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






                                 ______




 
     FULL BLAST: CONTRASTING MOMENTUM IN THE SPACE MINING ECONOMY


              TO THE TERRESTRIAL MINING REGULATORY MORASS

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               before the

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                       Tuesday, February 25, 2025

                               __________

                            Serial No. 119-9

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources


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

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 59-390 PDF          WASHINGTON : 2025
    
          
          
          
          
          
          
      

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                  ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
                   JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member

Robert J. Wittman, VA                 Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom McClintock, CA                    Joe Neguse, CO
Paul Gosar, AZ                        Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, ASA         Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Daniel Webster, FL                    Val T. Hoyle, OR
Doug LaMalfa, C                       Seth Magaziner, RI
Russ Fulcher, ID                      Jared Golden, ME
Pete Stauber, MN                      Dave Min, CA
Tom Tiffany, WI                       Maxine Dexter, OR
Lauren Boebert, CO                    Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Jen Kiggans, VA                       Emily Randall, WA
Cliff Bentz, OR                       Yassamin Ansari, AZ
                                      Sarah Elfreth, MD
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                    Adam Gray, CA
Mike Collins, GA                      Luz Rivas, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Mark Amodei, NV                       Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
                                     
Tim Walberg, MI                       Debbie Dingell, MI
                                      Darren Soto, FL
Mike Ezell, MS                        Julia Brownley, CA
Celeste Maloy, UT
Addison McDowell, NC
Jeff Crank, CO
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Mike Kennedy, UT


                                     
                                     

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      William David, Chief Counsel
               Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                        PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
                     LAUREN BOEBERT, CO, Vice Chair
                   MAXINE DEXTER, OR, Ranking Member

Lauren Boebert, CO                   Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Mike Collins, GA                     Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Mark Amodei, NV                      Vacancy
Nick Begich, AK                      Jared Huffman, CA, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
                                 ------                                
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing Memo.....................................................     v
Hearing held on Tuesday, February 25, 2025.......................     1

Statement of Members:

    Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Arizona.................................................     1
    Dexter, Hon. Maxine, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................     3
    Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     5

Statement of Witnesses:

    Cabrera, Misael, Director and Professor of Practice, School 
      of Mining and Mineral Resources, the University of Arizona.     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Supplemental testimony submitted for the record..........    11

    Place, Steven, Senior Policy Advisor, AstroForge.............    11
        Prepared statement of....................................    13

    Painter, Richard, Professor of Corporate Law, University of 
      Minnesota Law School.......................................    15
        Prepared statement of....................................    16
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    21

    Shroff, Saurav, CEO, Starpath................................    22
        Prepared statement of....................................    24

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar

        Black Moon Energy Corporation, letter to the Committee...    46

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9999.001


.epsTo:        House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members

From:     Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Staff, Michelle 
        Lane (Michelle.Lane@mail.house.gov) and Lucas Drill 
        (Lucas.Drill@mail. house.gov) x52761

Date:     February 24, 2025

Subject:   Oversight Hearing titled ``Contrasting Momentum in the Space 
        Mining Economy to the Terrestrial Mining Regulatory Morass''
________________________________________________________________________
        _______

    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold an 
oversight hearing titled ``Contrasting Momentum in the Space Mining 
Economy to the Terrestrial Mining Regulatory Morass'' on Tuesday, 
February 25, 2025, at 10:15 a.m. in 1324 Longworth House Office 
Building.
    Member offices are requested to notify Cross Thompson 
(Cross.Thompson@mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on February 24 if their 
Member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES

     Minerals, particularly critical minerals, are vital to 
            life today, tomorrow, and into the future.

     Although the U.S. has countless mineral deposits within 
            its borders, long permitting timelines and anti-mining 
            policies advanced by progressive NGOs and previous 
            administrations have stymied domestic mining activity.

     While timelines for developing domestic mining resources 
            grow, foreign adversaries like China increase their 
            foothold on the worldwide supply chain of production, 
            processing, and refining of critical and hardrock minerals, 
            making U.S. domestic supply chains increasingly vulnerable.

     American space mining companies are leading a 
            technological revolution that may soon enable the 
            financially viable mining of natural resources from 
            celestial bodies.

