less discernible to those unfamiliar with
our industry. To unlock low cost access to the Moon and Mars requires a
rocket propellant mine and refinery on the Moon and on Mars;
essentially, a gas station. Broadly speaking, the laws of physics limit
the operation of a mission to and from the Moon or Mars without
refueling. Fortunately, Starpath, the company I am proud to represent
today, has built, in America, the world's most advanced system for
mining on the Moon and Mars. Starpath is excited to announce that this
month, that system will be operational in a fully integrated state at
our headquarters in Los Angeles--we invite members of the committee to
come visit! This outcome to the credit of the incredible Starpath team.
The Starpath team is currently working tirelessly to bring our first
system to flight readiness, and to put ourselves, our partners, and the
United States at the top of a global leaderboard of space-faring
countries. Our mindset is that there is no prize for second place. By
mid next year, we will be ready to ship a mine and refinery for the
surface of the Moon that is twice as powerful as the most powerful man-
made satellite ever made, the International Space Station. The
following year, Starpath's capacity will reach 20 times that of the
ISS, and the following year, 200 times. In less than four years, the
system will be large enough to support a city of 10,000 inhabitants on
Mars. These mines will extract resources and produce commodities to
support billions of dollars of commercial activity each year, and yet
will cost less than $100 million to produce. These aren't just the most
powerful systems of their class, they are the most powerful space
systems ever made.
Space mining has the potential to unlock costs of space transport
hundreds or even thousands of times lower than what we see today, and
correspondingly, to drive immense, unprecedented commercial activity.
China also has plans to go to the Moon and Mars, and they have
demonstrated an ambitious attempt to equal and exceed U.S. efforts in
tapping space resources. Last year, the Chinese launched a mission
specifically to collect and return samples of natural-resource rich
land on the Moon. This was in the same year NASA canceled its flagship
VIPER mission to map valuable resources on the Moon. If China succeeds
in its goal of exceeding U.S. presence and capacity in space, they will
control land and resources on the Moon and Mars. Perhaps more
importantly, China will be viewed by the rest of the world as the
country pushing the edge of the frontier. We refuse to let that happen.
Americans invented this game in the 1960s with Apollo, and this is
still our game to win.
In order to do so, we believe that the government needs to do an
excellent job in three areas. The status quo in these areas is
commendable, but there remains some room for improvement.
First, aerospace companies in the U.S. need to launch rockets
frequently in order to accelerate the inevitable cost reductions of
access to space. Right now, the Federal Aviation Administration and
various government environmental groups, such as the US Fish and
Wildlife Service, have an approval rate slower than the cadence of the
rocket launches themselves.
These delays limit our ability to engineer, and tangibly push back
crucial timelines for businesses like Starpath.
Second, congressional funding for NASA must align with this
Administration's goals to stay competitive in the global race for space
resources. NASA has outlined a plan for a space mining contract called
LIFT-1. The contract will provide the necessary financial kick-start
for an economy driven by space resources, and will return more to the
taxpayer in reduced cost of access to space than its line item value.
Moreover, LIFT-1 will give the U.S. an edge in establishing dominance
in the emerging space resource s economy.
Third, we need to revisit rules designed to protect the ability to
conduct scientific research in space. In the 1960s, we signed the Outer
Space Treaty. The Outer Space Treaty describes ``planetary
protection,'' which is a well-intentioned ruleset designed to protect
other planets from our own biological contamination. As it stands
today, planetary protection rules are actually in direct conflict with
NASA and the President's stated objectives to put humans on Mars. The
ability to run frequent, low-cost missions to the Moon and Mars--an
ability which is unlocked by space mining and efficient utilization of
space resources--will be a boon to scientific research. If left
unchanged, the Outer Space Treaty may be the reason the U.S. loses
ground against competing countries in space research. The treaty
deserves careful examination and a modern refresh.
Starpath is grateful to the Committee's attention to this exciting
area of untapped economic potential and technological innovation. The
future we envision is a future where America dominates the new space
race, where American companies own the market for space resources, and
where America cements its position as the dominant technological force
of planet Earth. To make this future a reality will depend on the
support of Congress, and on establishing the crucial public-private
partnerships that have driven some of the most ground-breaking
innovations in this country's history. Starpath thanks the Committee
for convening this hearing, and looks forward to providing its
honorable members with any further information.
Please contact [email protected] with any questions or if we
can provide any additional information.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. I thank the witnesses for the
testimony. Now we are going to go to the Members for their
questions. The first Member up is Mr. Collins from Georgia.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, as a fellow
small businessman and entrepreneur, it is incredible that we
have hearings like this to talk about the future of things,
especially critical minerals, which are the future especially
for mining and what we need. But it is nice to see that we are
highlighting some small businesses that are out there taking a
chance on doing something. I want to focus on one particular
area.
Mr. Painter, surveying your career, the courses that you
teach, the publications that you publish out there indicate
that you specialize in corporate law, securities, and ethics
issues. However, the purpose of this hearing is to highlight
America's needs for minerals and explore modern solutions. So
yes or no, do you have any technical expertise on modern mining
practices and technologies?
Mr. Painter. No, I do not. I do not. My expertise is also
on government ethics.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Painter. As the chief ethics lawyer for President
Bush----
Mr. Collins. Let me ask you this. And yes or no, when you
work at the University of Minnesota Law School do you teach
courses on mining law or policy?
Mr. Painter. I just answered that question. The answer is
no. I teach courses on ethics.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Painter. And if you don't care about ethics, then you
shouldn't have invited me to the hearing.
Mr. Collins. So yes or no, in the past you have run for
political office and publicly expressed opposition for hardrock
mining projects in your home State there in Minnesota, while
touting your experience as an ethics attorney.
Mr. Painter. Some of the hardrock mining projects, I
believe, are dangerous and they were conducted by companies
funded by foreign billionaires who weren't willing to put their
guarantee on the table that if they created a mess they would
clean it up.
Mr. Collins. So yes or no, you have also at the same time
publicly expressed support for growing the solar industry in
the United States. Correct?
Mr. Painter. Well, that is one way to create energy, yes.
Mr. Collins. But Mr. Painter, don't you understand that
solar energy requires critical minerals and other hardrock
minerals?
Mr. Painter. I do.
Mr. Collins. Do you suggest that America is better off
sourcing these materials from abroad?
Mr. Painter. Certainly not. I just simply said that the
people who have opened up mines be willing to clean it up if
they make a mess.
Mr. Collins. Do you deny that labor and environmental
standards in the United States are among some of the strongest
in the world?
Mr. Painter. Some of them are and some of them are not,
depending on who is administering the Environmental Protection
Agency and who is conducting oversight. I am here----
Mr. Collins. ``Depends'' is a big word.
Mr. Painter [continuing]. As an ethics lawyer, not as a
mining expert.
Mr. Collins. Sir, are you aware that China dominates global
mineral supply chains and backs mining operations using forced
and child labor?
