    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                            STRATEGIC TRAJECTORIES:
                          ASSESSING CHINA'S SPACE RISE
                        AND THE RISKS TO U.S. LEADERSHIP
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                                 AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                DECEMBER 4, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-19

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                   __________

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    62-279                        WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chairman
    RANDY WEBER, Texas                   ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking
    JIM BAIRD, Indiana                       Member
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California            HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
    CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee         DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
    DARRELL ISSA, California             ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
    CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
    SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida              EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
    MAX MILLER, Ohio                     MAXWELL FROST, Florida
    RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              GABE AMO, Rhode Island
    MIKE COLLINS, Georgia                SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM, Virginia
    VINCE FONG, California               LUZ RIVAS, California
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    LAURA GILLEN, New York
    PAT HARRIGAN, North Carolina         GEORGE WHITESIDES, California,
    SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina               Vice-Ranking Member
    JEFF HURD, Colorado                  LAURA FRIEDMAN, California
    MIKE HARIDOPOLOS, Florida            APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
    MIKE KENNEDY, Utah                   JOSH RILEY, New York
    NICK BEGICH, Alaska                  BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    VACANT
                                     ------

                     Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

                    HON. MIKE HARIDOPOLOS, Florida, Chairman
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina,
    RICH McCORMICK, Georgia                  Ranking Member
    MIKE COLLINS, Georgia                LAURA GILLEN, New York
    VINCE FONG, California               GEORGE WHITESIDES, California
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
    MIKE KENNEDY, Utah                   ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon

                            C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                December 4, 2025

                                                                       Page

    Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Mike Haridopolos, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    18
        Written Statement............................................    20

    Written statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    19

    Statement by Representative Valerie Foushee, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    21
        Written Statement............................................    22

    Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    25
        Written Statement............................................    26

                                   Witnesses:

    Mr. Dean Cheng, Senior Fellow, The Potomac Institute for Policy
      Studies
        Oral Statement...............................................    27
        Written Statement............................................    30

    Mr. Clayton Swope, Deputy Director, Aerospace Security Project,
      Center for Strategic and International Studies
        Oral Statement...............................................    54
        Written Statement............................................    56

    Dr. Patrick Besha, Founder, Global Space Group
        Oral Statement...............................................    68
        Written Statement............................................    70

    Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Co-President, LogiQ, Inc.
        Oral Statement...............................................    73
        Written Statement............................................    75

    Discussion.......................................................   113

                  Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Mr. Dean Cheng, Senior Fellow, The Potomac Institute for Policy
      Studies........................................................   134

    Mr. Clayton Swope, Deputy Director, Aerospace Security Project,
      Center for Strategic and International Studies.................   142

    Dr. Patrick Besha, Founder, Global Space Group...................   150

    Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Co-President, LogiQ, Inc.................   157

                            STRATEGIC TRAJECTORIES:
                          ASSESSING CHINA'S SPACE RISE
                        AND THE RISKS TO U.S. LEADERSHIP

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                 Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m., in
    room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Haridopolos
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Haridopolos. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
    Space and Aeronautics will come to order. Without objection,
    the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Subcommittee
    at any time.
        Welcome to today's hearing: Strategic Trajectories
    Assessing China's Space Rise and the Risks to the United States
    Leadership. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for our
    opening statement.
        The topic today will address--is nothing more than a
    critical issue and defining challenge for this Committee.
    Understanding China's bold ambitions, addressing their
    unapologetic drive for dominance in space. We are at the start
    of the next age of exploration; one where humanity is not just
    observing the cosmos but acting on its observations and
    beginning to inhabit it.
        For those who are new to this issue, the question we should
    be asking as we explore beyond the planet is, will humanity
    carry forward the American values of economic and political
    freedom or those of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)?
        For generations, the United States led humanity into space
    with unmatched ingenuity and without a true rival. However,
    that situation is changing as China moves methodically,
    relentlessly, and ruthlessly to tighten the script on space
    capabilities and seek the strategic advantages by any means
    possible.
        History reminds us that great power competition shapes the
    destiny of civilizations. Just as the rivalry between Spain and
    Great Britain define oceans in the 16th and 17th Century, the
    competition between the United States and China will define the
    space domain today. Whoever leads beyond Earth will shape the
    future of Earth.
        Let's go back to 1957, China's ambitions goes back decades.
    Moments after Sputnik shook the world, Chairman Mao declared we
    too will make satellites. That declaration ignited a vision
    that has never faded.
        In 1992, China set into motion Project 921, its human space
    flight program which continues today. In recent years, China's
    pace has surged in part due to the declaration of the space
    stream, which transformed aspirations into coordinated missions
    for dominance.
        China's space sector has then surged forward, aimed to
    compete with America's world-leading commercial space industry.
    This is not an accident; it is strategic. To be clear, the
    objective is not merely to keep up, their objective is to
    outpace, outmaneuver, and ultimately defeat our Nation, the
    United States of America.
        But America is not standing still. In my district, Kennedy
    Space Center, we surpassed 100 launches just 2 weeks ago, 95
    launches came from one company, SpaceX who first launched in
    2006. China is not even close with around 73 launches.
        Still, Beijing is pressing ahead. Their plans include
    landing their astronauts on the lunar surface by 2030 and
    constructing research space on the Moon South Pole by 2035.
    They are also launching historic firsts. China has already
    returned lunar samples from the far side of the Moon, the first
    to do so.
        Next, they intend to launch a Mars-sample return mission in
    2028. A timeline that may beat the United States. In low-Earth
    orbit, we plan to de-orbit our own space station. China has
    maintained a continuous human presence on its own space station
    since 2021 where their astronauts serve in 6-month rotations.
        In the coming years, China intends to deploy its own space-
    based internet service and expand its global alternative to GPS
    (Global Positioning System). And while these Committees'
    jurisdiction covers commercial and civil space programs, we
    cannot ignore their army's rapidly advancing space and counter-
    space capabilities. Their systems are designed to threaten,
    disrupt, and if necessary, take out United States assets in
    space.
        So, again, I ask: Will humanity move forward with American
    values of economic and political freedom or those of the
    communist Chinese? The reality is stark. China possesses a
    real, immediate, and long-term threat to the United States
    leadership in space. And, fortunately, today's witnesses will
    provide us with more detailed overview of Chinese trajectory in
    history, strategy, and intentions. They will also share
    recommendations about how this Committee and Congress should
    respond to this true challenge.
        I thank our distinguished panel today for being here today
    and sharing their expertise with us. And I look forward to a
    serious, productive, conversation about the challenges we face
    today.
        But before I move forward, I would like to ask for
    unanimous consent for a statement from the Full Committee by
    Dr. Babin to present that copy.
        And without objection, so that is ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing on
    this critical topic.
        A central priority of my service in Congress has been to
    strengthen U.S. competitiveness in research and development,
    science, and technology. As Chairman of this committee, I have
    consistently emphasized the importance of this goal, focusing
    not only on ensuring the United States maintains its position
    as a global leader on Earth but also in space.
        To achieve this, we must acknowledge the growing challenges
    posed by the Chinese Communist Party.
        The CCP has made no secret about its ambition to emerge as
    the world's foremost leader in space exploration and
    innovation. Since the election of President Xi in 2013, the CCP
    has deepened the connection between its space program and its
    broader national goals of domestic and military modernization.
        This increased focus has led to greater attention and
    resources for its space program, resulting in several recent
    accomplishments that cannot be overlooked.
        China has maintained a crewed presence in low-Earth orbit
    since 2021, using its Tiangong [Tee-Yen-Gong] space station.
        In 2024, China became the first and only nation to return
    samples from the far side of the Moon.
        This year, China conducted a series of tests to develop
    major components and systems that will support its future lunar
    missions, demonstrating that the CCP is both committed and
    working expeditiously toward its goal of landing taikonauts on
    the Moon by 2030.
        The U.S. cannot afford to fall behind. If China takes the
    lead in space exploration, it will set the rules of the road.
    Our values - not those of the Chinese Communist Party--must
    shape those rules.
        To ensure that the United States retains its leading role
    in space, Congress must understand China's capabilities, its
    future plans, and the pace at which the CCP is completing its
    objectives. That is the purpose of today's hearing.
        A clearer understanding of China's space program will guide
    this committee's work on space policy for the remainder of this
    Congress.
        I was in the Oval Office when President Trump signed the
    last full NASA authorization bill into law in March 2017. It
    was a crucial step in the right direction, but much has
    happened in the years since.
        In the coming weeks, our committee will consider a new NASA
    authorization bill that will provide urgently needed direction
    to the agency. I look forward to working with my colleagues to
    send this bill to the President's desk.
        However, China's achievements extend beyond its government
    space activities. A report by the Commercial Space Federation,
    released in September, highlights significant growth in China's
    investment in its commercial space industry.
        America's commercial space sector is the envy of the world,
    but maintaining that status is not guaranteed, and our
    leadership is far from assured. Next year, our committee will
    consider new commercial space legislation that builds on the
    Commercial Space Act of 2023, which I was proud to lead.
        As I said during our commercial space hearing last
    September, we can either be tethered to Earth by red tape while
    the Chinese move ahead--or we can act decisively. This bill
    will help ensure the continued growth of our commercial space
    sector.
        We have a lot of work ahead of us, but with Congress,
    stakeholders, and the administration working together, we can
    keep America at the helm as we enter the next era of space
    exploration.
        I am pleased to welcome today's excellent panel of
    witnesses. Several of you are no strangers to this committee. I
    look forward to your testimony and the opportunity to engage
    with you this morning.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

        [The prepared statement of Chairman Haridopolos follows:]

        The topic we will address today is nothing less than a
    critical issue and defining challenge for this committee:
    understanding China's bold ambitions and addressing their
    unapologetic drive for dominance in space.
        We are at the start of the next age of exploration. One
    where humanity is not just observing the cosmos but acting on
    its observations and beginning to inhabit it.
        For those new to this issue, the question we should be
    asking as we explore beyond our planet is: Will humanity carry
    forward the American values of economic and political freedom
    or those of the Chinese Communist Party?
        For generations, the United States led humanity into space
    with unmatched ingenuity and without a true rival.
        However, that situation is changing as China moves
    methodically, relentlessly and ruthlessly to tighten its grip
    on space capabilities and seek the strategic advantages it
    confers by any means possible.
        History reminds us that great-power competition shapes the
    destiny of civilizations. Just as the rivalry between Spain and
    Great Britain defined the oceans in the 16th and 17th
    centuries, the competition between the United States and China
    will define the space domain today. Whoever leads beyond Earth
    will shape the future of Earth.
        Now, let's go back to 1957. China's ambitions stretch back
    decades. Moments after Sputnik shook the world, Chairman Mao
    declared, ``We too will make satellites.'' That declaration
    ignited a vision that has never faded.
        In 1992, the People's Republic of China set in motion
    Project 921, its human spaceflight program, which continues on
    to this day.
        In recent years under President Xi, China's pace has
    surged, in part due to his declaration of a Chinese ``space
    dream'', which transformed aspirations into a coordinated
    national mission for dominance.
        China's commercial space sector has since surged forward,
    aimed to compete with America's world-leading commercial space
    industry. This is not accidental. It is strategic.
        And to be clear, the objective is not merely to keep up.
    Their objective is to outpace, outmaneuver, and ultimately
    defeat the United States.
        But America is not standing still. In my district, at the
    Kennedy Space Center, we surpassed 100 launches just two weeks
    ago. Roughly 95 percent of those launches came from a single
    commercial company, SpaceX, who first launched in 2006. China
    is not even close at around 73 launches.
        Still, Beijing is pressing ahead. Their plans include
    landing taikonauts on the lunar surface by 2030 and
    constructing a research base at the Moon's South Pole by 2035.
        They are also achieving historic firsts. China has already
    returned Lunar samples from the far side of the Moon--the first
    to do so.
        Next, they intend to launch a Mars sample-return mission in
    2028, a timeline that may beat the United States.
        In low-Earth orbit, while we plan to deorbit our own space
    station, China has maintained a continuous human presence on
    its own space station since 2021, with taikonauts serving six-
    month crew rotations.
        In the coming years, China intends to deploy its own space-
    based internet service and expand its global alternative to
    GPS.
        And while this committee's jurisdiction covers commercial
    and civil space programs, we cannot ignore the People's
    Liberation Army's rapidly advancing space and counterspace
    capabilities. Their systems are designed to threaten, disrupt,
    and if necessary, take out U.S. assets in space.
        So again, I ask: Will humanity carry forward the American
    values of economic and political freedom or those of the
    Communist Chinese Party?
        The reality is stark. China poses a serious immediate and
    long-term threat to U.S. leadership in space.
        Today's witnesses will provide us with a more detailed
    overview of China's trajectory: its history, strategy, and
    intentions.
        They will also share recommendations about how this
    committee and Congress should respond to this mercurial
    challenge.
        I thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for being here
    today and sharing your expertise with the subcommittee.
        I look forward to a serious and productive discussion of
    the challenges before us.