     The time is now to embrace both permitting reform for 
            domestic mining and new technologies that will ultimately 
            benefit all forms of mining as the United States seeks to 
            secure its domestic mineral supply chains.

II WITNESSES

     Mr. Misael Cabrera, Director, Professor of Practice, 
            School of Mining and Mineral Resources, The University of 
            Arizona, Tucson, AZ

     Mr. Steven Place, Senior Policy Advisor, AstroForge, 
            Washington, DC

     Mr. Saurav Shroff, CEO, Starpath, Hawthorne, CA

     Mr. Richard Painter, Professor of Corporate Law, 
            University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN 
            (Minority witness)

III BACKGROUND
Minerals are Vital to Modern Life
    Minerals, particularly those listed as critical minerals by the 
Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), are 
integral to our modern way of life and will remain essential 
indefinitely. Critical and other hardrock minerals are used in 
countless applications, including consumer electronics, medical 
devices, satellites, and military technologies essential to national 
security. Minerals are also imperative to the development and use of 
alternative energy technologies, including batteries.
    The global demand for minerals is expected to rise exponentially in 
the decades ahead. Notably, according to the World Bank, the growing 
demand for minerals will increase nearly 500% by 2050.1 The 
growing demand for minerals strongly correlates to the growing demand 
for energy technologies such as EV batteries, solar photovoltaic (PV), 
wind, and geothermal energy, which are more mineral-intensive than 
fossil fuel technologies.2 Climate goals further drive the 
demand for minerals. For instance, to achieve net-zero emissions 
globally by 2050, the world will require a sixfold increase in mining 
by 2040.3 Moreover, as new technologies that are yet to be 
imagined materialize, the demand for mined minerals will only increase.
    Yet, despite widespread acknowledgment of the importance of 
critical and other hardrock minerals to our future, as well as mapped 
mineral systems covering every state in the U.S.,4 America's 
mineral supply chain is suffering. Due largely to permitting delays and 
legislative restrictions that discourage domestic investment and 
restrict long-term mineral supply, mineral extraction in the U.S. is 
nonsensically slow.5 In fact, a 2024 study by S&P Global 
found that U.S. critical mineral projects take an average of 29 years 
from discovery to production--the second-longest in the 
world.6 Only Zambia is less efficient in mining minerals 
within its own borders.7 Worse yet, U.S.-based mining 
projects also lose over one-third of their value due to delays during 
the permitting process.8 Because of these self-inflicted 
wounds, the United States is almost entirely reliant on foreign nations 
to feed its need for minerals.
Dependence on Foreign Nations for Minerals Presents Serious Economic, 
        National Security, and Humanitarian Threats
    The United States is alarmingly dependent on foreign nations to 
meet its mineral demand. Of the 50 minerals identified by the U.S. 
government as critical, America imports more than half of its supply 
for 29 of them and all of its supplies for 12 more.9 
Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, China dominates the world market in 
both raw and refined products.10
    Chinese mineral supply chains account for approximately 60% of 
worldwide production and 85% of processing and refining 
capacity.11 The United States is import-reliant on China for 
26 of the 50 minerals 12 designated as 
critical.13 China also dominates mineral refining, 
accounting for 85-90% of global rare earth element mine-to-metal 
refining.14 Notably, China refines 80% of the world's 
cobalt, 60% of the world's lithium,15 and 65% of the world's 
nickel,16 critical minerals that are integral for modern 
technology and electric vehicles.
    Relying on foreign nations, particularly China, for minerals has 
clear economic, national security, and humanitarian implications. China 
has repeatedly used its mineral supply dominance to strategically flood 
markets, stifle foreign competition, and cripple industries through 
export bans. For example, in 2023, after new Chinese-backed production 
drove a steep decline in cobalt prices, Idaho Cobalt Operations (ICO), 
America's only cobalt mine, was forced to suspend construction mere 
weeks before it came online.17 Additionally, Chinese export 
bans have pummeled U.S. mineral supply chains. In July 2023, China 
curbed gallium and germanium exports, followed by high-purity and high-
quality graphite and rare earth elements mining, mineral processing, 
and smelting technology later in the year.18 On August 14, 
2024, China issued export restrictions on antimony, a mineral vital for 
the defense industry.19 On December 3, 2024, China announced 
export bans on ``dual-use'' technologies explicitly targeted at the 
U.S. after the U.S. took steps to limit exports of semiconductor and 
artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to China.20
    Furthermore, whereas U.S. labor and environmental protections are 
among the best in the world, China's and many other mineral-producing 
nations are among the worst. For example, China-backed operations in 
Congo have well-documented cases of forced and child labor in the 