Mr. Painter. I am sure they do, and the Chinese are taking
advantage of the fact that we just have partisan fights----
Mr. Collins. Do you know----
Mr. Painter [continuing]. Back and forth all the time and
make a bunch of false----
Mr. Collins. Mr. Painter----
Mr. Painter [continuing]. Accusations against each other
instead of focusing on the issue at hand.
Mr. Collins. Here is what is troubling to me, Mr. Painter.
It is troubling to me that, despite dedicating your career to
ethics issues, you have no problem championing a radical, anti-
mining agenda that is unsupported by science and is advanced by
dark money and Chinese-funded non-profit organizations.
Mr. Painter. I support mining. That is just simply not
true.
Mr. Collins. No----
Mr. Painter. I support mining, I support safe mining.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that critical
hardrock mining and critical minerals, they are essential for
our future. And there are two things which are a common theme
that I see up here time after time. That is, No. 1, that there
is an over-reaching, out-of-control Federal agency that is
stymieing and controlling every bit of this mining industry,
also the frivolous and non-ending lawsuits that are out there.
And the other thing is just the willingness, like Mr. Painter
said, to allow China, which provides the majority of our
critical minerals that are processed right now, because we have
to send them over to China to get them processed, they are over
there mining with forced and child labor.
You know, it is time to unleash the American
entrepreneurial spirit and make sure that we are and remain the
best country in the world and America first. And with that, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. Will the gentleman yield?
[No response.]
Dr. Gosar. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Collins. Yes, sir. I would yield.
Dr. Gosar. Because you have a good couple seconds.
Mr. Painter, you said you would support mining. Give me
some examples of those mines.
Mr. Painter. I support mining. In Minnesota, we have had
mining for iron for many years, and the iron mining industry
has been successful in creating jobs in Minnesota. It has been
very successful and is well regulated and complies with
environmental regulations.
With sulfide mining we could do it, but we need to do it
with companies that are willing to step to the plate and
promise to clean up if they make a mess. Glencore in the
PolyMet mine was refusing to guarantee cleanup. We have a
company run by billionaires in Europe doing deals with the
Russians, and they refuse to guarantee the PolyMet mine. I
oppose that.
Dr. Gosar. Hold on a second. So you don't bond your
hardrock mining?
Mr. Painter. Hardrock mining can be accomplished and can be
safe.
Dr. Gosar. Oh, I understand, but you are supposed to bond
it. That is where your cleanup comes. And you should be very
much aware of now these microprocessors, that they are very
green, they have very little water use, and you are getting
everything out of this ore. So you have got to be really
careful here.
So I stole his time, so I am going to get back.
Mr. Painter. You are right Mr. Chairman. You do need to be
careful, and the people who do the mining need to be willing to
guarantee to clean it up, and Glencore wasn't willing to do
that in Minnesota. And former Governor Arne Carlson, a
Republican, and I opposed that project for that reason.
Dr. Gosar. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I yield back. The gentlewoman from Oregon, I had
to think about this because I said it wrong last time, Ms.
Dexter.
Dr. Dexter. All right. All right, so thank you, Mr. Chair.
So SpaceX is part of at least three Federal reviews for its
failure to comply with national security protocols, including
by failing to disclose details of Musk's meetings with foreign
leaders. For example, The New York Times reported that Musk had
meetings with Vladimir Putin during which they discussed space,
and Putin allegedly asked Musk to do a political favor for
China's President Xi Jinping.
Mr. Painter, if these findings were to be confirmed, why is
that a problem for the American people?
Mr. Painter. I gave the ethics lectures for the White House
under President Bush at the President's direction on use and
misuse of classified information. And one thing that is
absolutely critical is when government contractors are
entrusted with classified information they must report to the
U.S. Government specific information about their dealings with
foreign countries, and those reports are mandatory, must be
filed, and they cannot be misleading.
A material misstatement of the U.S. Government is a felony
under 18 United States Code 1001. I don't know what happened in
this specific case, but I will emphasize that those who are
entrusted with classified information must file those reports.
It is absolutely critical. We can't have our classified
information in the hands of the Russians or the Chinese.
Dr. Dexter. Great, thank you. And under normal
circumstances, how might the Office of Government Ethics advise
Musk to deal with a conflict of interest like this? What are
some of his options?
Mr. Painter. Well, if Mr. Musk is going to make any
decisions involving recommendations involving space mining, for
example, he would need to divest from SpaceX. There is just too
close a connection. There is no way that you can get involved
in space mining and have a financial interest in SpaceX without
violating the criminal conflict of interest statute.
So divest is the best option. Recuse and have nothing to do
with the matter is the second best option.
Dr. Dexter. Great. And under current arrangements, with
Musk as a special government employee, who is responsible for
ensuring Mr. Musk is recused or divested of his conflicts of
interest?
Mr. Painter. The appointing officer is responsible at first
instance, and that is the President of the United States.
I should emphasize that Mr. Musk is performing functions
well beyond the functions that are ordinarily performed by a
special government employee. In fact, he is performing
functions that are performed by an employee who is appointed
and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, a principal officer of the
U.S. Government. And so there does need to be an additional
appointment made with a confirmation hearing if he is going to
continue doing what he is doing.
Dr. Dexter. OK. And what safeguards are in place to prevent
Musk from using his leadership at DOGE to obstruct or delay
these inquiries by cutting staff, cutting funding, or killing
investigations directly?
Mr. Painter. The first safeguard is the Office of the
President of the United States, the Executive Office of the
President, and I would entrust that President Trump would make
sure that everyone he appoints is complying with the government
ethics rules, including the criminal conflict of interest
statute.
Second is Congress and the oversight obligations of both
houses of Congress, including this Committee, to call witnesses
to gather information and, most important, to get Mr. Musk's
financial disclosure form, which should be available to the
public, certainly should be available to the members of this
Committee.
Dr. Dexter. Thank you. Pivoting, the FAA, or Federal
Aviation Administration, which regulates aerospace operations,
has investigated and fined SpaceX multiple times, including for
safety violations. Now the FAA is facing significant staffing
cuts and restructuring under DOGE's direction, and a team from
SpaceX has been brought in to assist with overhauling the FAA's
air traffic control system.
Mr. Painter, what is the risk of allowing SpaceX personnel
to influence FAA restructuring?
And would this situation fit the legal definition of a
conflict of interest?
Mr. Painter. Mr. Musk retains a financial interest in
SpaceX. He should recuse from most all government matters
pertaining to the Federal Aviation Administration while the
Federal Aviation Administration is regulating and in these
controversies with SpaceX. You either divest or recuse. That is
what is required under criminal conflict of interest statute.
Dr. Dexter. Thank you. And as you know, Trump fired at
least 18 inspectors general, including the one at the FAA.
Given that the traditional independent oversight mechanisms
have been weakened, how can we be certain that Musk won't use
his influence to undermine FAA regulations that could
negatively impact SpaceX's bottom line?