        Chairman Haridopolos. And with that, I want to recognize
    our Ranking Member, Mrs. Foushee, from North Carolina for her
    opening statement. Thank you so much.
        Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, and good morning. And thank you
    Chairman Haridopolos for holding today's hearing to review
    China's space activities and the implications for the United
    States Space Program. I want to also welcome our distinguished
    witnesses, thank you for being here.
        It is no surprise that we are here today to assess China's
    space rise and the risks to U.S. leadership. China's ascending
    space capabilities are fast approaching strategic comparability
    with the United States. This is intentional. Xi Jinping's space
    dream stresses the importance of China dominating the space
    domain.
        The recently released 2025 annual report to Congress of the
    U.S., China, economic, and security review commission states
    that China has embarked on a whole of government strategy to
    become the world's preeminent space power. These are not near
    projections or rhetoric.
        China is methodically carrying out increasingly
    sophisticated space capabilities in its efforts to dominate.
    China has joined the ranks of only the U.S. and Russia in
    launching humans into space.
        To date, China has become only the second Nation to land
    and operate a spacecraft on Mars. In addition, China operates a
    continuously crewed space station in low-Earth orbit and has
    racked up a number of firsts, including landing on and
    collecting and returning samples from the far side of the Moon
    and placing communications satellites around the Moon and more.
    That is not all. China has publicly announced its plans to land
    humans on the surface of the Moon by 2030, establish a
    permanent International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) by 2025,
    and acquire samples from Mars and return them to Earth in the
    early 2030s.
        In 2024, China released its first Mid-and Long-Term Plan
    for Space Science in which it aims to achieve top-tier
    international ranking in major space science areas by 2050.
        Further, China is aggressively investing in and enabling a
    quasi-commercial space sector, as well as growing its
    international partnerships.
        Why does it matter? The People's Republic of China (PRC)
    for which there is no distinction between civil and military
    space knows that leadership in space has brought the United
    States invaluable geopolitical soft power, significant and
    beneficial international alliances, economic growth fueled by
    innovation, bold and inspiring missions that drive and attract
    STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
    talent, and national security advantages.
        How we navigate China's ascending space capabilities today
    has direct impacts on every American--our banking,
    communications, weather prediction, agriculture, natural
    resource management and national security, for example, all
    rely on space systems.
        Threats to the U.S. presence and leadership in space could
    put at risk a critical backbone of our social, security, and
    economic systems.
        And how are we navigating China's space rise? The Trump
    Administration appears to believe that attacking research
    university, gutting our Federal STEM workforce, withdrawing
    from international engagement, and significantly
    underinvestigating--investing rather, in research and
    development (R&D) is the answer.
        Just look at this stark comparison between China's space
    science plans and those of the Trump Administration as prepared
    by the Planetary Society. Is this a winning strategy?
        While I am pleased that the Nancy Grace Roman Space
    Telescope on which both Duke and North Carolina Central
    University in my district collaborate is maintained in making
    excellent progress, ceding so many transformational space
    science missions to China alone will send a dangerous message.
        As Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, I have expressed
    before, I will not stand for handing the keys to lunar
    exploration or space leadership to China. This is a pivotal
    moment. We on this Subcommittee and the Science Committee have
    a responsibility and an obligation to advance sound policies
    that ensure and sustain America's civil and global leadership
    in space.
        We must meet this challenge with bold policies, robust
    investments, and a unified vision to preserve our Nation's
    leadership in space exploration and innovation.
        We also need to critically navigate our coexistence with
    China in space. For example, are there areas where limited
    engagement in China, such as on space flight safety could serve
    U.S. interests?
        At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for unanimous
    consent to permit Representative Don Beyer to attend this
    hearing and ask questions of the witnesses.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Foushee follows:]

        Good morning and thank you Chairman Haridopolos for holding
    today's hearing to review China's space activities and the
    implications for the United States space program. I want to
    also welcome our distinguished witnesses. Thank you for being
    here.
        It is no surprise that we are here today to assess China's
    space rise and the risks to U.S. leadership. China's ascending
    space capabilities are fast approaching strategic comparability
    with the United States. This is intentional.
        Xi Jingping's ``Space Dream'' stresses the importance of
    China dominating the space domain. The recently released 2025
    annual report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and
    Security Review Commission states that ``China has embarked on
    a whole-of-government strategy to become the world's preeminent
    space power.''
        These are not mere projections or rhetoric. China is
    methodically carrying out increasingly sophisticated space
    capabilities in its effort to dominate. China has joined the
    ranks of only the U.S. and Russia in launching humans into
    space. To date, China has become only the second nation to land
    and operate a spacecraft on Mars. In addition, China operates a
    continuously crewed space station in low-Earth orbit and has
    racked up a number of ``firsts:''
        Including landing on--and collecting and returning samples
    from--the far side of the Moon; emplacing communications
    satellites around the Moon, and more.
        That is not all. China has publicly announced its plans to
    land humans on the surface of the Moon by 2030, establish a
    permanent international lunar research station by 2035, and
    acquire samples from Mars and return them to Earth in the early
    2030s.
        In 2024, China released is first Mid-and Long-Term Plan for
    Space Science in which it aims to achieve ``top-tier
    international ranking'' in major space science areas by 2050.
    Further, China is aggressively investing in and enabling a
    quasi-commercial space sector as well as growing its
    international partnerships.
        Why does it matter? The People's Republic of China, for
    which there is no distinction between civil and military space,
    knows that leadership in space has brought the United States
    invaluable geopolitical soft power, significant and beneficial
    international alliances, economic growth fueled by innovation,
    bold and inspiring missions that drive and attract STEM talent,
    and national security advantages. How we navigate China's
    ascending space capabilities today has direct impacts on every
    American. Our banking, communications, weather prediction,
    agriculture, natural resource management, and national
    security, for example, all rely on space systems. Threats to
    the U.S.'s presence and leadership in space could put at risk a
    critical backbone of our social, security, and economic
    systems.
        And how are we navigating China's space rise? The Trump
    Administration appears to believe that attacking research
    universities, gutting our Federal STEM workforce, withdrawing
    from international engagement, and significantly underinvesting
    in research and development is the answer. Just look at this
    stark comparison between China's space science plans and those
    of the Trump Administration, as prepared by the Planetary
    Society. Is this a winning strategy?
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2279.017

        While I'm pleased that the Nancy Grace Roman Space
    Telescope--on which both Duke and North Carolina Central
    University in my district collaborate--is maintained and making
    excellent progress, ceding so many transformational space
    science missions to China alone would send a dangerous message.
        As Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, I have expressed
    before: I will not stand for handing the keys to lunar
    exploration--or space leadership--to China. This is a pivotal
    moment. We, on this Subcommittee and in the Science Committee,
    have a responsibility and an obligation to advance sound
    policies that ensure and sustain America's civil and global
    leadership in space.
        We must meet this challenge with bold policies, robust
    investments, and a unified vision to preserve our nation's
    leadership in space exploration and innovation. We also need to
    critically navigate our co-existence with China in space. For
    example, are there areas where limited engagement with China,
    such as on spaceflight safety, could serve U.S. interests?
        By strengthening our strategic focus, funding, and global
    partnerships, we can ensure that the United States remains the
    leader in space for decades to come.
        I hope our witnesses will give us concrete recommendations
    on how to ensure U.S. leadership in the strategic competition
    with China, and what Congress should consider as we work to
    reauthorize NASA, not only on highly visible programs such as
    Artemis, low-Earth orbit, and science--But also on the
    consequential roles of technical standards, regulatory
    policies, and international partnerships and diplomacy that
    have far-reaching influence for United States space activities
    and much more.
        At this time, Mr. Chairman, I ask for Unanimous Consent to
    permit Representative Don Beyer, to attend this hearing and ask
    questions of the witnesses.
        Thank you, and I yield back.

        Chairman Haridopolos. Without objection, that is ordered.
    Next, we have--I want to recognize our Ranking Member, the
    Ranking Member on the Full Committee, Ms. Lofgren for a comment
    as well.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for today's
    hearing. The topic is very important for our work here in the
    Science Committee, and the Federal Science Technology and
    Innovation Enterprise.
        As we know, China is making unprecedented investments in
    research and development across science and technology, and
    space is a core component of this strategy. They represent a
    real threat to the United States' long history as the
    undisputed global leader in space. And it is critical that we
    understand the PRC's current capabilities, their plans, as well
    as their strategic objectives.
        At the same time, it is also critical that we redouble our
    commitment to supporting and stewarding a strong, robust space
    program that continues to push the boundaries in Earth and
    space science in human space flight exploration and space
    technology development.
        You know, in the very first Science Committee hearing in
    this Congress, we heard from expert witnesses about the state
    of U.S. science and technology, and that China was actually
    leading in 37 of 44 critical technologies. In my remarks at
    that hearing, I said we couldn't ignore the reality outside the
    four walls of this hearing room.
        The new Administration was actively and with unprecedented
    speed and ferocity, apparently seeking to tear down and
    undermine some of the very scientific foundations upon which
    our leadership has been so painstakingly built.
        Now, we are here 10 months later and the Administration has
    not relented in its destructive endeavors. The U.S. Science and
    Technology Enterprise continues to take blow after blow. NASA
    (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and the Space
    Enterprise has not been spared.
        This summer, the Administration launched a pressure
    campaign of intimidation against the entire NASA civil servant
    workforce. And now the agency has lost nearly 4,000 people over
    20 percent of the civil servant workforce. And there doesn't
    seem to be a strategy in determining who should leave and who
    should stay.
        And just over the last couple of months, largely under the
    cover of a government shutdown, NASA has been rushing to
    shutter nearly half of the Goddard Space Flight Center's main
    campus.
        I simply do not understand how anyone reconciles rhetoric
    about competing with China while pulling the rug out from under
    our own research enterprise. I don't want to speak for our
    witnesses, but I expect we are about to hear that China is not
    culling its talent and technical capabilities, that is not
    undermining its universities, and turning the world's brightest
    minds away. Yet, that is what our Federal Government is being
    forced to do today by really an out-of-control White House and
    OMB (Office of Management and Budget).
        Congress needs to step up to the bat. The clock's ticking.
    As this Administration continues to cripple our science and
    technology enterprise, China is deliberately and systematically
    implementing long-term plans.
        Now, I have no doubt that all of us on both sides of the
    aisle serving on this Committee want to ensure U.S. leadership
    in space. But words are cheap, and actions are priceless. It is
    up to us on this Committee and in Congress to take the
    necessary actions that will sustain our global leadership in
    space and in science and technology more broadly.
        Anything less is an invitation to take--let China take the
    mantle in space and in so much more.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