mining sector, with labor practices often labeled ``modern-day 
slavery.'' 21 Similarly, workers in China-financed 
industrial parks in Indonesia face abuses like unsafe conditions, 
deceptive requitement, unpaid wages, restricted movement, and even 
physical violence as a means of punishment.22
    The United States cannot allow foreign governments to continue 
locking mineral supply chains in a stranglehold. Instead, the U.S. 
approach to mining ought to be two-fold: (1) streamline permitting and 
mining processes to expand domestic mineral extraction; and (2) embrace 
American companies investing in new technologies to expand American 
mineral production.
Space Mining
    Definitionally, space mining refers to mining for resources on 
celestial bodies like moons, asteroids, and planets. Specifically, the 
term ``space mining'' refers to two categories of activities:
    1. Extractive Mining for Commercial Purposes: The extraction of 
resources from asteroids, the Moon, Mars, or other celestial bodies and 
their return to the Earth for commercial purposes. Examples include 
mining asteroids for critical minerals and precious metals, such as 
lithium, platinum, and rhodium.
    2. In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU): Resources are extracted 
from a celestial body to be used for other in-space 
activities.23 An example includes mining for water on the 
Moon to make fuel for lunar activity or a permanent Moon 
presence.24
Domestic Governance Frameworks for Space Mining
    51 U.S.C. Sec. 51302 directs the federal government to facilitate 
and promote ``commercial recovery of space resources'' and to 
discourage government barriers to such activities. Per 51 U.S.C. 
Sec. 51303, U.S. commercial entities are entitled to any space 
resources they obtain, including the use or sale of those resources.
    USGS plays a key role in achieving 51 U.S.C. Sec. 51302's goals. 
Foundationally, USGS is tasked with ``examination of the geological 
structure, mineral resources, and products of the national domain.'' 
25 In 1962, Congress extended USGS' jurisdiction to include 
resources ``outside the national domain'' if DOI determined that those 
resources were important to national interests.26 One year 
later, USGS founded its Astrology Science Center, which researches 
planetary geology and maps celestial bodies.27 In 2015, USGS 
explicitly applied its jurisdiction to space.28
    Importantly, USGS actively analyzes natural resources on asteroids, 
the moon, and other celestial bodies to, among other things, help 
develop the domestic framework for space mining.29
    Executive Order 13914, Encouraging International Support for the 
Recovery and Use of Space Resources, was issued in April 2020 and 
directed the Department of State, Department of Commerce, and National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to take appropriate actions 
to encourage international support for public and private recovery and 
use of space resources.30 Other countries have also 
``enacted domestic legislation permitting and regulating space mining 
activities,'' such as Japan, Luxembourg, and the United Arab 
Emirates.31
International Governance Frameworks for Space Mining
    There are three main international governance frameworks for space 
mining: the Outer Space Treaty, the Moon Agreement, and the Artemis 
Accords.32
    1. Outer Space Treaty: The Outer Space Treaty, executed in 1967, is 
the foundational treaty governing space activities, with over 100 
countries as signatories.33 Articles I and II of the Outer 
Space Treaty pertain to space mining and ISRU. These Articles establish 
outer space as the ``province of all mankind'' and prevent claims of 
sovereignty in space.34
    2. Moon Agreement: The Moon Agreement, signed in 1979 and executed 
in 1984, is a multilateral agreement with 11 signatories.35 
Article 11 of the Agreement states that the surface and subsurface of 
the Moon and its resources cannot become the property of any country, 
intergovernmental organization, or non-governmental 
entity.36 The United States, Russia, and China have not 
signed the Moon Agreement.
    3. Artemis Accords: The Artemis Accords, initiated in 2020, are a 
U.S.-led, non-binding multilateral agreement among nations that 
establishes a set of principles and guidelines for space 
exploration.37 Signing the Artemis Accords is a prerequisite 
for participation in NASA's Artemis program, a robotic and human lunar 
exploration program.38 Section 10 of the Artemis Accords 
directs signatories to extract and utilize space resources in 
accordance with the Outer Space Treaty.39
Space Mining Has Almost Limitless Potential
    Natural resources on the Moon, Mars, and asteroids may improve 
conditions on Earth and allow humanity to expand further into 
space.40 Celestial bodies, such as moons and asteroids, 
contain potentially enormous amounts of metals and minerals. For 
example, the average geological concentration of certain metals is much 
higher in metallic asteroids than on Earth.41 Researchers at 
the Colorado School of Mines and the International Monetary Fund found 
evidence that this is especially true for critical minerals such as 
cobalt, nickel, platinum, and other metals.42 Notably, the 
study found that metallic asteroids contain more than a thousand times 
as much nickel as the Earth's crust in terms of grams per metric 
ton.43
    The density and abundance of minerals on celestial bodies makes the 