Mr. Painter. I would strongly urge that the President
rehire the inspectors general. There is no reason to fire the
inspectors general unless they are derelict in their duty in
office. We need inspectors general to make sure there is no
waste, fraud, or abuse in the Federal Government. And once
again, it is the obligation of the House and Senate to exercise
oversight, as well.
Dr. Dexter. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. You are welcome. The gentleman from Alaska, Mr.
Begich, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Question for you, Mr. Painter. You have stated that the
U.S. taxpayer should have a return, and I agree. The taxpayer
should have a return when making investments in public-private
opportunities. Given your background in corporate finance, what
structure would you recommend would be best for investments in
space mining?
Are we talking about direct equity participation, debt,
debt with long-term warrant coverage, or some other structure
that would allow the U.S. taxpayer to achieve participatory
returns?
Mr. Painter. Well, first and foremost, it is absolutely
critical whoever is negotiating on behalf of the U.S.
Government and getting involved in any of these issues
involving space mining not have financial conflicts of
interest, not be involved in companies like SpaceX.
Now, once you have somebody in place who has financial
expertise and does not have financial conflicts of interest,
you can consider the various options. Given the enormous risk
involved, I would think that some sort of equity participation
might be ideal because debt participation, if you have a
company that launches a space mission, the government lends
them a lot of money and it goes belly up, well, you are not
going to get repaid. So you may need some sort of equity
participation through the U.S. Government.
There are a lot of different arrangements we can look into,
but the key is when government and private enterprise are
working together they do not become crony capitalism, the kind
of thing that our founders rebelled against and that Adam Smith
wrote against.
Mr. Begich. OK, I appreciate that. Thank you for your
feedback. My time is limited, so I am going to move on to Mr.
Place.
Mr. Place, for AstroForge I think some of the technology
you are describing is very exciting: autonomous mining
capabilities that would return raw materials to Earth. You
mentioned that they would then later be for sale. Would you
imagine that these raw materials would remain in orbit, in a
geostationary orbit of some kind so they could be later used
for zero-G construction? Would they be returned to Earth's
surface?
Mr. Place. Great question. Short answer, that is possible.
But our bread and butter is the refinery itself. So the physics
behind getting to and from asteroids is pretty settled. What
our core technology does is basically mine and refine the
asteroid in situ, so right on the surface.
So we have a few options. We can bring that refined
material, about a metric ton of platinum group metal, back and
de-orbit that, or it is definitely possible we can use that for
in-space manufacturing.
Mr. Begich. Thank you. And then a final question for Mr.
Shroff.
Aside from moving at a rapid pace, how do we achieve an
enduring competitive advantage versus China or other nations in
terms of space mining?
Mr. Shroff. Thank you for the question. That is a great
question, and it is actually a bit of a tough one to answer
because I think that you actually hit the nail on the head.
Moving at a rapid pace is what gives you an enduring
advantage. Innovating faster than your competitor is the
definition of an enduring advantage. There is simply no world
where you innovate slower than your competitor and expect to be
better than them for any duration of time. That philosophy
guides development at Starpath. That philosophy, in my opinion,
should guide development at really any competitive private
company.
If your question is referring to what the government can
do, I outlined some of the things in my testimony that I think
the government can do to support industries like ours, many of
which are free. And, you know, so I will stop there and I will
just say, you know, going fast is really everything when it
comes to competing, and anything the government can do to make
sure that industry isn't slowed down, which right now we think
that the government is doing a fantastic job at in our
industry, is two thumbs up from us, and really supported.
Mr. Begich. One additional question, Mr. Shroff. Do you
imagine a scenario in which you would be working with
AstroForge in order to achieve some of the mission that has
been laid out by your company?
Mr. Shroff. Yes. It is a bit of a long answer, and I will
do my best to keep it short.
The short summary is that the product we build, which
produces rocket propellant in space, makes it easier to do in-
space transportation. So if AstroForge was, for example,
interested in--you know, I will try to keep this simple--moving
their mined material from a highly energetic lunar orbit to a
less energetic Earth orbit where it would be, you know, more
easy to sell or closer to the point of being sold, our
technology and our product could make that cheaper.
Mr. Begich. Thank you. I think that highlights just how
important it is for us to ensure that we are building all
components of the space ecosystem in order to achieve actual
mission success.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Puerto
Rico, Mr. Hernandez, is recognized for his first 5 minutes.
Mr. Hernandez. Thank you, Chair Gosar and Ranking Member
Dexter, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here
today.
My question is for Mr. Painter. As you know, fFinancial
conflicts of interests in the Federal Government can have
serious consequences for Americans. When public officials
prioritize personal or financial interests over the public
good, it can lead to mismanagement of resources,
inefficiencies, and even corruption. This not only wastes
taxpayer dollars, but also undermines public trust in the
government. For Puerto Ricans who I represent and who already
face unique challenges in accessing Federal support and
resources, these conflicts could disproportionately affect our
community's ability to benefit from government programs and
policies.
Mr. Painter, can you tell us why the average American
should care about the potential financial conflicts of interest
of those working in the Federal Government?
Mr. Painter. Because our money is at stake here. We pay
taxes, and tax rates are quite high for many Americans. We pay
taxes. We should expect a return on our investment in essential
services from the U.S. Government. And if there is extra money,
they shouldn't be taxing us so much.
They also should be paying down this enormous deficit,
which is going to have to be paid off by our children if that
isn't taken care of.
And the problem when we get into these ventures like space
mining, if there is going to be government investment as well
as corporate investment side by side, is that if you don't have
arm's length negotiations and you have conflicts of interest,
then you get into the crony capitalism which is exactly what
our founders rebelled against, the crony capitalism of the East
India Company who was bribing the members of parliament and
trying to force us to drink their tea.
You know, and this is what is going to be going on here if
we are going to be dumping a lot of taxpayer money into a
project and then private companies get the return. That is
crony capitalism. That is what Adam Smith objected to, what
Edmund Burke objected to.
I believe in free enterprise, where private money is
invested in projects and there is a private return. If there is
going to be government involvement, I want to make doggone sure
that this government is represented by officials who do not
have their own financial conflicts of interest. And we are not
going to have crony capitalism in the United States if we want
to succeed as a country.
Mr. Hernandez. And for the benefit of Americans, are there
any historical precedents of conflicts of interest harming the
American people in projects like these?
Mr. Painter. We have had historical precedents of conflicts
of interest ever since the founding of our country, where
government officials have allowed their own financial conflicts
of interest and their businesses to interfere with their
decisions in government, whether it was large plantation owners
who obstructed efforts to abolish slavery in the early years of
our country's history running up to the present, where we now
have billionaires entering the U.S. Government and the
executive branch with conflicts of interest.
It is OK to have successful business people in our
government, but they must, one, file a publicly-available
financial disclosure form so we can find out what they own and
what the conflicts of interest are. The public has the right to
that information.
And second, they must comply with the criminal conflict of
interest statute at 18 United States Code 208. And that is what
I am asking Mr. Musk to do and all the other officials in the
executive branch, just as I did during the Biden administration
and during the Bush administration when I was in the White
House under President Bush.