        Good morning, and thank you Mr. Chairman, for holding
    today's hearing. I also want to thank our expert witnesses for
    being here.
        This topic is incredibly important for our work here on the
    Science Committee and the federal science, technology, and
    innovation enterprise. China is making unprecedented
    investments in research and development across science and
    technology, and space is a core component of their strategy.
    They represent a very real, constant threat to the United
    States' long history as the undisputed global leader in space.
    It is critical that we understand the PRC's current
    capabilities, plans, and strategic objectives. At the same
    time, it is also critical that we redouble our commitment to
    supporting and stewarding a strong, robust space program that
    continues to push the boundaries in Earth and space science,
    human spaceflight exploration, and space technology
    development.
        In the first Science Committee hearing of this Congress, we
    heard from expert witnesses about the state of U.S. science and
    technology, and that China is actually leading in 37 of 44
    critical technologies. In my opening remarks, I said that I
    could not ignore the reality outside of the four walls of this
    hearing room:
        The new Administration was actively, and with unprecedented
    speed and ferocity, apparently seeking to tear down and
    undermine some of the very scientific foundations upon which
    our leadership has been so painstakingly built.
        Unfortunately, here we are, ten months later, and the
    Administration has not relented in its destructive endeavors.
    The U.S. science and technology enterprise continues to take
    blow after blow, to this very day. NASA and the space
    enterprise has not been spared. This summer, the Administration
    launched a pressure campaign of intimidation against the entire
    NASA civil servant workforce, and now the agency has lost
    nearly 4,000 people--over 20% of its civil servant workforce,
    with no apparent strategy in determining who should leave and
    who should stay. And, just over the last couple of months--
    largely under the cover of a government shutdown--NASA has been
    rushing to shutter nearly half of the Goddard Space Flight
    Center's main campus.
        I could go on with the insults and injuries this
    Administration sees fit to impose upon this nation's space
    program, but I will spare us. I'll simply repeat something else
    I said in February: I simply do not understand how anyone
    reconciles rhetoric about competing with China with pulling the
    rug out from under our own research enterprise.
        I do not want to speak for our witnesses, but I anticipate
    that we are about to hear that China is not culling its talent
    and technical capabilities, nor is it undermining its
    universities and turning the world's brightest minds away. Yet,
    that is what our federal government is being forced to do today
    by an out-of-control White House and OMB. Congress needs to
    step up.
        The clock is ticking. As this Administration continues to
    cripple our science and technology enterprise, China is
    deliberately and systematically implementing its long-term
    plans.
        I have no doubt that all of us serving on this Committee
    want to ensure U.S. leadership in space. Words are cheap, but
    actions are priceless. It is up to us on this Committee and in
    Congress to take the necessary actions that will sustain our
    global leadership in space, and science and technology more
    broadly. Anything less is an invitation for China to take the
    mantle in space and more.
        Thank you, and I yield back.

        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you. We are now going to
    introduce our witnesses.
        First, our first witness today is Dr. Dean Cheng who serves
    as senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
        Our second witness is Dr. Clayton Swope who serves as the
    deputy director of this aerospace security project at the
    Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
        Our third witness is Dr. Patrick Besha who is the founder
    of the Global Space Group.
        And our final witness is Dr. Michael Griffin who serves as
    the co-president of LogiQ, Inc.
        I would like to thank each of our witnesses for joining us
    today. And our first speaker today will be Mr. Cheng for 5
    minutes to present his testimony. Welcome to the Committee.

              TESTIMONY OF MR. DEAN CHENG, SENIOR FELLOW,

                THE POTOMAC INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES

        Mr. Cheng. Thank you very much, sir. Chairman Haridopolos,
    Ranking Member Foushee, Ranking Member Lofgren, thank you for
    the opportunity to be here today. My comments are purely my
    own.
        As the opening remarks noted, the Chinese Communist Party
    sees space as vital. Space from the CCP's perspective
    contributes to all aspects of comprehensive national power--
    military, economic, diplomatic, political, scientific, and
    technological, even cultural. One of the key benefits this PRC
    sees from engaging heavily in space is the experience gained in
    things like systems integration and systems engineering, which
    then redounds throughout the Chinese economy in all of its
    various aspects.
        Space from the CCP's perspective is also vital because we
    live in the information age. And space is central for
    establishing information dominance in a world where information
    is the new currency of power, economic power, military power,
    international power.
        To this end, the Chinese are using space to develop their
    domestic techno-economic base. Two key concepts in this regard:
    One is dual circulation, creating essentially a walled-off
    domestic economy where foreign players are not part of the
    supply chain, engaging in intense, internal competition to
    generate new technology and efficient production, which they
    will then go out and compete globally against the rest of the
    world, including American companies. And the other element here
    is military-civil fusion, which is ensuring that every renminbi
    serves both civil and military purposes.
        And we see in particular the Chinese shift from a state-
    owned enterprise-centric approach to one that also embraces
    commercial enterprises as a key part of the overall Chinese
    effort to improve their overall space industrial complex.
        In this regard, then, the Chinese have a plan, and that
    plan is very much the core of the threat to the United States.
    In essence, the Chinese are striving to build out their space
    capabilities, whether it is an array of satellite networks and
    constellations, including mega constellations, a cis-lunar
    capacity to support a sustained long-term presence both on the
    Moon and in cis-lunar space, replete with lunar Position,
    Navigation, Timing (PNT), and communication support and, of
    course, building out a robust military space capability as
    reflected in the Military Aerospace Force.
        Second, to buildup their space industrial base, which will
    include commercial as well as state-owned enterprise elements,
    but has also seen the creation of regional aerospace industrial
    complexes in places like Wuhan, away from Beijing and Shanghai,
    and finally building in dual use. Military civil fusion is
    about creating a melded, fused national industrial base that
    can serve as both the military and civilian demands.
        Here the Chinese have a huge advantage and much of the
    opening remarks by the respected Members highlights this. China
    sticks to a plan. It creates a plan, and it sticks to it for
    decades. And the benefit there is programmatic stability,
    budgetary stability, staff stability. I know I will have a job
    on this project for years and decades, and the people I work
    with will be the same ones.
        Very quickly, specifically, on the PLA aspect, the People's
    Liberation Army, the PLA poses a multifaceted threat in part
    because China views space holistically: satellites, ground
    segment, data links. The threat to American space systems,
    therefore, is not simply the very sexy image of anti-satellite
    systems, but also jamming and cyber attacks. And we have seen
    the intelligence community accuse China of engaging in things
    like Volt Typhoon, implanting malware in critical
    infrastructure. But we should also note that the Chinese being
    very close observers of other people's wars have undoubtedly
    learned lessons, such as operation Spider Web in Ukraine, the
    use of drones launched within an adversary's country to attack
    critical infrastructure, which in this case should be
    considered to include to space capability.
        The other aspect of the threat, however, is the industrial
    and standards aspect. The growth of Chinese commercial space
    poses a very different, but nonetheless threatening, challenge.
    Why shouldn't other countries buy from PRC commercial
    companies? And Huawei leads the way in demonstrating how China
    has been very much able to use commercial capabilities to
    achieve inroads where it does not therefore have to use the
    military.
        Thank you very much to the Committee for the opportunity to
    be here today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cheng follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Mr. Cheng.
        Next, we have Mr. Swope for 5 minutes. You are recognized.

                    TESTIMONY OF MR. CLAYTON SWOPE,

              DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AEROSPACE SECURITY PROJECT,

             CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

        Mr. Swope. Thank you, Chairman Haridopolos, Ranking Member
    Foushee, Ranking Member Lofgren, and distinguished Members of
    the Committee. I am honored to share my views with you on this
    important topic. CSIS does not take policy positions, so the
    views represented in this testimony are my own and not those of
    my employer.
        The People's Republic of China is methodically executing an
    ambitious space agenda that aims to prove that China is a world
    power in space without equal. Beijing is using space in ways
    that provide direct, tangible benefits to its military and its
    economy, while also fostering national pride and unity. Every
    new space technology, skill, and industrial capacity acquired
    by the PRC will be used to provide the People's Liberation
    Army, a battlefield advantage, as well as power civilian and
    commercial innovation and economic growth.
        So what is China doing today? Space fits squarely into the
    PRC's economic development policies to increase its industrial
    might. The PRC has built satellite and rocket factories and
    associated supply chains, launch facilities, ground stations,
    and space object tracking systems. China is developing on-orbit
    technologies, such as in-space refueling, highly maneuverable
    satellites, space station nuclear and solar power, and
    satellite docking and captured technology.
        To date, China has not shown that it can conduct space
    launch at the same scale or build satellites as fast as the
    United States. But China is working to close that gap and
    master reusable launch. It just tested a reusable launch
    vehicle within the last 24 hours.
        China is already launching satellite constellations. The
    PRC Civil Space Program has methodically checked off
    achievements in human space flight and uncrewed exploration
    that will probably culminate in a human landing on the Moon by
    2030.
        China has already built three space stations and conducted
    six robotic lunar missions, and a mission is Mars. China is on
    track to be the first country to return samples of Mars to
    Earth.
        China has deployed space capabilities that allow the PLA to
    monitor what is happening on Earth and in space, communicate
    with its forces throughout the Indo-Pacific region, and
    navigate with a high level of precision. The PLA is fielding an
    increasingly sophisticated toolkit of counter-space weapons
    that can threaten U.S. and allied satellites.
        To date, China has mostly copied the U.S. playbook in
    space. But China is doing things that no one else has done.
    China was the first Nation to land on and conduct a sample of
    return from the far side of the Moon. China conducted the
    world's first satellite refueling in geosynchronous orbit
    within the last few months.
        China operates the first and only communication satellite
    in an orbit around an Earth-Moon Lagrange point. So what can
    the United States do? How should we think about this? If the
    United States is in a race with China, it is a race that has no
    end. Other than an end associated with the rise and fall of
    nations in a timeframe measured over centuries.
        Chairman, to your point, like the contest between England
    and Spain, I also think the contest between Rome and Carthage.
    These races last centuries.
        China is running such a race. With its focus on military
    civil fusion, Beijing is marshalling its technical and
    manufacturing resources to enhance its overall national power
    with space playing a key role.
        The importance of space and national power is also
    recognized by the United States. With President Trump noting in
    July that space systems power exploration, defense, and
    communication, and that the Nation will ensure the American
    flag remains the ultimate symbol of leadership across the final
    frontier.
        Though the PRC space power is growing, the United States
    can retain its lead and ensure it remains the world's most
    consequential space power. To do so, we must use our strongest
    advantages. We have a maturity of still growing space
    innovation ecosystem; we have a space economy built on free-
    market principles; and we have a coalition of willing and
    international partners who want and choose to work with the
    United States.
        These characteristics of our national space power are force
    multipliers and should be harnessed in the same way that
    Beijing uses military civil fusion to advance the defense,
    economic security, scientific objectives, and prestige of our
    Nation.
        In 1963, Edward Teller, a scientist who played a critical
    role in the Manhattan project testified before Congress on
    strategic developments, saying that I believe that in a race
    for knowledge, we will win. But I believe that in a race in
    which we are not running, or running halfheartedly, we have
    been losing, and we will continue to lose.
        Today, we as a nation may face a similar situation in
    space. We have many advantages over the PRC, structural
    advantages that we can use to maintain our edge, but to do so
    we need to start running.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Swope follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Mr. Swope. Next, we have
    Dr. Besha. I keep pronouncing your incorrectly, I want to make
    sure I----
        Dr. Besha. Besha.
        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you. You are recognized for 5
    minutes.