economic potential for space mining almost incomprehensible. Asterank, 
an asteroid database project that studies asteroid composition and 
measures the potential value of over 6,000 asteroids that NASA 
currently tracks, has determined that mining just the top 10 most cost-
effective asteroids, those that are both closest to Earth and greatest 
in value, would produce a profit of around $1.5 trillion.44
Space Mining Supplements Mining on Earth
    An emerging technology, mining minerals in space is currently not 
possible without crucial support from the domestic mining industry. For 
example, American space mining companies typically ``rideshare'' on 
commercial spaceflight operations, many of whom utilize a large 
quantity of stainless steel in building their rockets.45 The 
mining companies themselves often build their own robotics systems, 
which use both ``off the shelf'' and proprietary components, some of 
which, like most modern communications systems, require critical and 
rare earth minerals.46
    In due course, the resources extracted from celestial bodies may 
directly benefit domestic mining operations by increasing the 
availability of necessary minerals. While regulatory burdens continue 
to slow mining in the United States, foreign nations like China choke 
off exports, and existing domestic mineral supplies shrink, minerals 
mined in space could be used on Earth to build chips and machinery 
necessary to support terrestrial mining and other industries.
    The technologies developed for mining in space can be used to 
advance domestic mining, improving operations. For example, advanced 
imaging systems used to identify celestial bodies ideal for mining can 
be used on Earth to more effectively identify the locations of natural 
resources beneath the Earth's surface.47 Other technologies 
with potentially significant crossover include robotics for surface and 
subterranean exploration and material extraction, advanced navigation 
systems, life support systems and lasers to break up extracted 
materials.48
    That advancements in space mining can and do benefit terrestrial 
mining operations can be seen by observing coordination between the 
domestic and space mining industries. Companies like Caterpillar and 
Rio Tinto have not only invested in applying their existing mining 
technologies to mining in space, but also in understanding how novel 
space mining technologies can be applied to projects on Earth in harsh 
conditions where modern machinery being used struggles to perform 
adequately.49
Space Mining is a Reality, not a Pipe Dream
    In contrast to the federal regulatory morass that stymies domestic 
development of America's mineral resources, mineral extraction in space 
is moving rapidly. Though this may seem like a far-off concept, private 
industry in the U.S. has driven novel technological developments, 
increased manufacturing capacity for spacecraft, and implemented ride-
share-like programs for rocket launches to reduce costs and timelines 
for space missions.50 As a result of these developments, 
U.S. companies like AstroForge, Karman+, Black Moon Energy Corporation, 
and Starpath Robotics, are actively pursuing space mineral extraction 
and are creating supply chains in space, with several promising 
missions scheduled over the next few years.51
    Not only can the minerals mined in space eventually be brought back 
to bolster supply chains in the United States, but the technologies 
developed for mining in harsh deep space conditions can be applied to 
modern mining projects on Earth to more easily access and process 
minerals.
    In addition, mineral extraction in space also has the potential to 
provide minerals, fuels, and elements that are not readily accessible 
on earth, particularly Helium-3.52 Helium-3 is a non-
radioactive isotope that is identified as an ``ideal fuel for the 
operation of a fusion reactor.'' 53 The significant presence 
of Helium-3 on the Moon was initially confirmed by ``lunar samples 
brought back to Earth from the Apollo 11, 12, 14-17 missions and the 
Luna 16 and 20 missions.'' 54 The Black Moon Energy 
Corporation (BMEC) has estimated that the Helium-3 gross resource on 
the Moon is approximately 1.7 million metric tons.55 BMEC 
has developed a plan to ``delineate and retrieve the Helium-3 resource 
from the lunar surface and bring it to Earth'' for use in fusion 
reactors.56
    These efforts collectively represent a first step for the space 
mining industry and a giant leap for mankind's ability to use natural 
resources found in our universe effectively. As technology progresses 
at a rapid pace, costs are further reduced, and collaboration in the 
industry continues, the U.S. could not only develop the ability to 
harness vast space resources but also apply these technologies to 
mining operations on Earth to secure U.S. mineral supply chains.
    Like most sectors, the mining industry has historically been driven 
by new and innovative technology. Today, promising new technologies in 
mapping, data, refining efficiencies, and more promise to upend the 
industry just as updates in machinery, robotics, and basic safety 
equipment did in years past.57 The time is now to embrace 
both permitting reform for domestic mining and new technologies that 
will ultimately benefit all forms of mining as the United States seeks 
to secure its domestic supply chain. This is crucial not only for 
developing emerging technologies but also for ensuring national 
security.
 