Mr. Hernandez. Thank you, Mr. Painter, and I agree of the
importance of transparency, accountability, and preventing
conflicts of interest at the Federal level, at the State level,
at the local level, at all levels of government.
With that I yield back the remainder of my time.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. I will recognize myself
for the next 5 minutes.
So Mr. Shroff, you have employees, don't you?
Mr. Shroff. We do.
Dr. Gosar. Do you ever evaluate your employees from time to
time?
Mr. Shroff. We do.
Dr. Gosar. Do you ask them to show what they are doing?
Mr. Shroff. We absolutely do.
Dr. Gosar. Why is that important?
Mr. Shroff. At risk of stating the obvious, it is important
because high-performing employees should be encouraged to keep
performing highly and equipped with the resources to keep doing
so. Low-performing employees, there should be a careful look
taken to make sure that they have all the resources they need
to succeed and if they are not in the right position to make
the necessary changes.
So without stating the obvious, because, you know, we want
to run efficiently as a private company.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I tell you what. Captain Obvious should be
here for that very statement.
Now, Mr. Place, how about you? Do you have employees?
Mr. Place. I am not the CEO, so no, sir.
Dr. Gosar. You don't have any employees?
Mr. Place. Employees at AstroForge, yes.
Dr. Gosar. OK. Now, Professor Cabrera, you have got
students, you have got probably a number of people answering to
you. Do you have some constant oversight of those students?
Mr. Cabrera. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. I mean, I was once a GA. So did you actually try
to improve on how they were going to do things?
Mr. Cabrera. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. And if they don't show up, what is their battle
axe?
Mr. Cabrera. In every sector, private, government, and
academic, when people don't perform they should be released.
Dr. Gosar. That is what I thought. I was a business owner,
too, so I just thought that was pretty obvious. I am waiting
for Captain Obvious to show up again. Still here.
So now, this whole thing is about mining. So I want to get
back to you, Dr. Cabrera. Is Resolution Copper one of those
places where you can actually look at some of those mining
techniques that you will be using in space?
Mr. Cabrera. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. Why?
Mr. Cabrera. They are looking to do mining in harsh
underground environments.
Dr. Gosar. At what depth?
Mr. Cabrera. I believe it is 8,000 feet.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. We did a hearing out there in the Western
Caucus, and we called it the journey to the center of the
Earth. It was really interesting.
So now, we are going to develop these miners of the future,
let's just call them that. Because of the intense pressures
down below there that is hot, it is probably not the best if
you have a cave-in, because they are going to do some modified
mining. What do you expect from them to do, and where would
this be first tested, these robots?
Mr. Cabrera. All of the technology necessary for space
mining is necessarily going to be tested right here on Earth,
innovating in the mineral supply that we have on the planet.
Dr. Gosar. Our environment in space is as valuable as it is
down here, right? So we don't want to contaminate anything,
right? The gentleman said it, Mr. Place said it. They are going
to use concentrators up there, right? And so you are not going
to bring a bunch of ore down. You are going to bring the real
product. That is because it is so expensive.
So how do you go about those concentrators, do you look at
those here in real life? And I understand that you have to
prove your process, that it works. Then you have to look there
is no contamination for any environmental aspects. And then
third, can you do it to scale, right? So that is the three
parameters.
OK. Well, won't those be tested here?
Mr. Cabrera. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. What are you going to test them on? What mine? I
am trying to figure this out because we have had people over
and over come here saying, ``Not this mine, not this mine.''
I had the Good Earth Guardians over here just a couple of
years ago saying, ``Listen,'' I have been down to Resolution
Copper. When I started asking them questions, they would recant
that. But they would never give me a mine that would work.
Now, Mr. Painter, what if I told you that the Twin Metals
mine actually has a higher standard than any other mine,
period? Do you know why? You should know this one.
Mr. Painter. Well, you can----
Dr. Gosar. Congress came in there and did a different area.
They gave the area of the mine site, and then they did a whole
area so that you couldn't mine in that outlying area. So they
actually looked at it, did they not? And if you are not
actually having a bond aspect, that is your problem because
that is required by law, a bond, and they have to remediate
that.
So you know, we are going to do a second round, but I have
much more to talk to you, and you will be able to answer that
one. OK?
I yield back.
Mr. Painter. That is a question?
Dr. Gosar. No. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shroff, I want to delve into Starpath here for a
minute, because----
Mr. Shroff. Sure.
Mr. Collins [continuing]. I find this pretty fascinating
and incredible. So you all are going to mine rocket propellant
on the moon?
Mr. Shroff. That is correct.
Mr. Collins. OK. All right, so you are an actual mining
company.
And I want to pick up on what you all are talking about
with the rapidly progressing nature of this mining opportunity.
What factors have led to the acceleration of prospects for
mineral extraction in space?
Mr. Shroff. I would say at the absolute top of the list is
the cost and access of launch to space.
You know, I am generally not a political guy, and I know
this is a politically sensitive topic with Elon being in the
government, and that is not my domain, but SpaceX you know,
roughly holds a 90 percent market share on launch market. And
if it wasn't for SpaceX, the U.S. actually would not even be a
competitive country in the space industry at all. And we are
the leader. And the fact that SpaceX has brought online such an
immense, unprecedented capability to launch payload to space
and are actually increasing it by an order of magnitude with
their new rocket Starship has completely changed the game for
businesses like Starpath.
Mr. Collins. Would you----
Mr. Shroff. I should say, go on.
Mr. Collins. Would you say SpaceX is a success?
Mr. Shroff. Again, at risk of stating the obvious, I would
say yes.
Mr. Collins. Yes.
Mr. Shroff. And it is totally not a political statement. It
is just based on the fact that SpaceX has enabled businesses
like AstroForge, like Starlink which connects millions of
people around the world which, SpaceX's own, and countless
other businesses that service a whole boatload of interests on
Earth.
Mr. Collins. So let me----
Mr. Shroff. So yes, I would say----
Mr. Collins. Let me ask you this, then. So when you hear
about all these extensive timelines that we have for mining
projects here, and what we have been talking about just around
the country, and the Federal regulatory burden that hinders
progress in this field, have you got any concerns for further
regulations affecting the space mining industry?
Mr. Shroff. So, first of all, I will say I am not an expert
in terrestrial mining, so I don't know what the regulatory
process looks like. But I am learning as we go and
understanding that it is burdensome.
And yes, we have some concerns, although not that many. And
I described a number of them in my opening testimony----
Mr. Collins. You did.
Mr. Shroff [continuing]. That, you know, basically we
should regulate, we should make sure that the public is safe
for sure, there should be no compromises with respect to public
safety. But regulation, particularly related to protecting
science, shouldn't slow down, and I know this is going to sound
ironic, technologies like Starpath, which will advance science.
Mr. Collins. Right. So and also you described in your
testimony that Starpath is seeking to resolve one of the
biggest barriers to regulate space travel and resource, the
extraction in space. So currently, how does the inability for
spacecraft to refuel in space set limitations on missions and
what is compromised?