                    TESTIMONY OF DR. PATRICK BESHA,

                      FOUNDER, GLOBAL SPACE GROUP

        Dr. Besha. Thank you, Chairman Haridopolos, Ranking Member
    Foushee, and Ranking Member Lofgren, and distinguished Members
    of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my
    perspective on China's space strategy and its implications for
    the U.S. You know, when I started at NASA 20 years ago as a
    specialist on China, the country had just launched their first
    astronaut into orbit and had not yet launched their first lunar
    mission. How times have changed?
        Today, the U.S. and China are the two most powerful
    spacefaring Nations, engaged in a long-term strategic
    competition that spans multiple elements.
        Geopolitics, national security, economic competitiveness,
    social and cultural influence, and science. I will briefly
    discuss each major area. Geopolitics, national pride, and
    prestige have been central drivers of China's space program
    since its establishment. Today, human space flight missions are
    most closely associated with these goals, including its current
    space station and planned human lunar landing and the
    International Lunar Research Station. Human spaceflight is
    extraordinarily expensive and highly symbolic.
        And so, therefore, serving very powerful signalling
    function. The geopolitical stakes were once summed up by Lyndon
    Johnson as: In the eyes of the world, first in space means
    first period; second in space is second in everything.
        Today, the importance of space has only grown with our
    national security and economy relying on it. Developing a major
    space program has also exercised in compelling excellence from
    propulsion and material science to industrial organization and
    the supply chains, space missions pull and push the development
    of new technologies while adhering to the highest quality
    standards. In essence, such missions provide a tangible measure
    of a nation's economic strength in geopolitical power.
        Second, our ability to operate in space is integral to
    national security, including our utilization of Position,
    Navigation, and Timing, reconnaissance communications. The same
    holds true for all major space powers. Second, space has always
    been intensely dual use. From military-funded civilian startups
    to federally funded research centers that build both civil and
    military spacecraft.
        In China, a similar phenomenon is referred to as military-
    civil fusion. It is part of a comprehensive effort to exploit
    the best innovation wherever it may exist. In 2019, images of
    Chang'e 4 on the far side of the Moon were celebrated in the
    Great Hall of the People. Xi Jinping held it as--the mission as
    a demonstration of a new type of whole nation system.
        Social and cultural influence also shapes the strategy of
    the space program. Spaceflight is the core part of the China
    Dream of national rejuvenation--a return to the country's
    preeminent place at the center of the world and now the
    expansion of civilization deeper into the solar system.
        Tying together China's ancient and modern cultures is a
    hallmark of Xi Jinping thought and a push to promote the
    country's unique cultural identity while legitimizing party
    rule. One way this is symbolized is the use of traditional
    mythology in the naming of the space missions.
        Economic competitiveness is a measure of how well a
    nation's firms compete globally. It can provide insight into
    firm productivity, or how officially inputs are turned into
    profits and services. China's state-owned enterprises typically
    lag its private sector firms in productivity. For this reason,
    it expanded the commercial space sector, which is now the
    world's second largest after the U.S. However, under a state
    capitalist model, the commercial sector is still robustly
    controlled by the state from capital markets to firm
    management.
        Core to the Nation's competitiveness is its manufacturing;
    China's ability to outproduce and outscale others is reflected
    in its roughly one-third share of all manufacturing in the
    world. With this comes process knowledge, not simply the
    building instructions, but the hands-on knowledge of how to
    build, how to innovate, and how to become more efficient. China
    has hundreds of space companies competing to drive down costs
    through process and scale efficiencies. As space becomes
    commoditized, this approach will greatly improve its economic
    competitiveness, just as it has in other sectors such as solar.
        The pursuit of science and the expansion of knowledge is
    evident. And the country's recent achievements as you have
    mentioned, the first return of lunar samples since 1976, the
    first successful landing on Mars--a second country to land on
    Mars successfully.
        Its latest science strategy covering the next 25 years
    proposes ambitious missions to Jupiter and Saturn--Jupiter and
    Neptune, excuse me. Other key strategies such as ``Made in
    China 2025'' also prioritizes space. Success in these goals
    such as building infrastructure on the lunar South Pole and
    returning samples from Mars would mark exceptional world-
    class--world first achievements with significant national
    prestige and soft-power effects.
        We are engaged not so much in a space race, but a long-term
    broad, strategic competition. I recommend a few measures that
    could support an enduring American advantage. Support Earth and
    space science robustly, including strategic missions of
    national importance, establishing a long-term Artemis mission
    manifest; and advance a strategic international cooperation.
        I recently left NASA, but I had great optimism that the
    agency and its partners in industry can, if appropriately
    funded, continue to achieve the highest level of excellence.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Besha follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Dr. Besha. Finally, we
    have Dr. Griffin of his first 5 minutes. Welcome to the
    Committee.

                  TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN,

                       CO-PRESIDENT, LOGIQ, INC.