                                 .eps  



   OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FULL BLAST: CONTRASTING MOMENTUM IN THE SPACE



       MINING ECONOMY TO THE TERRESTRIAL MINING REGULATORY MORASS

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, February 25, 2025

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                            Washington, D.C.

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Gosar, Collins, Begich; Dexter, 
Hernandez, and Huffman.
    Also present: Representative Stauber.

    Dr. Gosar. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on Full 
Blast: Contrasting Momentum in the Space Mining Economy to the 
Terrestrial Mining Regulatory Morass.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member. 
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members' 
statements be made part of the hearing record if they are 
submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be 
allowed to sit and participate in today's hearing: the 
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

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

    Dr. Gosar. Good morning everyone, and thanks to all our 
witnesses who have traveled today to testify on this important 
issue, contrasting momentum in the space mining economy to the 
terrestrial mining regulatory morass. I would especially like 
to welcome Professor Cabrera, who traveled here from the 
University of Arizona. Thank you.
    Last Congress the Committee held the first congressional 
hearing on the prospect of extracting resources, including 
critical minerals, in space. In the 119th Congress, with a new 
administration in place that prioritizes development of our 
Nation's resources, the time is ripe not only to revisit this 
conversation from the perspective of both domestic and space 
mining. Earlier this year news reports suggested a slightly 
decent likelihood of an asteroid hurtling towards Earth until 
further analysis greatly diminished that possibility. But it 
could have been true. We could have been reliving, you know, 
that movie.
    While that is certainly a relief, the 1998 movie 
Armageddon, which featured drilling on an asteroid, it no 
longer seems like that is something from science fiction. 
However, I am glad to say we were able to look at mining on 
asteroids as a potential supply chain issue and national 
security issue, rather than a last-minute need to save the 
Earth.
    But back to our purpose today. On his first day in office 
President Trump, through several executive orders, declared a 
national energy emergency and directed the Federal Government 
to unleash our energy resources including critical minerals, 
and to restore America's energy dominance.
    Under previous weak leadership and misguided policies, 
America ceded our ability to extract, refine, and process 
critical minerals that are necessary for a vast array of modern 
technologies. Filling this vacuum, China has risen to dominate 
critical minerals supply chains worldwide. Instead of investing 
in resource development to combat China, the feckless Biden 
administration chose to double down on their misguided climate 
policies, cancel or delay countless projects across the Nation, 
and further encumber the Federal permitting process.
    Due to the burdens of Federal permitting process, companies 
that wish to extract minerals in the United States commonly 
face decades-long timelines that makes the development of 
natural resources nearly impossible to achieve. As American 
companies fight to break through the Federal regulatory morass 
that has held domestic resources development back for far too 
long, this Committee is committed to working with the Trump 
administration to knock down barriers and unleash our true 
potential.
    President Trump has made that clear, that while we will 
unleash the golden era of American energy dominance, we must 
also look to humanity's future in the stars. In his 
inauguration address, President Trump stated that America will 
``pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching 
American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the 
planet Mars.''
    There is a reason China is so invested in space. It is 
estimated that mining just the top 10 most cost-effective 
asteroids, those that are both closest to the Earth and the 
greatest in value, could produce a profit of around $1.5 
trillion. Celestial bodies such as moons and asteroids contain 
potentially enormous amounts of critical minerals, rare earths, 
metals, and game-changing elements like helium-3, which has the 
potential to power our future here on Earth through fusion 
technology.
    What seems like a far-off concept is no longer so. Resource 
extraction in space is right around the corner, and America 
must seize on that issue. In contrast to the regulatory morass 
holding back our mining industry, a lighter regulatory 
footprint has allowed the space resource industry to set a 
rapid pace for development and innovation. Now our Nation is 
well poised to harness the vast resources of space.
    Since our last hearing a bit over a year ago, the space 
resource extraction industry has made incredible progress with 
new technological developments, increased manufacturing 
capacity, and ride-share for launches, among other efforts 
leading to reduced costs and shortened timelines for space 
missions that will represent the first steps in establishing 
mineral extraction and supply chains in space.
    As we speak, American space mining companies are 
aggressively pursuing the establishment of the first mineral 
supply chain in space through the vast helium-3 reserves found 
on the moon before China can do so. I challenge my colleagues 
in this room to think about the powerful economic and national 