Mr. Shroff. Yes, that is a phenomenal question.
So the Apollo era is a perfect example of a time when we
didn't have access to refueling in space. And the way we
overcame that problem is by throwing away 99 percent of our
rocket. So we launched a rocket into space, it did a thing that
we call staging, which means that, you know, a portion of the
rocket separates and gets discarded and the rest continues to
fly, and we did that five or six times from launching on Earth
to getting astronauts to the moon and back. And I think Apollo
is great, but that came at a really high unit cost, a unit cost
of roughly, inflation-adjusted, $10 billion per astronaut per
trip. And that is not a unit cost that any sort of commercial
business model can support.
Mr. Collins. Right.
Mr. Shroff. But with refueling and with Starship and other
fully and rapidly reusable vehicles, that $10 billion per
person can be like $200,000.
And I am totally serious when I say that you could have,
like, a multi-order of magnitude improvement in cost. And when
you have that multi-order of magnitude improvement in cost, you
open up possibility for all sorts of commercial business
models, including mining helium-3 on the moon, mining platinum
group metals from asteroids, and tourism to exist completely
not publicly funded and completely funded only by private
companies that are buying the end products.
Mr. Collins. Let me ask you one last thing, because we are
getting short on time now. So when do you think this capability
is going to be established?
Mr. Shroff. Starpath, if everything goes to plan and all of
the timelines with launch vehicles stay on track, plans to
establish its first mine on the moon at the end of 2026, and
our intent is only to scale exponentially from there.
So I would say for a customer that is interested in the
commercial product, between 2026 and 2028, which is, you know--
--
Mr. Collins. Around the corner.
Mr. Shroff [continuing]. Two to 4 years from today.
Mr. Collins. Yes, yes. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. The
gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Begich, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First question for Mr.
Painter, picking up where we left off previously.
Let's say that we have equity participation in some of
these programs, where the U.S. taxpayer is contributing to
advancing them. Where do you think that equity should be
parked? Do you think it should be parked in this proposed new
sovereign wealth fund?
Mr. Painter. It could be. It could be parked in a separate
or governmental entity or semi-governmental entity set up for
that purpose.
The government has gone into various businesses such as
mortgage lending, Fannie Mae, and student loan lending,
although we see there is a lot of abuse in these governmental
entities that have combined public sector and private sector
work. There is great risk here, and you would need corporate
finance experts and investment bankers to look at how to
structure this in the best interest of the U.S. Government.
Because if our taxpayer money is being used for these projects,
we get our fair share.
And so I am not the banker or the finance expert who is
going to come in and tell you exactly how to structure it. My
role is to make absolutely sure, and that is what I did in the
Bush administration, make absolutely sure that the government
officials who do have that expertise----
Mr. Begich. Understood, understood, yes.
Mr. Painter [continuing]. Have no conflicts of interest.
Mr. Begich. OK, I appreciate that context. So the sovereign
wealth fund may be an area that this equity could be positioned
if an equity position were taken.
Mr. Painter. We could do that.
Mr. Begich. OK.
Mr. Painter. But it is somewhat ironic for a government----
Mr. Begich. Thank you.
Mr. Painter [continuing]. With such a massive government
deficit to be talking about a sovereign wealth fund.
Mr. Begich. No, I appreciate that. I come from a State
where we have been able to utilize a sovereign wealth-like
fund, and it has been very successful. It is the Alaska
Permanent Fund, and it has allowed us to dramatically reduce
the pressure of taxation in my State, and it has been a great
program.
But moving on to Mr. Shroff, let me just say I appreciate
that you are here with us, as well as Mr. Place.
Mr. Shroff. Thank you.
Mr. Begich. And I would suggest that you continue to be
involved because much of what has occurred in this Committee,
and a number of other Committees in Congress, is that we are
constantly dealing with a Federal Government that has grown
beyond its original intent and scope. And as bizarre as this
may sound to you at the moment, don't be surprised if we end up
having conversations in this body talking about an EPA-like
agency in space. It seems ridiculous, but I guarantee you there
are colleagues in this body that will propose it at some point,
and maybe not in the far-distant future. And so your
involvement here is very important to make sure that people
remain engaged and involved, and that you assure that the
regulatory environment does not prevent you from actually being
able to advance in the areas that you would like to advance in.
One question for you, Mr. Shroff. Can you describe the
risks of letting China surpass us in what many are calling the
new space race for extracting resources?
And a follow-up to that: how does harnessing lunar
materials help the United States?
Mr. Shroff. Two great questions. I will answer the first,
you know, I am not a political expert, so, you know, you guys
are going to be experts in this domain, but it would be the
same risks as letting any foreign adversary take, you know,
take strides past us in any emerging industry.
If we were developing AI, which we are, and, you know, I am
not involved in the development of AI, and it was only, for
example. I am just going to pick a random country, France that
was developing AI, we would be looking at each other thinking,
how can we get involved? Why aren't we the leaders? America has
been for so long the technological leader across so many
technologies.
So it is the exact same risks that you see in any emerging
industry, so nothing special. And you guys are the experts in
evaluating where we want the United States to be the best. And
it is just my personal opinion, as an American that loves to be
in America, that we should be the best in everything we can.
And this is an area where we definitely can.
Mr. Begich. Thank you.
Mr. Shroff. Your second question, and I will try to be
fast, I know we are short on time, is how can harnessing lunar
resources benefit the American people? Two ways.
First, if you produce propellant on the surface of the
moon, you can drastically reduce the cost of moon missions,
many of which are sort of, of the class that we have already
spent billions of taxpayer dollars on. So the Artemis missions,
for example, you know, I support and I think are incredible,
cost a lot, you know, over $2 billion per launch for the SLS
rocket, which is the rocket that was designed for Artemis.
Those figures could be 100 or maybe even 200 times lower in a
future where you have access to lunar resources.
And the second, I know we are running out of time, the moon
has an abundant supply of a resource called helium-3. Helium-3
is likely to be one of the highest unit cost materials we ever
use, ever. And it is likely to be the case, in my opinion, that
in the near future probably all of our helium-3 supply,
practically speaking, will be sourced from the moon.
Mr. Begich. Thank you. My time is expired, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Alaska. The gentleman
from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, is recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to first thank
you for convening today's hearing as we take a wide look at the
future of our Nation's critical mineral supply chains as demand
for these minerals grows at a rapid pace.
That said, while I believe it is important that we take
this wide view, Mr. Chair, I cannot help but reflect on how we
have gotten here. Why is it that we are literally looking to
outer space for these minerals, minerals we are blessed with
right here in the United States of America? The regulatory and
permitting frameworks that govern our domestic mining industry
are making it damn near impossible to responsibly develop the
minerals we are blessed with here in the United States,
including the Duluth Complex in northern Minnesota, the biggest
untapped copper nickel find in the world. Think about it, Mr.