        Dr. Griffin. Chairman Haridopolos, Ranking Members Foushee
    and Lofgren, and Members of the Committee, I thank you for the
    invitation to appear before you to discuss what I believe to be
    a critically important topic. To the point of this hearing, the
    Chinese Communist Party's goals in space and its rising
    capability to implement them could not be more clear. China is
    going to the Moon. No access to classified information or other
    special knowledge is required to realize this.
        In my statement for the record, I have noted well over a
    dozen open source references from among many more that could be
    offered, describing their progress in developing the heavy-lift
    launch vehicles, crewed lunar lander, lunar surface suit and
    rover, and Earth return vehicle that will enable the execution
    of an Apollo-style mission to the lunar surface.
        Going to the Moon is a very hard thing. They may or may not
    make it by the publicly referenced date of 2030, but that is
    not important. What is important is China is going to the Moon.
    The problem facing us is not China's rise. We cannot control
    what China is doing. We can only control what we are doing. Of
    those efforts, I am forced to say that mediocrity would be an
    improvement. We have squandered a 60-year head start on
    pioneering the space frontier to a nation that, without reason
    or provocation on our part, has chosen to become our adversary.
        For a self-declared adversary to occupy a human frontier
    that we can no longer reach, should be understood as an
    existential concern, if only because of their own words on the
    matter.
        From Ye Peijian, China's former director of lunar
    exploration missions at the 2017 Beijing Space Congress, I
    quote: ``The Cosmos is an ocean. The Moon is the Diaoyu
    Islands. Mars is Huanyan Island,'' which we call Scarborough
    Shoal. ``If we can go, but don't go, future generations would
    condemn us. Once others are there, once others have occupied,
    no matter how much you wanted to go, you couldn't.''
        This is a stunning statement. The United States and its
    allies and partners would never think to say that if we reach
    the Moon while others cannot, they cannot also go there. The
    fact that key figures in the Chinese Communist Party hold this
    view should be of the utmost concern. But what is our response?
        When I appeared before this Committee on January 17 of
    2024, I had offered a rather blunt assessment of NASA's plan
    for human return to the Moon. I said it will not work in any
    reasonable timeframe. Additional misgivings have been more
    recently offered by former NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine
    in September 2025 Senate hearing and by the NASA Aerospace
    Safety Advisory Panel, both referenced in my statement for the
    record.
        To avoid offering criticism without a solution in the 2024
    statement, I submitted a system architecture for human lunar
    return that could be implemented with systems available today
    or near term. I and my colleague, Dr. Lisa Porter, who
    contributed significantly to both that testimony and today's,
    subsequently offered a more comprehensive paper on that
    architecture available online and incorporated for reference in
    my statement for the record for this hearing. Others have also
    suggested alternative system architectures for human and lunar
    return missions.
        However, NASA, two successive Presidential Administrations,
    and the Congress that oversees them have so far chosen to
    continue on a path that cannot work, and which even if it could
    poses a level of crew risk that should be considered
    unacceptable.
        I will repeat my recommendation from 23 months ago. The
    Artemis III mission and those beyond should be canceled, and we
    should start again, proceeding with all deliberate speed. We
    have lost a lot of time, we may or may not be able to return to
    the Moon before the Chinese execute their own first landing, or
    we may.
        Space is hard, and despite the progress that China is
    making, mission success is guaranteed to no one. But though we
    may not win at this first step, we cannot cede the pursuit and
    leave the playing field to others.
        The true risk the United States faces right now is not just
    in failing to return to the Moon before China, but in failing
    to commit to what winning really means. In the long run,
    winning is about being first, and then remaining to establish
    the protocols, the governance rules, and ultimately the culture
    and the values--the primacy of the individual over the State,
    the rule of law, the right to own property, the bounty of the
    free market--that others who wish to join us on the human
    frontier must embrace.
        Establishing the foundations for that future cannot be
    accomplished without a sustained commitment. I am confident
    that China fully understands this. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Griffin follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Dr. Griffin. I thank each
    of the witnesses for their testimony. I will now recognize
    myself for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Cheng, if you would, there has been a lot of discussion
    about schedules and the idea that the United States and China,
    of course, are in this race not only to the Moon but beyond.
    But there has also been this unique conversation that each one
    of you brought it up in the sense that China seems to stay on
    schedule a little better than the United States at this point,
    despite, as I think everyone in this room knows, we put an
    additional $10 billion into NASA during the bill that we passed
    in July. That said, what allows China to stay on schedule? And
    what can we learn from their, at this point, success in staying
    on schedule?
        Mr. Cheng. Mr. Chairman, I think that one of the ironies
    here is that the very authoritarianism that is a hallmark of
    the Chinese system does grant certain benefits. One of which is
    the ability to coerce a workforce, an overall government. But,
    two, because the CCP has set a target, whether it is to put a
    man in orbit or to put Chinese boots on the Moon, that is then
    translated to programmatic imperatives across the bureaucracy,
    which is not to say that there aren't bureaucratic resistance
    centers within the system.
        But when it is high profile, when it is Xi Jinping or his
    predecessor, Hu Jintao, or his predecessor Jiang Zemin, who
    says, ``You will make this happen,'' woe betide the bureaucracy
    that chooses to fight it.
        Alongside that is an economic structure that allows 5-year
    plans, which allows again the budgetary stability. If it is in
    the 5-year plan, it is bureaucratically approved, everyone is
    going to go along with this, and conversely the budget and
    therefore the staffing is stable for at least 5 years.
        This is an enormous benefit with regards to ``I have set a
    target. We are funding it. There will not be cuts because of a
    new Congress, a new President, a new legislature, a new
    director, and do not get in the way, not of these sorts of
    programs.''
        Chairman Haridopolos. Mr. Swope, to build on that idea, you
    had mentioned in your comments there are relationships within
    China between their main space agency as you put competitors
    within China. What are they doing differently in China with
    their quote, ``private sector,'' wherever you can say it about
    a communist system with a private sector, that they are doing
    that we can maybe improve upon and learn from?
        Mr. Swope. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think the Ranking
    Member mentioned quasi commercial space. That is how I think we
    should view it. It may be financed partly by private sector
    money, but in addition to money from the central government, it
    also has money from provinces and local and municipalities.
        But one thing that I think we should think about with
    regards to how China operates then, I look at the quote on the
    wall here, ``Where there is no vision, the people perish,''
    from Proverbs. I think a lot of what Mr. Cheng said, too, is
    true here. When you have the ability to kind of march in the
    same direction for such and extended period of time, you are
    going to achieve things that you wouldn't if you had more
    uncertainty.
        But I think they are missing out, though, is the free
    molecules that we have in our system where it does encourage
    innovation. You are not constraining innovation into a certain
    goal. That is a benefit to the United States that the PRC just
    does not have structurally in their system.
        So I don't know if we should necessarily want to replicate
    how they approach that top-down approach to the commercial, the
    quasi commercial sector. I think our free-market principles
    based approach where you do have that chance for innovation and
    new ideas to percolate up through the ether, that is the best
    way to do it. I don't think we should try to alter the way that
    we innovate.
        Chairman Haridopolos. And, Mr. Cheng, again, if I could.
    There is a lot of conversation about the Belt and Road that the
    Chinese have used across the world, and I think manipulate
    countries with dead issues along the line. What should we be
    fearful of as far as moving forward as they try to do much the
    same with space?
        Mr. Cheng. Ironically, one aspect that we should be very
    worried about is the application of space technology to Chinese
    Belt and Road Initiative investments here on Earth. When the
    Chinese build a pipeline, a cell phone network, a
    telecommunications structure on Earth, timing signals are
    essential. And if the Chinese are funding it, one should not
    expect that those investments across the world in key areas, in
    key countries, in key regions, for key resources are going to
    use GPS rather than BeiDou.
        And that means that these countries are in a sense
    potentially signing up without perhaps even realizing it. A
    structural vulnerability to create a structural dependence that
    will far outlast whoever is in the Presidential Palace or in
    the parliament leading their respective governments.
        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you so much. I will now
    recognize our Ranking Member from North Carolina, Mrs. Foushee,
    for 5 minutes. You are recognized.
        Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Besha, can you
    tell us about your former role at NASA and why you are no
    longer with the agency?
        Dr. Besha. Sure. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
    Foushee. I started at NASA as a China specialist back in 2007.
    I advised every administrator, including as a junior staffer to
    Administrator Griffin until early 2025, including joining high-
    level NASA delegations to China, and I was a China expert in
    the administrator's office. Earlier this year, the Technology,
    Policy, and Strategy Office was eliminated, and myself and
    about a dozen colleagues were riffed.
        Mrs. Foushee. So you were the top expert and advisor on
    China at NASA and you were riffed? That is beyond puzzling, and
    I would say incredibly alarming.
        From reading your bio, I see that you are fluent in
    Mandarin Chinese. Based on your observation of recent Chinese
    media, can you describe how China is perceiving and responding
    to the actions taken by this Administration such as
    eviscerating and driving out the Federal STEM workforce,
    including a 20 percent hemorrhage at NASA, gutting NASA
    science, attacking research university, and drastically cutting
    U.S. investment and research and development?
        Dr. Besha. Yes, I would say that most of the discussion is
    about expanding their own science industrial science technology
    industrial base. You know, expanding their funding for science
    programs, for technology. And to the extent they compare it
    with cuts in the United States, I have seen that as well. I
    think the criticism is muted, and I think they are probably
    content to watch what happens here happen as they greatly
    expand their own industrial base.
        Mrs. Foushee. As I said in my statement, this is a pivotal
    time for U.S. leadership in space. And we on this Committee
    have a responsibility to act. So to each of you on the panel,
    what should this Committee prioritize as we look to reauthorize
    NASA and sustain U.S. global leadership in space? I would like
    to start with you, Dr. Besha, and then move to Dr. Griffin, Mr.
    Swope, and Mr. Cheng.
        Dr. Besha. Well, I think your authorization is very
    important in that it helps set some guidance for how the agency
    should pursue its programs and plans. Emphasizing space
    science, Earth science is critical, especially a balance
    between, say, let's call it, generally, you know, NASA-led
    projects and private sector. We still need strategic missions.
    We need very large missions. Mars sample return, it is not
    going to be a cheap mission. It is not going to be inexpensive.
    It is going to cost money.
        We also need to understand what comes after Artemis III,
    right? With some clarity on what is the intention? Is it a
    long-term stand on lunar surface, or are going onto Mars? We
    need some clarity. And then to the extent we can kind of
    advance some more robust international relations policy, that
    would be helpful to compete with a strategic competitor that is
    using international cooperation.
        Mrs. Foushee. Dr. Griffin.
        Dr. Griffin. Thank you, Ms. Foushee. I would make a couple
    of comments. In answer to the chairman's question a few moments
    ago about sticking to the plan, I would have commented that
    sticking to a plan is important when the plan makes sense.
        China is sticking to a plan that makes sense. It looks a
    lot, in fact, like what the United States did for Apollo.
    Provably, that worked. We have stuck to a plan that does not
    make sense. So this Committee, an authorization Committee,
    should not authorize the agency to continue down a path that
    does not make sense.
        The plan matters. I have enough history here to recall the
    Authorization Act by this Committee in 2005 that required me as
    the then administrator of NASA to use to the maximum extent
    possible the existing assets from shuttle and those that
    remained from space station and Apollo.
        That is that the administrator of that time was required to
    use the system that we had. We seem to have lost track of that
    today. Again, sticking to a plan that will not work for Artemis
    III and beyond makes no sense.
        Mrs. Foushee. Mr. Swope.
        Mr. Swope. Thank you. I think when NASA spends its money,
    it is good to think about two different things. If NASA can
    spend its money in a way that it can do its mission, but then
    also enable private sector actors to try out business ideas or
    new innovations, like the Commercial Lunar Payload Services
    Project with ride-sharing opportunities, I think that is great
    for the U.S. innovation ecosystem.
        The second thing is really I think when NASA spends money
    on things like basic research and development and science, that
    also feeds into innovation at the very early part of it.
    Without science, we would never have something like the
    Manhattan Project. We would never have had the radio. James
    Maxwell's theories proven by Reinhardt's Hertz led to Marconi's
    radio.
        I look at those investments that the government makes, that
    NASA makes that is critically important to that innovation
    ecosystem as well. So, I think in both those cases, when you
    are looking at NASA authorization, look at it in a way where
    you are the genesis of that innovation ecosystem, that flywheel
    that really powers the U.S. national security and economic
    security in a way that the PRC just can't match.
        Mrs. Foushee. Can you indulge me 30 seconds for Mr. Cheng
    to answer, please? Thank you.
        Mr. Fong [presiding]. Sure.
        Mr. Cheng. Ma'am, absolutely. Sure. It matters what this
    Committee chooses to push as a priority. The problem is, a
    failure to achieve whatever targets are set has no
    consequences. So if I were to give a recommendation to this
    Committee, I would say that whatever it is that this committee
    feels should be the priorities for NASA--and my colleagues,
    frankly, I think are far better qualified--I am focused
    primarily as a China analyst, ma'am, not really a space person.
        One, it needs to be bipartisan to make very clear
    throughout our system that this is something that everyone is
    pushing for; and, two, that there are consequences, budgetary,
    legal, and others, to the agency, to supplying companies. If
    they fail to deliver on time and on budget that it will not be
    a, ``Well, OK, let's try again next year'' attitude. That there
    are consequences.
        Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for that, and I yield back.
        Mr. Fong. Thank you. I now recognize the representative
    from Florida, Mr. Webster, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity. Thank you for appearing as witnesses for this very
    important subject.
        Dr. Griffin, in your testimony, written testimony, you
    mentioned the fact that it is important to be first, and that
    history teaches us that those that show up first usually get to
    write the rules and standards and set the direction of what,
    where we are going and what is going to happen. That comes from
    just showing up. And, in your opinion, are we staying at home,