security implications of these missions and profound duty to 
ensure that both the domestic and space mining industries are 
supported as they seek permitting reform as well as innovation 
in their fields.
    As we work to continue to unleash America's dominant 
domestic resource development, we also work to keep government 
out of the way in order to encourage the innovation and 
progress that is needed. I look forward to this conversation 
today.
    And with that I recognize the Ranking Member for her 
opening statement.
    Doctor.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAXINE DEXTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witnesses for joining us today.
    There is a debate to be had about whether space mining is 
legal. We could discuss whether it is technologically feasible, 
economical, within our jurisdiction, or if it is even safe. But 
the key question for today is whether investing in such an 
expensive venture at this time is necessary to meet our 
critical mineral needs. The answer to that question is 
decidedly no.
    There have been dozens of hearings about how to meet our 
critical and mineral needs in this Committee. Our side has 
shown repeatedly that, through a whole supply chain approach 
including recycling, a circular economy, product redesign, 
treaties with other countries that have critical minerals, and, 
yes, prudent and regulated new mines in the U.S., we have the 
resources we need. The Government Accountability Office has 
reached the same conclusion.
    The Biden administration was taking numerous steps in the 
right direction on all these fronts. The Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act provided vital investment funds to make 
these advancements possible. My colleagues opposed both the 
infrastructure bill and the Biden administration actions. In 
fact, they are now actively working to tear them down, setting 
back our country's efforts to secure critical minerals.
    Now the majority is inviting companies to this Committee 
with hat in hand, asking for billions and billions of tax 
dollars, taxpayer dollars for an endeavor that is not necessary 
to meet our critical mineral needs. They are pursuing these 
unnecessary and expensive endeavors at a time when Elon Musk is 
cutting billions of dollars and thousands of staff from our 
government, cuts that represent actual threats to our economy, 
national security, ability to address the climate crisis, and 
our basic humanity.
    If Musk thinks government spending is so out of control, 
surely he would think space mining funding to be frivolous, 
too, and cut Federal funding to the public and private sector 
for it. But this is where the conflicts of interest truly shine 
through. It turns out that being the leader of the so-called 
Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, could prove very 
beneficial for Elon Musk and his companies, even as it 
devastates working families all over this country.
    While Musk has been firing tens of thousands of our hard-
working public servants, he also has had over a dozen open 
investigations into unsafe and unfair labor practices at both 
Tesla and SpaceX. He has severed funding and is shuttering our 
government agencies, even as he continues to add to his own 
fortune of Federal Government contracts, contracts that now 
total well over $20 billion. He demands total access to the 
confidential databases of Federal agencies, including the IRS, 
even as he was investigated for having covert meetings with 
Putin and the Chinese Communist Party. He has $1.4 billion in 
loans with the Chinese Government. He sends out emails 
demanding employees justify their jobs in five bullet points, 
creating a climate of fear and intimidation in the very 
agencies charged with enforcing safety, health, and consumer 
protections against his companies. Already, investigations into 
his companies are starting to disappear.
    Behind me, articles from the New York Times tell the story 
nicely.
    [Slide.]
    Dr. Dexter. This one tells where his investments and the 
money is coming from.
    [Slide.]
    Dr. Dexter. And the other is where Musk conflicts may be 
lying. Sorry, I am trying to point and read at the same time. 
The web of conflicts is far more extensive than I could explain 
in only 5 minutes.
    How does getting access to every American's tax information 
help Musk increase government efficiency?
    How does Musk getting access to the confidential business 
information of his competitors lower the price of groceries for 
Americans?
    How does canceling investigations into Musk's companies 
advance the priorities and dreams of the American people?
    There are laws and even an agency, the Office of Government 
Ethics, to deal with conflicts of interest like some of these 
and many others. Typically, a government official with the 
authority Musk has been given would be required to undergo a 
process to ensure his investments are not clouding his 
judgment. But so far he has provided no evidence that his 
conflicts of interest are being investigated or supervised. He 
hasn't faced questions from the nomination and Senate 
confirmation process. He hasn't divested from his companies. He 
hasn't even disclosed his holdings.
    The White House press secretary indicated he would be 
deciding whether and when to take action about his conflicts. I 
suspect he will do nothing at all.
    The damage he is wreaking on our working families has 
already been incalculable. It will get worse over time, even if 
stopped today. Are we to believe this is what the American 
people voted for? I don't think so, and the polls confirm it. 
Musk should divest or depart.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.