Chairman. Our regulatory and permitting system is so difficult
and costly, so broken, that we are looking at outer space as a
reasonable alternative.
Mr. Cabrera, it is great to see you again, and thanks for
being here. In your written testimony you note it would take
$1.2 billion to recover just 121 grams of material from the
asteroid Bennu. Can you provide a ballpark of how much it would
cost to recover those similar minerals right here domestically
in the United States?
Mr. Cabrera. I can't, frankly, do that math in my head. But
what I would say is that, I want to distinguish between the
regulations themselves and the delays associated with how they
are implemented, those are very different things. But short of
the delays, it should be much more inexpensive to derive those
minerals from Earth.
Mr. Stauber. So it is safe to say Americans will face lower
costs if we responsibly mine here in the United States of
America. Is that correct?
Mr. Cabrera. Yes.
Mr. Stauber. What kind of impact would this have on our
local communities and our national security if we domestically
mine in the United States?
Mr. Cabrera. The benefits are untold. The mining industry
of today understands how important it is to be responsible not
just for the environment, but for the host communities.
In addition, mining companies are increasingly deriving co-
products from their primary metals, and often those co-products
are the rare earth elements or, let's say, not economically
viable elements that our defense system needs.
Mr. Stauber. Right. And I will never use the term again
``waste pile rock,'' because as the technology gets better that
waste pile rock in the 1950s and 1960s is now valuable because
of the technology. You look at the Eagle Mine in the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan. Right now they are looking at mining the
ore out of the tailings because of technology.
Mr. Painter, thank you for being here today. It is great to
see a fellow Minnesotan before the Committee. In response to
questions for Mr. Collins you suggested that you support mining
if there is proper reclamation and cleanup work, and I agree
with that. Do you know where the cleanest drinking water can be
found in the State of Minnesota?
Mr. Painter. No, you should tell me. I am sure it is in
your district.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Painter. It is not in the Twin Cities, I can assure you
that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Painter, you are exactly right. It is in
the heart of mining country in Buhl, Minnesota. This is thanks
to proper reclamation and cleanup work that is being conducted
every single day by our modern domestic mining industry.
And you also noted the use of child and forced slave labor
by the Chinese in their mineral supply chains. Mr. Painter, are
you aware of any domestic mining projects that utilize or
propose to utilize child slave labor?
Mr. Painter. No, I don't know of any domestic mining
projects owned by Americans. I mean, my concern is foreign
billionaires trying to come in and mine northern Minnesota. I
want to have American-owned mines where Americans are
responsible and responsible for the cleanup.
Mr. Stauber. And you support union jobs?
Mr. Painter. I absolutely support union jobs.
Mr. Stauber. We have been mining in northern Minnesota for
145 years. Can you tell us an instance where ever child slave
labor was forced upon that mining industry in Minnesota?
Mr. Painter. Well, if it has happened, it has been a long
time because we have child labor laws in the United States. And
once again, the mines in Minnesota, they have such a fabulous
history, are owned by Americans, controlled by Americans who
are willing to clean up after themselves----
Mr. Stauber. And you have----
Mr. Painter [continuing]. If they make a mess.
Mr. Stauber. You have seen you have seen reclaimed mines in
northern Minnesota, haven't you?
Mr. Painter. Yes.
Mr. Stauber. They are beautiful, aren't they?
Mr. Painter. I am sure they are.
Mr. Stauber. They are beautiful.
Mr. Painter. I usually go to the Boundary Waters to go
canoeing, but visit some mines, too.
Mr. Stauber. If you would indulge me, we have bike paths,
recreational swimming, diving in mine pits. We farm hay on
reclaimed mines. We have birds, bees, we deer hunt on reclaimed
mines. So we do it right.
And you noted your support for mining. Where would you like
to see mining take place, in the United States of America or
foreign countries that are adversarial to us?
Mr. Painter. I would like to see mining take place in the
United States with mines owned by Americans who are willing to
clean up after themselves as we have had in Minnesota for many
years. We have a proud tradition of iron mining in the most
beautiful part of the country, which is your congressional
district.
But I am not going to stand for foreign billionaires coming
into this country with companies like Glencore, founded by Marc
Rich, who was pardoned by President Clinton for tax fraud. They
have a terrible record all over the world and setting up some
company to try and operate in northern Minnesota. I want mines
owned by Americans.
Mr. Stauber. That is why we have laws. They are going to
follow our rules, our regulations, our EPA, clean water, clean
air standards, and our labor standards.
Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentlewoman, the
Ranking Member, Ms. Dexter, is recognized for her 5 minutes.
Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Shroff, I really appreciated your testimony and giving
the United States two thumbs up on our innovation and our
investment in space exploration and mining. I wonder if
suddenly that investment was to stop, what would the impact be
on your company and, you think, that rapid innovation that we
have been successful in attaining so far?
Mr. Shroff. Well, for my company specifically, and I can't
speak for all companies, we would figure it out. And the reason
why we would figure it out is because our business is built
around a commercial-first approach. In the long term we want to
have, you know, the smallest possible percentage of our revenue
coming from Federal dollars and the largest possible percentage
of our revenue coming from customers who are getting a product
that they want, whether it be helium-3, tourist services to the
moon, or something even crazier.
And I suppose this isn't exactly an answer to your
question, but one of the things that I will say is that a lot
of really promising commercial businesses come out of public-
private partnerships. Falcon 9, the rocket that services about
90 percent of Earth's payload to orbit, not America's payload
to orbit, but Earth's payload to orbit, was actually developed
through a public-private partnership between NASA and SpaceX.
And I think that is amazing because Falcon 9 now exists and
serves all sorts of commercial-first companies like AstroForge
and like countless others.
Dr. Dexter. Right.
Mr. Shroff. So the real answer that I feel to your question
of what would happen is we would lose out on the other Falcon
9s, right, the other things that we may create that have
worldwide massive impact to their industry through public-
private partnerships.
So would the world collapse if the government were to, you
know, suddenly cut things off? No. Would Starpath fail? No. But
do I think it would be a missed opportunity? Yes, and I think
that that part is definitely obvious. And, you know, it is up
to you to figure out how much you are willing to spend, and how
valuable you think that is.
Dr. Dexter. I appreciate----thank you so much. So Falcon
9's success is benefiting the American taxpayer directly, then,
somehow?
Mr. Shroff. Yes, absolutely. So, I mean, first of all, I
will make a disclaimer here that says, you know, I don't speak
for SpaceX at all, and I can only talk about----
Dr. Dexter. I appreciate that.
Mr. Shroff [continuing]. You know, publicly available
information.
But if you look at Starlink, which I think is the case
example, because Starlink is the plurality of Falcon 9
missions, Starlink connects millions of Americans across the
country, where actually, Starlink outperforms otherwise
taxpayer-funded Internet services. So----
Dr. Dexter. But I want to be clear about the question.
Sorry, I might have not been clear. Is there direct equity in
that success coming back to the American people from that
investment?
Mr. Shroff. While I don't know the internal workings of
SpaceX.