    or are we showing up?
        Dr. Griffin. Well, at present, sir, in line with the
    comments I made in my oral statement, we are staying home
    because the approach we are advocating is not going to work.
    The train may have left the station, but the train is headed
    over the cliff. The importance of showing up, as you put it, is
    that--in line with Mr. Cheng's comments--the people who are
    there are the ones who established the GPS timing signals or
    the BeiDou timing signals. The people who are there establish
    the communications protocols. The people who are there
    establish the rules of the road for space traffic management
    and other things.
        If we are watching from the sidelines it will be China that
    is establishing those things. And with respect to the future
    for the rest of the humans on Earth, that will not go well.
        Mr. Webster. Well, that is, I guess, my second question
    then. What will happen if China sets a standard and guides the
    development, rules, and norms of space? What would be the
    result?
        Dr. Griffin. Then other nations will look to China and will
    choose to align themselves with China because they are the ones
    who are in space. The rest of the world will look to China as
    the technological leader of the world. Lyndon Johnson was not
    wrong, 50 years ago, when he said that first in space is first
    and second in space is second everywhere.
        Mr. Webster. OK. Thank you, very much. I appreciate it. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Fong. Thank you very much. I now recognize the
    Representative from California, Mr. Whitesides, for 5 minutes
    of questions.
        Mr. Whitesides. Thank you. I want to thank the chair and
    Ranking Member for organizing this substantive hearing. It is
    good to see you all. It is good to see my old friend Dr.
    Griffin and others.
        Let's start with Mr. Swope. You note in your prepared
    testimony that China is likely to achieve something no nation
    has done before, returning martian samples to Earth. With the
    mission launching in 2028, NASA's scientific Mars exploration
    program has been methodically building toward the return of
    dozens of scientifically selected samples; the highest priority
    of multiple decadal surveys that the agency is not settled on
    the plan to collect them.
        And the Fiscal Year 2026 President's budget request would
    eliminate the program entirely, the scientific significance of
    abandoning this effort will be enormous. What would, in your
    view, be the geopolitical significance if the U.S. were to
    abandon its plan to retrieve scientifically selected samples
    from Mars while China moves forward on its own crash program to
    return martian samples?
        Mr. Swope. Thank you for that question. It is the historic
    opportunity for humankind to maybe find evidence that there was
    life that originated on a planet that is not Earth. That is not
    really measurable, the significance of that discovery. What
    that could mean, I mentioned the impact on innovation from
    science. What that could mean down the road, the country that
    is the first to do something like that, to control that.
        I don't know if I trust the PRC to do that in a way that
    benefits the planet, that benefits our Nation. So I think the
    huge impact is beyond just geopolitics that you could pull off
    a mission like that. I think it has science and long-term
    implications that maybe what is conceivably the most important
    discovery in the history of humankind.
        Mr. Whitesides. Thank you. For Mr. Swope or Mr. Besha, you
    all state that one of our advantages over the Chinese is our
    allies, international cooperation. Of course, the
    Administration has proposed cutting a wide swath of
    international space missions in its budget. Fundamentally, how
    does this impact our ability to compete with China? Either of
    you can answer.
        Dr. Besha. So, there is another competition going on that
    is international, right? And so, we are very conscious at NASA
    of how we were and how we expand our cooperation, because this
    allows us to influence. So Artemis Accords are a good example.
    We have a set of principles and values that we want to make
    shared. So we want other countries to agree with us on our set
    of principles. China is doing the same thing with the ILRS, the
    International Lunar Research Station.
        They have a set of principles, and they are looking to get
    a group of nations aligned with them to move forward. The
    difference between the two are Artemis accords and ILRS is that
    ILRA actually offers programmatic cooperation, as well. And so
    whereas the accords are nonbinding, this is programmatic. And
    so countries can join them on the surface of the Moon.
        And now when they start making those first steps toward
    norms, toward standards, they will have a coalition of
    countries along with them. And this bleeds over into other
    areas say at the United Nations, other topics and things like
    that. And so it is basically a competition of influence
    internationally.
        Mr. Whitesides. In the interest of time, I am going to cut
    to my last question, which is for Dr. Griffin, who, by the way,
    I worked for about 25 years ago. I think. I can't remember.
        Anyway, Dr. Griffin, you are probably the closest to the
    agency today of this panel. Although, Dr. Besha, you were there
    recently. So either of you can answer this question. I think it
    is important that we expose what is the current state of NASA?
    So we have lost 4,000 people, primarily senior staff, but also
    junior staff, new employees, and recently promoted staff.
    Goddard's getting taken apart, JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
    is getting cut. You know, there is just turmoil. Morale has
    dropped, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. What do
    you perceive as the current state of NASA, you know, at the end
    of 2025?
        Dr. Griffin. Regrettably, I am not that close to NASA
    anymore. It has been 16 years since I was there, and more. But
    from outside, I would offer the perspective that as much as I
    regret the damage to individual people and the loss of--notable
    loss of technical competence that goes with massive cuts like
    that, an agency without a proper, clearly defined, high-
    priority mission is a rudderless agency.
        It almost doesn't matter. It might just not matter what
    actually happens at the agency until and unless we have a
    mission to put the United States first among equals on the
    human frontier.
        If that is done properly, the right people will come to the
    agency, the budget will be supported, all of those good things
    will come true. It starts with defining what you want to do and
    then backing it up.
        Mr. Whitesides. Thanks. I yield back. Thanks.
        Mr. Fong. I now recognize the Representative from Texas,
    Mr. Self, for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wow. Lots to unpack
    here. First of all, Mr. Cheng, you said that you were more a
    China expert than a space expert. So we talked a little bit
    about free markets. I think Mr. Swope did. Talk to us about the
    challenges that China has and any results from the recent
    plenum. Because they have economic challenges, their economy--
    and when I think back to the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was
    10 feet tall until they weren't.
        So I need to know what you think as a China expert just in
    the economic and the results from the recent plenum?
        Mr. Cheng. Sir, I am always very concerned when folks talk
    about the slowdown of the Chinese economy, which we do seem to
    be seeing, and promptly equate that with the collapse of the
    Soviet Union. I think it was Winston Churchill who made the
    observation that there is a great deal of ruin in a nation.
        And when you would only look at North Korea, a fraction of
    China's economy, much worse off, and yet has managed to survive
    to caution that whatever problems we are seeing in the Chinese
    economy--and we are seeing some--making that leap to that it is
    a collapse.
        What I would note is that Xi Jinping is continuing the
    policies of his predecessor Hu Jintao and frustrating efforts
    at expanding the role of the private sector of markets, et
    cetera, in China, that Chinese economic reform pretty much came
    to an end in 2004, and has not been renewed under Xi Jinping.
        But, strikingly, one of the exceptions to that is in the
    aerospace sector, where private companies are, in fact,
    encouraged and welcome. Quasi private in some ways, but
    nonetheless motivated by more classic market principles than
    State direction.
        Mr. Self. Dr. Griffin, you have been very clear that
    Artemis III on won't work. Tell us exactly why not. Is it the
    complexity? Is it the crew risk? Is it the fuel versus demand?
    So why exactly do you think it won't work? I have read your
    paper, but what is the bottom line as to why you are
    recommending we cancel this and go a different direction?
        Dr. Griffin. The quick bottom line is that an architecture
    which requires a high multiple number of refueling flights in
    low-Earth orbit, no one really knows how many, uses a
    technology that has not yet ever been demonstrated in space is
    very unlikely to work, unlikely to the point where I will say
    and have said it cannot work.
        Secondarily, the length of time required for the Earth
    departure ship to remain in low-Earth orbit almost guarantees
    that the propellant you have loaded will boil off before it can
    fully be used, and the requirement of the lander to occupy
    lunar orbit waiting for the crew for 60 to 90 days guarantees
    that the fuel will boil off.
        I do not see a way with the current technology we have to
    overcome those problems, and, therefore, we should not pursue
    that line of approach.
        Mr. Self. OK. Probably, and I will ask who would like to
    answer this. The Lagrange regions, L1 and L2, are prime real
    estate. Do we, should we deploy them as a first strike to get
    something into the L1 through L5, perhaps, to include relay
    positioning, navigations, timing beacons, space-domain,
    sensors, so forth and so on? Is that a critical mission?
        Dr. Griffin. To whom is the question directed, sir?
        Mr. Self. Mr. Cheng.
        Mr. Cheng. Sir, first off, the Chinese have already
    deployed equipment there. I believe that this is one of those
    regions that will wind up becoming much more strategically
    centered. It would be beneficial to us to establish a presence,
    probably not military because that opens the door to propaganda
    by others but certainly scientific, but, most importantly,
    application, communications relay, data relay, things like that
    that have an economic as well as scientific benefit.
        Mr. Self. Well, let me ask you because GPS--because I think
    the Chairman mentioned a Chinese-style GPS. We know that GPS
    spoofing is now a real thing on the battlefields around the
    world. So why would we not go with something other than GPS?
        Mr. Cheng. I think that my understanding is that these
    orbits--deploying items into those orbits can become extremely
    complex, but, yes, if the issue here is GPS robustness, that is
    absolutely a major concern from a security perspective.
        Mr. Self. And I think we--my time is done. I think we have
    a magnetic field sort of alternative.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Fong [presiding]. The Subcommittee stands in recess
    subject to the call of the Chair.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Haridopolos [presiding]. Welcome back.
        For our next, Ms. Salinas, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our
    Ranking Member, and thank you to our witnesses for being here
    today.
        In my district, NASA and its partners helped to support a
    very robust economy of small manufacturers that supply
    components to a lot of these missions, and these are really
    good local jobs that help to build talent and expertise across
    the country.
        Several months ago, we held a hearing on the Artemis
    program, and I asked how we can continue to support this
    workforce. I was told that we achieve that by building hardware
    and actually flying these missions. In other words, we need to
    signal consistency and predictability to workers in industry.
        And this question is to anyone who would like to answer.
    What can we learn from China about the value of long-term
    planning and predictability, and how has their approach
    benefited their economy and their workforce more broadly?
        Mr. Cheng. So, ma'am, the Chinese often describe their
    space program--not their space program, describe space as
    being, quote, unquote, very dense in high technology. If you
    take a look at a satellite, it has advanced materials; it has
    computers; it has communications equipment, solar panels. But
    above all, it has systems integration and systems engineering.
    All of those systems have to be able to work together in orbit
    and, since the end of the Space Shuttle, you are not going to
    bring it back for repairs.
        The Chinese have used their aerospace program as a training
    ground for systems integrators and systems engineers, and one
    prime example of this is COMAC, the Commercial Airline
    Corporation of China, which is going to compete with Boeing.
    They took an entire cadre of folks from CASC, the China
    Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, a state-owned
    enterprise, and said, all of you, your systems engineers,
    systems integrators, you will now go to COMAC, another state-
    owned enterprise. And it jump-started their ability to do
    systems integration in the commercial airline industry thanks
    to the education and training and on-the-job experience in
    aerospace.
        Ms. Salinas. Dr. Besha?
        Dr. Besha. Thanks. You know, I think there are some things
    we might want to learn from China, but China is actually
    learning quite a bit from the United States.
        When I was at NASA, I ran a study, the civil space supply
    chain study where we looked at manufacturers across the U.S.
    that were engaged in the Artemis program, and what we found is
    that small businesses are the bedrock for the program. It is
    mostly small businesses.
        And what I think China is learning, actually, from us is
    you can't only rely on a state-owned enterprise, a massive
    conglomerate. You actually need to go and find smaller
    companies that can produce bespoke parts and things like that
    that can then feed up into the larger enterprise, and we do
    that very well. And our supply chain integration is actually
    very good.
        The second thing I think China is learning from us is the
    ability for space to upgrade technology. So you may have valves
    that work well on automobiles, but when you have to make them
    space qualified, it is another quality control process. So it
    upgrades a lot of the technology in the process along the way.
    They are learning that, and it is a process that they can
    extend to other industries as well.
        Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
        Dr. Griffin. I would like to take a turn at that. I don't
    want to surpass China. I don't think the United States can or
    should try to surpass China by behaving like China. I want us
    to rely on our free market principles that encourage and allow
    and reward successful innovators to compete.
        The role of the government in this particular enterprise,
    since going to the Moon is not remotely a commercially
    successful activity in anything like the near future, the role
    of government is to establish the point that we are creating a
    program. We are going to sustain it. We, the United States with
    our allies and partners, are going to be on the Moon for the
    foreseeable future, and we, by doing that, we establish a
    demand signal which will allow the best and brightest in
    industry to come forward to produce those capabilities.
        If the U.S. Government does not set that kind of a
    consistent demand signal, then we should not expect industry to
    invest alongside.
        Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
        Mr. Swope, would you like to answer?
        Mr. Swope. Yes. I just thought about when I was in high
    school, I had friends that their family owned a factory that
    built--machines that built mattresses. So I thought about the
    time that it takes to really ramp up to do something like the
    Artemis program, and to me that is where that commitment, that
    stability is needed from a government standpoint, the demand
    signal, but also put the money on the table to say this is what
    we want to buy. So then that trickles down through all those
    other suppliers.
        And I also worked for Derrick Hilmer years ago, and I
    remember going out on the Olympic Peninsula, and I found a
    company that was building something for Blue Origin. I am like
    this is super cool. And all the time it took for that to ramp
    up, it just can't turn on a dime. So I think that is the
    biggest lesson there for companies like that at the very, very
    back end of that. It takes time to get to the point where we
    are building a rocket that is going to go to the Moon.
        Ms. Salinas. That is right.
        And I think to your point that I think many of you are
    making, if President Trump's proposed 24 percent cut to NASA's
    budget, which will actually go into effect, what could we see
    in terms of the long-term implications for our workforce and,
    thus, our ability to compete with China?
        Dr. Besha?
        Dr. Besha. So the supply chains around a lot of these
    projects----
        Chairman Haridopolos. Please keep your comments to a
    minimum. We are already over time.
        Ms. Salinas. Oh, I am sorry. I did not realize that.
        Dr. Besha. Supply chains are very extensive. They affect a
    lot of suppliers, and some of these suppliers are single-source
    suppliers. So they have one customer in some cases, and that
    customer is NASA.
        Ms. Salinas. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you.
        Next we have the Congressman from Georgia, Mr. McCormick,
    for his 5 minutes. You are recognized.
        Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        It is interesting just in the last line of questioning, I
    heard each one of you point back to the supply chains, single-
    source in competitive markets. One of the problems with
    competition, which I am all for. I am all for capitalism
    competition, but when you have a monopoly of several critical
    minerals that a foreign adversary or at least a peer competitor
    controls, what are we doing for a solution for that? I mean, I
    don't see it.
        Because right now we basically don't have a competitive
    market. We don't have a market. All we have is one country that
    controls all the resources for something that in the military
    it probably supplies thousands--no, hundreds of thousands of
    parts. They are literally the bottleneck, and it is probably
    one of the reasons that our fleet readiness for all aircraft is
    around 50 percent, which is atrocious. If we get into a war, we
    are done.
        And in space, which is something that is, obviously, the
    final frontier, if you will, what do we do to prevent that from
    being a choke point for us? They literally have us by the neck.
    What are we doing? What is a good solution? And I don't want to
    hear generalities of open market because we don't have an open
    market. We have a monopolistic system.
        What can we do--and I have my own ideas so I hope we get
    somebody that gives me a good answer so I don't have to
    interject my own opinion. But I will start with you, Mr. Cheng.
        Mr. Cheng. To break your question into several smaller
    buckets, first off, while China has an advantageous position,
    it is not the sole producer of rare earth--rare earth actually
    is a terrible misnomer. I think other more scientifically
    learned folks prefer platinum group metals.
        There are other places that do produce them. There is,
    unfortunately, only one facility in the United States, and one
    of the reasons for this has been additional regulatory
    considerations, including environmental, that basically say,
    well, if you are going to mine that, you have to do X, Y, and
    Z. Suffice to say the Chinese are not as enthusiastic about
    environmental regulations.
        The other aspect here is that whatever the rare earths are
    that you mine you have to process them, and that is enormously
    polluting. And the Chinese have been more than happy to be the
    primary rare earth processor. So you may mine it in India. You
    may mine it in Canada. It still gets shipped to China for
    processing.
        I believe back around 2018, the United States broke ground
    for a domestic rare earth processing facility. To be honest,
    sir, I don't track that very closely. I don't know what the
    status of that is. But if you want to break the Chinese
    monopoly, it is not enough to open up more mines. It is
    absolutely essential to open additional non-China located
    processing facilities for rare earth minerals.
        Mr. McCormick. So Mr. Chair, I will just go to that because
    I am already halfway through my time, and that is how it works
    here.
        I will accentuate your point. We have 10 rare earth mills
    we have no access to, except for through China right now.
    Another 10 that we have limited access at best. Our regulatory
    burden and our inability to mine and process these rare earth
    minerals have put us not only at a strategic disadvantage but,
    actually, in a worrisome position for any future conflict. We
    are not ready, simply not in the military sense or especially
    in the space sense.
        We think--and this is something I challenge both sides of
    the aisle to look at realistically--just because we don't
    pollute when we get these minerals we are going to use anyway
    doesn't mean that they are not polluting 10 times worst than we
    would with the same minerals that we are going to buy anyway
    and use anyway.
        So it is not conservationism. It is not a smaller blueprint
    of carbon emissions when you buy it from China. It is just
    pretending like we are not polluting when we are actually
    polluting more. I just want to be very realistic about this.
        The future is America using resources we have without the
    regulatory burden that makes it too expensive to do because we
    are going to have access regardless, or the alternative is
    don't be competitive. That is not going to happen. We are
    America.
        So I challenge both sides of the aisle to take a realistic
    look at we have to have access to these things, and we will do
    it cleaner, better, and cheaper if we are not putting
    overregulatory burdens on the American businesses. And so let's
    just take a really honest look at this scientifically,
    domestically, so we have a chance into the next century.
        And with that, I yield.
        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you.
        I now recognize the representative from Illinois, Mr.
    Foster.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        On the subject of rare earths and permanent magnets
    specifically, there is a model that the government is in the
    process of succeeding at that I am really a fan of, and it is a
    company called Nira, which has spun up through decades of
    federally funded research in Minnesota that has got a way--and
    they are building a significant skill factory to make permanent
    magnets with a BH product and energy density comparable to the
    best neodymium iron-boron magnets, and the input materials
    there are basically rust and ammonia, nothing else.
        And it is really an impressive thing, and it has to do with
    decades of research, government-funded research led,
    interestingly, by an immigrant born in China. So there are a
    bunch of lessons I think that we should learn from that, one of
    which is to not push away foreign talent from our shores
    because of unfounded worries.
        Now, I have been worried for a long time about the
    fragility and the dual use of nature of all of the systems we
    are putting into low-Earth orbit. Now, we are talking about,
    you know, we are having at least two major U.S. companies put
    big satellite arrays in low-Earth orbit. The Chinese have at
    least two companies. The Europeans are doing it.
        You know, everyone's first worry is about the Kessler
    Syndrome where you just have a big cascade of collisions, which
    I think is unlikely because of the altitude and the rapidity of
    the orbit decay, but it is still something to worry about
    because some of these systems are not really in low-Earth orbit
    but somewhat higher. And so this is something that I think we
    are going to have to need international understanding on
    because this is a big problem.
        The fragility is also a real issue. You know, one thing
    that has worried me for a while is the refueling that was
    mentioned. I guess Dr. Griffin shares my skepticism of how easy
    it will be to make it work. But, you know, the scenario for
    starships, for example, and other similar missions is to go put
    these in low-Earth orbit, refuel them with 10 refueling
    missions, OK.
        Now, I don't know if you have noticed, but these starships
    have a tendency to like detonate themselves from time to time.
    And the issue comes up, what happens if one of those explodes
    fully fueled in low-Earth orbit, and the debris field from that
    is potentially frightening.
        I was just wondering has anyone looked at this particular
    problem when, you know, SpaceX is talking about running
    hundreds of starship missions a year in some scenarios? You
    know, do we actually--are we going to need understandings on
    the accidental destruction of everything in low-Earth orbit in
    addition to big worries about how that could happen
    deliberately by even a not very talented adversary?
        Is there anyone that can speak to this?
        Dr. Besha. A few comments on that. So I think in terms of
    space debris, it is a huge issue, and it is not an issue that
    any one company can solve, right. And I think China was
    recently in the news because one of their Shenzhou human
    capsules was hit by debris. Our Space Station is also
    occasionally hit by debris. We have shielding that can
    withstand about 3 millimeters particle size of debris.
        China has continued to do EVA (extravehicular activity)
    missions outside their own space station. They had additional
    armor, additional shielding to their space station. They
    recognized this as a major issue, and it is affecting their
    crown jewel, their human spaceflight program.
        So we are both in some senses on the same page that this is
    a problem that we need to solve, and it is only going to get
    worse, as you mentioned, with these very large vehicles that
    potentially could not reenter appropriately.
        Mr. Foster. Has anyone looked specifically at the issue of
    these very large vehicles and what happens when one detonates
    in low-Earth orbit? Because I actually had Claude Code write me
    a simulation of it, which I am not willing to quote the results
    from, but it was, you know, people then studying Kessler
    Syndrome for decades. And there are computer codes that do that
    pretty well, and I guess we must have a pretty good idea of how
    many fragments of what sizes are liberated when something blows
    up on the launchpad at least.
        So it seems like we have the information to understand, you
    know, the size of the debris field and the damage it will do
    to, you know, very militarily important assets, you know,
    including the Golden Dome, which is now talking about many tens
    of thousands of additional assets in low-Earth orbit with many
    countries having an incentive to accidentally on purpose
    destroy them all.
        So I was just wondering if that is something that really we
    need some more study on. All right. So I guess I am now down to
    15 seconds, so I will just--if any of you have thoughts on that
    and could respond for the record, I would be really interested.
    That is something we have to keep our eye on.
        And I think, ultimately, we are going to have to negotiate
    with China and the other countries, space-faring countries to
    come up with some understanding. We can't just go off doing
    what we are currently doing.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Haridopolos. With that, I recognize the
    representative from Utah, Mr. Kennedy, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kennedy. Chairman Haridopolos, thank you for holding
    this important hearing on the space race with China, and I want
    to be very clear where I stand. The Chinese Communist Party is
    a major threat to our national security. For years, I have been
    calling attention to the Chinese Communist Party being a
    dangerous and aggressive adversary. We must expose their every
    underhanded and subversive action. Passivity on our part will
    only be rewarded with more aggression.
        There are some voices that would question why going back to
    the Moon should be a priority given we have already achieved
    it. I would counter that this isn't just about national pride.
    It is a national security imperative to beat China to the Moon
    because the Chinese Communist Party intends to establish a
    lasting presence with exclusionary zones for their own economic
    and national security benefits.
        It is important that we understand where China's space
    program is at and how we can do everything in our power to win
    this race because the stakes are too high.
        And thanks to the witnesses for their testimonies.
        Dr. Griffin, I have a question for you. I am a cosponsor of
    Chairman Hill's Taiwan and American Space Assistance Act to
    establish a partnership between TASA (Taiwan Space Agency) and
    NASA. And, of course, we have the Artemis accords with 60
    countries. Can you describe, Dr. Griffin, the importance of
    these international partnerships to maintaining U.S.
    preeminence in space?
        Dr. Griffin. I would offer the view that if the United
    States is not willing to partner with other nations in the
    world to be on the space frontier, then they will have no
    alternative but to partner with China or they can choose to
    stay home. It is my observation that every nation that reaches
    a technological level where they can do something in space
    wants to. In some ways, it is like owning the only swimming
    pool in your neighborhood. You become an attractive nuisance.
        So since that is observably true, nations that can do space
    want to do so but the barriers to entry are very high, the
    United States can lower those barriers or we can watch while
    China lowers those barriers. I think the latter course of
    action is not what I would recommend.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you for that response.
        China has also used radioisotope power systems to survive
    the lunar nights since 2019, giving it the only continuous
    presence on the Moon, and it plans to launch more missions
    using this technology in 2028.
        The use of landers, by contrast, are limited to 14 days
    because they can't operate through the lunar night, and NASA
    has not incentivized commercial providers to adopt radioisotope
    power systems at this point.
        Dr. Besha, thank you for your testimony earlier. How can
    the United States leverage commercially developed radioisotope
    power systems that China has to ensure our lunar landers can
    survive the night and operate continuously on the surface?
        Dr. Besha. Thank you.
        Well, the U.S. actually does have commercial companies that
    are exploring radioisotope power systems. Some of them are here
    today. I think the advantage here is they are looking at a
    couple of different ways to do it, a couple of different
    approaches. They are using different fuels. They are using in
    there amboresium. They are using things like that, fuels that
    we haven't traditionally used in the past. So that is going to
    be an advantage.
        I don't think China is using commercial companies to do
    their radioisotope power systems. They are very much part of
    the China nuclear energy agency and the associated industries
    below that. But, you know, I think our approach of multiple
    different approaches, seeing what works, doing some
    demonstrations and then start flying them, demos on clips
    missions, on, you know, the next flight opportunity to prove
    them out is the right approach.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you for that answer.
        Mr. Swope, I have a question for you as well. As Acting
    NASA Administrator Duffy announced plans for fission nuclear
    reactor on the Moon by 2030, and I am very supportive of that
    effort, can you tell us where China stands technologically on
    establishing nuclear power systems on the Moon?
        Mr. Swope. Thanks for that question. I can speak to what
    China has said. They have said they want to work with Russia to
    build a nuclear power station for their International Lunar
    Research Station. So they are thinking the same way, and it
    makes a lot of sense.
        To your point about the length of the lunar night, it has
    to have power in order to keep those electronics warm so they
    don't break. So I am not surprised that China is moving in that
    direction. I think the approach of the acting administrator to
    look at industry in the United States to see if they can come
    up with good ideas, novel ways to do that innovation, like Dr.
    Besha said as well, is the best approach. I think we are going
    to come out ahead on that.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Haridopolos, I yield back.
        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Congressman Kennedy.
        Next we have--I recognize the Representative from Virginia.
    Mr. Beyer, 5 minutes. Welcome to the Committee.
        Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and thank you
    for letting me wave on. And thank you, all of you, for your
    testimony today.
        Dr. Besha, I am particularly grateful to have you here. You
    mentioned in your testimony the importance of supporting Earth
    and space science robustly, and you made a great point about
    the downstream, national security consequences, of doing that
    or not doing that. I care about this a lot.
        The National Science Foundation headquarters is a few
    blocks from my home, and we have been very upset about this
    Administration's attacks on Federal science funding this year.
    The NASA science mission cut by 47 percent, 56 percent at the
    National Science Foundation. Lots of other Federal science
    agencies have just been gutted.
        Could you discuss how these cuts to our core science
    programs are going to affect our national science programs and
    our national security downstream?
        Dr. Besha. Well, I think there are a couple of ways to look