Dr. Dexter. I am----
Mr. Shroff [continuing]. I believe the answer to your
question is actually a resounding yes.
Dr. Dexter. OK.
Mr. Shroff. And that is because NASA is a big customer of
Falcon 9, and NASA is able to buy Falcon 9 launches for a
cheaper price than what they would have to pay if Falcon 9
didn't exist.
Dr. Dexter. So I am just going to pivot to Mr. Painter.
We have talked about equity funds and different ways to
share equity in investments that the American taxpayers are
funding. Would you agree that the American taxpayers, the money
that they have invested in these explorations, are directly
benefiting back to their pocketbooks?
Mr. Painter. Well, yes. I feel like I am appearing on the
show Shark Tank.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Painter. We are making a proposal, and you are deciding
whether to invest in it while sitting on a $36 trillion Federal
debt.
You know, I wonder whether we even have the money in the
U.S. Government to invest. But if we do, I hope that those of
you who are investing on behalf of the taxpayers are free of
financial conflicts of interest, and at least I have your
financial disclosure form.
Dr. Dexter. OK. And so, when we talk about things like a
sovereign wealth fund or other ways to invest, my understanding
is that we have a deficit and we don't have liquid assets that
we can just readily do that. I am understanding that we may be
looking at liquidating public lands and investing dollars in
exploration activities at the risk of really harming our
current Federal public lands. Do you have concerns about such
an investment strategy?
Mr. Painter. I have a lot of concerns about the idea of the
government throwing money into more projects when we are
running these enormous deficits and we can't seem to manage our
budget.
But I want to insist that those who are representing the
government in this type of venture have to be free of conflicts
of interest. Mr. Musk can't be involved with SpaceX and have
anything to do with space mining in the U.S. Government. That
would just be flat-out corrupt.
Dr. Dexter. OK. And my last question is pivoting towards
SpaceX again. SpaceX is NASA's largest private contractor,
receiving about $15 billion in contracts. And since running
DOGE, Musk has received even more contracts. So SpaceX recently
obtained another $7.5 million supplemental research and
development contract with NASA, bringing their total deal with
Musk's firm to $38 million in taxpayer money.
Mr. Painter, how can the public be assured of impartial
government contracting when Musk, as head of DOGE, oversees
cuts that could impact agencies like NASA while SpaceX receives
billions in Federal contracts?
Mr. Painter. Mr. Musk cannot have anything to do with
overseeing NASA while he has a financial interest in SpaceX
which has contracts with NASA. So it is one or the other. He
divests from SpaceX and then he can get involved in matters
involving NASA or he completely recuses. He has to. It is
required under the criminal conflict of interest statute, and I
would trust that the President of the United States would
insist on that. And if the President doesn't do that, the
Congress must insist through oversight.
And this is a criminal statute, so it could have very
serious consequences for everyone if it is violated.
Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Painter.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Gosar. The gentlelady yields back.
So Dr. Cabrera, you know, you are pretty familiar, with
being in Arizona, with Resolution Copper. How much did they
spend to remediate that site?
Mr. Cabrera. I am not exactly sure, but it is in the tens
of millions of dollars for the cleanup.
Dr. Gosar. It is approaching two billion. How many
corporations do you know in America that can afford that $2
billion before you get an ounce of copper?
Mr. Cabrera. Not many.
Dr. Gosar. Not many. That is right.
So Mr. Painter, why I brought this up was because you made
the comment you want all Americans to do the mining here in
America. Well, tell me one of these all-American mining
companies. Resolution Copper is going on its 33rd year, 33
years to get a permit. That is unacceptable. Now I am going to
come back to you, but I got to ask a couple more questions
here.
Mr. Cabrera, are you familiar with these micro smelters?
Mr. Cabrera. Say again, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Micro smelters. They are the concentrators.
Mr. Cabrera. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. So what they are doing is they are looking at
this retrieving of metals that uses typically acids, right? And
they are making very small, very efficient, and they are
getting everything off. They will get gold, silver, titanium.
They will get all that based on their atomic weight, all the
little surfactants, all those little different things. Wouldn't
that make a big detail for you, depending on the size of your
mine, you would be using a couple of these or three or four of
those. Doesn't that make more sense?
Mr. Cabrera. When the technology is fully proven out at
scale, yes.
Dr. Gosar. OK. Well, it is really at scale now.
So what I was trying to get back at, Mr. Painter, was there
is a buffer area up in Minnesota. And because Congress dictated
that buffer area it has got more processing ability. Now, just
north of us, north of that mine is also some sulfuric mining,
right, in Canada?
Mr. Painter. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. Do they have any examination there?
Mr. Painter. I don't know what the regulations are in
Canada.
Dr. Gosar. No, they don't because they just have not had
any problems there. So I have a little more faith in aspects of
that.
Now I am going to ask you a couple more questions. You keep
bringing up the American people. Would you support a law that
requires that if any business is deemed a national security
interest or an energy interest, that everybody on the operating
and oversight boards be required to have either a green card or
be a citizen?
Mr. Painter. That might make sense, but I would insist that
there be a security clearance. I mean, that is what is
critical----
Dr. Gosar. Oh, I agree.
Mr. Painter [continuing]. That there be a security
clearance, because there are a lot of Americans I wouldn't want
on those boards.
Dr. Gosar. Oh, I agree with you, and where I was getting at
is if a green card or a citizen, if they do something wrong you
can hold them to treason, right?
Mr. Painter. Well, yes, but there are a lot of people who
have a green card or American citizens who I don't want
anywhere near those boards because they are a national security
risk.
Dr. Gosar. I agree. So I would take that as a benefit.
Now, you also bring up the public. What if we did this?
What if we took our public lands, like the last administration
tried to amortize our public lands and put them on the stock
exchange, the New York Stock Exchange. Now, that wasn't a good
idea and they scrambled it. But what if we did this in a law,
where we actually put some of the holdings or money that we get
off of public lands and put it in the Social Security trust
fund? That sounds to me like it would be something up your
alley, would it not?
Mr. Painter. Well, if the U.S. Government gets money, and
they should, from the public lands, get its fair share, the
Social Security Trust Fund would be a very good place to put
it. I would appreciate getting that check when I retire.
Dr. Gosar. Oh, I am loving where we are going with this
one, because I actually have a bill like that. It is called the
LASSO bill, OK? And it does exactly that. And what is going to
happen now is that the American public is going to look at this
and say, you know, we got all these public lands. Some are off
topic. You know, we have monuments, we have parks. But there is
a whole heck of a lot of other land, and they are not really
generating much. So mining would be energy. And under FLPMA you
must energy, and must minerals, and you must forest, and you
must improve your leasing, grazing leasing.
So it sounds to me like, how important Social Security was
in the last election, I am not going to trust a bureaucrat. I
want to see that tangible asset.