    at funding for basic R&D. No. 1, it is very much a public good.
    You know, it is a national good that we can't identify a profit
    immediately but we should do it, right, basic science, the
    fundamentals of science. These trickle down eventually into
    applications, but initially, you know, basic R&D funding that
    provides funding benefits.
        And that is the strength of the U.S. system versus China,
    to be honest. We have invested in basic R&D for the last 50
    years as part of the system we set up. China hasn't invested
    that much. They have taken a lot of our hard work.
        The second thing is world first. So you are not going to be
    a world first by simply seeing what everyone else is doing and
    then copying it, right. And so you do have to do that initial
    hard work to develop world-first successes like Mars first
    sample return, you know, habitable worlds, observatories,
    exoplanets, research, things like that that we have never
    really done before.
        And the final thing is, you know, it is not just basic R&D.
    We create these missions, these astrophysics missions, things
    like James Webb Space Telescope. We are at the cutting edge. We
    are developing mirrors of such high refinement that these also
    have other applications, not just in science but in, you know,
    military applications, industrial applications, and things like
    that.
        So there is very much a cross-pollination between these.
    They are not simply only for science.
        Mr. Beyer. Let me follow up on the two because you have the
    basic research, but then I am really concerned, too, about the
    science workforce. Once again, we heard the National Science
    Foundation right down the street, that virtually all of their
    postdocs, their graduate students, the people that were getting
    ready for their long careers were washed out and that many of
    them were not able to figure out how they are going to finish
    their Ph.D. programs.
        And the real concern is that they are looking for
    opportunities in Germany, in England, in France. There is this
    reverse brain drain of our best young science people. I don't
    know. Hopefully they are not going back to China. Although, I
    am sure some of them are doing that, too.
        You know, for decades we have been the country of tracking
    top-tier candidates from around the world to come here and
    study and make their whole careers in science. We looked at the
    fact that it is a plurality, if not a majority of our U.S.
    Nobel Prize winners were born in a different country.
        How concerned are you about losing our investment in our
    next generation of science leaders?
        Dr. Besha. Very concerned, right. Science is often
    multigenerational, and so we have very accomplished scientists
    that are later in their careers. They teach the middle-tier
    scientists, and those middle-tier scientists teach the
    postdocs. The postdocs teach the graduate students, and the
    graduate students--you know, on and on and on.
        If you wipe out one of those cohorts, the postdocs, for
    example, in a lot of ways you are wiping out a generation for
    that science, and it is not easy to jump right down. You are
    losing that mentorship. You are losing a lot of that talent, so
    it is very concerning.
        I think if they were to go overseas, for example, you know,
    they, perhaps, could come back. You know, nothing is
    necessarily permanent. We have had waves. Things go in waves. I
    would be more concerned if this persisted for a longer time.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, the morning is getting on, and I yield back
    the balance of my time.
        Chairman Haridopolos. Congressman Beyer, I appreciate it.
        We are going to go for round two with questions. I am going
    to take the next 5 minutes and turn it over to Mrs. Foushee and
    we will go from there.
        Dr. Griffin, you mentioned a few times now about Artemis
    III and your concerns, and I think those concerns have been
    heard today, of course. But I want to address specifically on
    the China issue and the potential of their Moon opportunity and
    what loss of mission might they face as they move forward with
    their plans on the Moon and beyond.
        Dr. Griffin. Thank you. That is an interesting question.
    The loss of mission probability, of course, involves not lives
    but wasted money and wasted time. When we speak of loss of
    crew, that is a different thing. So for loss of mission, I will
    point out that during Apollo, we estimated that to be about 10
    percent, and we lost one of the seven missions, which we sent
    to the Moon. And for a statistically small sample, it turns out
    we had it about right.
        China's approach to exercise their first missions to the
    Moon is quite a lot like Apollo. So I would estimate that they
    have a pretty similar loss of mission probability as Apollo
    did. So I would say 10 percent or maybe a little bit lower
    because there has been a lot more experience over the last
    several decades.
        So my answer is less than 10 percent, and I tried to
    explain why.
        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Dr. Griffin. I appreciate
    it.
        Mr. Cheng, if we could, I want to get in the idea of if we
    lose this race to China, and this is why we are all here today,
    to make sure we do not lose that race, what position will the
    Communists have an advantage on as we talk about the standards
    of the future? We talked a little bit about GPS and other
    technologies. What are other concerns should we somehow lose
    this space race?
        Mr. Cheng. So let me first emphasize that in this context,
    we are, in a sense, in a relay of marathons. That you may win
    this--you may be fastest in the second leg or the third leg,
    but that doesn't mean that you have won.
        So in this context here, it is a matter of who will make it
    back to the Moon first, but much more important will be who
    will be able to sustain a presence on the Moon. The Artemis
    programmers talk about a manned station for 1 month out of the
    year. I suspect that the Chinese are much more thinking 12
    months out of the year.
        If that is the case and we are talking about who is setting
    the standards for not just communications and PNT, but
    everything from keep-out zones for health and safety reasons to
    scheduling for insertion, in essence, what will be the language
    of cislunar space travel? Will it be English or will it be
    Chinese?
        And from the Moon, we potentially then go further outbound.
    The Chinese already talk about going to Mars. Certainly with a
    sample retrieval mission. Probably with human space flight in
    the out years. Again, being first matters. Being there
    persistently matters, and that, too, is about setting the
    rules, setting the industrial standards, the business,
    literally the dollars and renminbi, as well as the law and
    order aspects.
        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you.
        Mr. Swope, on the question of the International Space
    Station (ISS), we know about the potential of the United States
    bringing it back down to Earth. What kind of impact might that
    have in this space race?
        Mr. Swope. Thanks for the question.
        I think we have to think about what we are trying to
    achieve in low-Earth orbit, their science there, their prestige
    there, look at that transition to a commercial approach to
    space stations, and really is NASA putting enough money on the
    table to make that work. I think that is the big question I am
    asking in my head when I think about what happens after the
    ISS.
        I do think there are impacts to the prestige and science. I
    think determining what the level of those impacts are really
    determines what that gap is and the capabilities that we want
    and that we don't have. We will still have a lot of
    international partners that will want to work with the United
    States, but I don't think that looks great.
        If we do have a gap, we can't have people in low-Earth
    orbit. I think that hurts our ability to go beyond low-Earth
    orbit with human spaceflight, too, and that is something that I
    think we need to quantify as well. What does that hurt us for
    Artemis if we don't have the International Space Station or
    something like that that we can do experiments with people of
    how they live in space. There are impacts there, too, that I
    think we need to consider.
        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you.
        I will yield back now.
        Mrs. Foushee, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        So to each of you on the panel, we have heard about the
    importance to U.S. leadership of returning our astronauts to
    the surface of the Moon and doing so before China lands
    taikonauts there. What are the likely impacts should the U.S.
    not return humans to the Moon before China?
        So please answer with a quick yes or no. No. 1, is NASA on
    track to return humans to the Moon before taikonauts set foot
    there? We will start with Mr. Cheng.
        Mr. Cheng. I am very pessimistic about our ability, so, no.
        Mrs. Foushee. OK.
        Mr. Swope?
        Mr. Swope. Worried.
        Mrs. Foushee. OK.
        Mr. Besha?
        Dr. Besha. You are not going to like it. Maybe. Maybe.
        Mrs. Foushee. Dr. Griffin?
        Dr. Griffin. No possible way is NASA on track to return
    astronauts to the Moon with the present plan.
        Mrs. Foushee. And lastly, if trying to beat China to the
    Moon with humans means committing massive resources that
    jeopardizes and sets back U.S. space science, aeronautics, low-
    Earth orbit activities, and space technology, where does that
    leave the United States, NASA, and the health of our civil
    space program?
        Dr. Griffin. I will start. NASA was created in the late
    1950s to pioneer spaceflight. Many other activities become--
    space science, space applications become possible when your
    goal is to pioneer a new frontier. Many follow on activities
    are possible, but if you don't have the central mission goal
    that the United States will be preeminent on the space
    frontier, then the other things don't follow and they don't
    matter.
        Mrs. Foushee. Thank you.
        Dr. Besha. I think one way to think about the space agency
    is not so much just as a monolith but as--80 percent of NASA's
    funding goes to things like small businesses. It goes to
    universities, scientists, engineers. And so when you cut that
    budget, you may be cutting that agency, but you are really
    cutting this broad industrial base. You are trimming some of
    the American industry and some of our competitiveness. That
    money is going to researchers and things like that.
        Mr. Swope. I think I would add just that I have confidence
    that NASA can execute on the Artemis mission, which is a long-
    term sustained presence on the Moon as a steppingstone beyond
    to for Mars. I think Mr. Cheng mentioned that. So to me I do
    have confidence in that, and I don't think we should take our
    focus on that.
        So if it takes more resources just to beat China before
    Artemis III, I don't know if it is worth it, but I do have
    confidence in the long run we are going to execute on that
    Artemis mission.
        Mr. Cheng. Because China confronts us with a whole-of-
    society challenge, I would really hope to see that NASA
    integrates itself more broadly into our terrestrial efforts.
    Why hasn't NASA sent a team of astronauts on a good-will tour
    of Africa, of South America, to bring home the achievements of
    American space capabilities?
        NASA has one of the best brand recognitions out there.
    Coca-Cola would kill to have NASA's reputation. But they don't
    seem to have integrated themselves into that broader component,
    which the Chinese absolutely do.
        Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you.
        The Representative from Georgia, Mr. McCormick, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        First of all, I love that idea, Mr. Cheng, on the way NASA
    goes out there and markets itself. I, too, would love, as a
    pilot and a physician, I would like to get out into outer space
    myself. They market it quite well to me.
        Mr. Swope, you in your writings have talked about the
    fractured regulatory burden on our companies and how it kind of
    makes us noncompetitive. Meanwhile, China has been basically
    getting rid of all the burdens. They can do that because they
    are kind of top-down driven. They don't have any balance in
    their government.
        What could we do that would put us in a more advantageous
    position so that we can actually be competitive in this future
    market rather than--for example, we have regulations on every
    single launch. If you change something, even for safety, to
    make it more safe, you have to go back and reapply--I am just
    going to give you one example--for that right to launch the
    next time. Ridiculous because you did something safe and now
    you are getting punished for that by saying you are not safe
    enough to launch again. That is one example.
        But give me some examples of what we could do here in
    Congress to make sure that we become--we continue to be the
    most competitive market, encourage people to stay here, launch
    here, and excel here in the greatest Nation of the world rather
    than become an afterthought in the space race.
        Mr. Swope. Thanks for the question. I really think you
    nailed it there. One thing about the U.S. space ecosystem that
    is based on free market principles to thrive, less regulation,
    less red tape, less bureaucracy is probably what we need to
    inject in that system to get the outcome that we want.
        Three areas to think about--and in some cases folks in the
    Administration and past Administrations have looked to try to
    optimize this. So I am not saying we are not doing it now. But
    definitely spectrum. How are spectrum rules aligned so that
    they encourage innovation and they don't encourage the status
    quo?
        When it comes to launch and reentry, I think I would put a
    little focus on reentry. I looked at one U.S. company that
    tried to do reentry the first time to a U.S. Federal range.
    They had a lot of trouble and since then they have been going
    to Australia. So I think right there, where is that? Is that a
    regulatory burden? Is that a coordination burden? Is that a
    prioritization burden that is not happening? I don't know, but
    we should look at that because there is a lot of growth
    probably for reentry.
        And then the third area we should highlight is export
    controls, ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations),
    issues where companies want to sell technology to other
    countries, allied governments. Specifically, thinking of things
    on synthetic aperture radar. If you can't get it from a U.S.
    company, I am going to go to a French company. And that is what
    happens because those rules are a barrier and a paperwork
    barrier.
        So I think in all those areas we can improve the
    regulations that we have now. I don't think it is time for more
    red tape, more paperwork for space companies. So if I hear
    anything about adding a regulatory burden or rules, even if it
    is a light touch approach, that is still paperwork. I don't
    think the industry needs that.
        Mr. McCormick. That is such a great point you just made,
    and, first of all, I want to point out that every company that
    is trying to put spaceships out there and retrieve them has a
    reputation that they exist on. If you fail, if you are unsafe,
    their business is done. There is nobody who wants to be more
    safe than those companies. They can regulate themselves
    probably better than we ever could and be competitive only when
    we get out of their way.
        And to your point, our ability to get in the way of selling
    our products to other countries only encourages us to be
    supplanted by China as the industry standard. And that is not
    just in space, by the way. That is in computer chips or
    anything else. We have to be very careful not to limit our
    ability.
        And by the way, we just had a dissemination bill last year
    that was overseen by the Secretary that we withdrew that
    boundary that the Biden Administration put on us before and has
    made us competitive again in the market. But we lost shares
    during that time. We lost our industry standard.
        So I just want to encourage people--and thank you so much
    for putting a very succinct outline of that--to not limit our
    ability to produce and disseminate and actually flourish in our
    Nation as competitors. The government is not the solution. We
    are the problem. Thank you for outlining that. Thank you.
        And with that, I yield.
        Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you.
        I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming in today.
    This has been very insightful and thought-provoking, and we
    appreciate that very much. I also appreciate the thoughtful
    questions of the Members as well. This is a race we must win,
    and I think you've all given us a nice roadmap to which to work
    from, especially, as the latest line of questioning, trying to
    reduce some of those barriers to entry.
        And with that, the record will remain open for 10 days for
    additional comments and written questions from Members.
        This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    Appendix

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]