So Mr. Begich, the gentleman from Alaska, brought up, this
fund that would help generate some of this stuff. I think that
would be something that the American public would just
gravitate to. I am also a businessman. So when I have an asset
at $2.91 trillion, OK, going against my liability, and I can
transfer it where they are going to gain all that money and
then some, and they are going to monitor the whole fund,
doesn't that help us on our budget?
Mr. Painter. It might or might not. I haven't looked at the
details of your bill and what the proposal is. The problem is
that for 100 years, and I mentioned this last year when I
testified with the Interior Department, since the Teapot Dome
scandal we have had private interests who, by greasing the palm
of somebody here in Washington, D.C. manages to get a benefit
that other people can't get.
And my focus is the corruption, and to make absolutely sure
we don't have corruption in the relationship between the U.S.
Government and the private companies that are engaging in
mining on Federal land. Otherwise, if we don't have the
corruption and we make sure we address those problems and
confront those problems, we can make use of Federal lands,
whether they use the money for Social Security or pay down the
Federal debt or for whatever other purpose.
Dr. Gosar. Well, so I have to pay Social Security because
it is the people's money, right? We took their money and we are
supposed to be holding it, which we are not.
But anyway, I have one more last question. In your
testimony you said that government exists to serve the people,
right?
Mr. Painter. Yes, it does.
Dr. Gosar. Bureaucrats not chosen, failed to serve the
people. Ezekiel Emanuel would be one of those who helped draft
the Affordable Care Act is an example of that. Is that not
true?
Mr. Painter. That the Affordable Care Act serves the
American people?
Dr. Gosar. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Painter. Well, parts of it do. Yes, I mean, that is a
policy debate we can have.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I would think that, that is the biggest
information, is about our genetics, our health care, being
healthy and wealthy and wise. So Emanuel is not a lawmaker, was
he?
Mr. Painter. No, but----
Dr. Gosar. He was a private-sector doctor, right?
Mr. Painter. Well, yes, and we rely----
Dr. Gosar. What did he disclose? He didn't disclose
anything. He shouldn't have been part of the crafting of that
health care model.
Mr. Painter. But he wasn't sending emails to Federal
employees telling them to report back to him with what they did
last week or he is going to get them fired.
Dr. Gosar. Whoa, whoa, whoa. How do you know that? How do
you know that? You made a blanket statement. You have no idea.
Mr. Painter. I just said he wasn't doing that.
Dr. Gosar. You don't know that. You don't know that at all.
But I would tell you, as much inferences and input he had in
there, he did. I will bet you he sent a number of emails. But
it is only hypothetical.
In your line of work, as an ethics person, you have to say
that has to be that way, right?
Mr. Painter. Special government employees serve on boards
and commissions and advise the President. I worked with them in
the Bush White House. Special government employees don't do
what Mr. Musk is doing. Mr. Musk can be appointed and confirmed
by the Senate. And with a Republican-controlled Senate, I am
sure it would go very, very smoothly. He divests from his
conflicts of interest, submits a financial disclosure form, and
everything is going to work out fine. We just need to go
through the process.
Dr. Gosar. I just presented you one that didn't, and that
worked just fine.
So from that standpoint, we are going to end this, but I
wanted to say thank you very much.
The Members may have additional questions for you to
answer, and we ask that you respond to these in writing. Under
Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must submit these
questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday,
February 29. The hearing record will be held open for 10
business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, the Subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
------
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gosar
Black Moon Energy Corporation
Houston, Texas
February 26, 2025
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Gosar and Ranking Member Dexter:
On February 25, 2025, the House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing entitled:
``Full Blast: Contrasting Momentum in the Space Mining Economy to the
Terrestrial Mining Regulatory Morass.'' I write to you on behalf of
Black Moon Energy Corporation, a U.S. company headquartered in Houston,
Texas, and request this letter be included in the hearing record.
Black Moon Energy Corporation (BMEC) is a privately funded venture.
Our purpose is to advance energy security and sustainability by
providing an abundant and reliable supply of Helium-3 for terrestrial
fusion energy production reactors. While some companies may do so, BMEC
does not seek any government subsidies or grants. In fact, our business
model intentionally does not seek out or require any government
contracts or government funding. Our only request of the government is
a regulatory regime that facilitates, discourages barriers to, and
promotes commercial celestial resource extraction and recovery. The law
as it is today does that.
Fusion energy--the energy that powers the sun and stars--can
produce an essentially unlimited amount of electricity on a footprint
thousands of times smaller than renewables. Even better, electricity
generated by fusion fueled with Helium-3 supports a massive
CO2 reduction, is totally clean--no greenhouse gases, no
carbon emissions, no radioactive waste--and will be cheaper for the
consumer. Helium-3 exists in quantity only on the moon, where there is
enough to satisfy Earth's energy needs for over 10,000 years. While
many companies are engaged in perfecting commercial fusion reactors,
Black Moon Energy has developed a profitable plan to delineate and
retrieve Helium-3 resources from the lunar surface and bring it to
Earth, where it can be sold to replace and supplement fossil fuels used
to generate electricity--particularly important as electricity demand
is forecast to double in the next 25 years.
In the hearing, questions were raised about the legality of
conducting celestial resource extraction and recovery. It is our
understanding, consistent with over fifty years of legal interpretation
from the U.S. State Department Legal Advisor, across Administrations of
both parties, that international law permits commercial exploitation of
celestial resources. Furthermore, 51 U.S.C. Chapter 513 explicitly
recognizes the property rights of U.S. citizens over any celestial
resource recovered and directs the President to remove regulatory
barriers and encourage private sector exploitation of celestial
resources. Finally, the Artemis Accords recognize that commercial
extraction, recovery, and use of lunar resources is consistent with
international law, including the Outer Space Treaty. The Artemis
Accords also provide for the notification and establishment of ``safety
zones'' around commercial lunar operations, providing protection for
personnel, equipment, and operations from harmful interference.
In the hearing, competition with China in commercial celestial
resource activities was raised. Ever since Apollo 11, the U.S. has
prided itself on unmatched leadership in space exploration and
utilization. As it stands today, China has recently extracted samples
of Helium-3 from the lunar surface and is simultaneously investing
heavily in its fusion energy infrastructure. As adversarial nations
like China continue to expand their space operations, maintaining U.S.
superiority in the stars has never been more essential. Strategic
advantages, national security interests, and legitimacy in
international affairs all lay in the balance of maintaining
competitiveness in the future of the space race: resource extraction.
Pursuing the American extraction of lunar Helium-3 to keep pace with
our competitors is thus not an ``if'' or ``when,'' but a ``now.''
In closing, I highlight for the Committee that supporting the U.S.
commercial space industry has historically been a bipartisan
Congressional endeavor, including in the 2015 Commercial Space Launch
Competitiveness Act, the Act that codifies U.S. citizen property rights
over any celestial resources recovered. I encourage the Committee to
continue to support the U.S. space industry with law and policy that
encourages investment and removes obstacles to commercial recovery of
space resources.
Thank you for your interest in U.S. commercial extraction and
recovery of space resources.
Sincerely,
David Warden
CEO