    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman. The gentleman from 
California, the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, is now 
recognized for his 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Greetings, Earthlings. For those who have been longing for 
a sequel to the movie Spaceballs, this is your lucky day. For 
everyone else, we can marvel at just how incredibly tone deaf 
House Republicans are.
    Here on Earth, Starman Musk's directives are doing real 
harm to working families. Non-profits that provide food and 
services to veterans, rural health clinics, food banks, many 
others are laying off staff and suspending programs. The 
National Park Service is trying to figure out how to run our 
national parks this summer during tourist season with rangers 
and biologists cleaning toilets. Fire safety projects are 
suspended all over the West. We can't hire Federal 
firefighters. We are on the verge of heading into fire season 
woefully under-prepared and under-staffed.
    This is a moment that screams out for congressional 
oversight. We don't have inspectors general anymore because 
Donald Trump fired them illegally. So if ever there was a 
moment when Congress should be looking for waste, fraud, and 
abuse, real waste, fraud, and abuse, and asking hard questions, 
this is it. But instead we get Spaceballs 2. Not only a waste 
of this Committee's time, but a tortured stretch of 
jurisdiction.
    The Natural Resources Committee has no jurisdiction over 
space. But Republicans today are going to use it as an excuse 
to pivot back to their favorite subject: attacking 
environmental laws, claiming that regulations are bad because 
when your only tool is that particular hammer, absolutely 
everything looks like a nail, including space, apparently.
    Why are we here? Why are we giving a national platform to 
the AstroForge Corporation to make a pitch to venture 
capitalists to raise money and to ask for Federal Government 
subsidies, which is right here in Mr. Place's testimonies? 
Let's see, underwrite a price floor, expand the energy loan 
program for space mining. I mean, it does take some space balls 
in this moment to come in and ask for Federal money, but that 
is what we have got.
    You know, it is getting hard to raise money, I think, for 
space mining these days. Google and others are pulling back. 
They are tired of lighting their money on fire. So what better 
way to please Elon, who makes some of his money from 
AstroForge, than to have a hearing like this to make it look 
like space mining is a real thing, and to give them a platform 
to pitch to the VCs? Get in on the ground floor.
    No coincidence that this week one of Musk's SpaceX rockets 
will launch a spacecraft developed by a mining startup, 
AstroForge, as it turns out. They are seeking to make asteroid 
mining a thing. Musk's companies, of course, reap immense 
profits from taxpayer-funded contracts. SpaceX alone has 
secured about $15 billion in NASA contracts, making it the 
agency's largest private contractor. The Department of Defense 
already relies heavily on SpaceX to launch satellites. In 
total, Musk's 7 companies have received at least $20 billion in 
government contracts and subsidies.
    But despite all of this dependency and largesse for Mr. 
Musk, he constantly works to weaken regulatory oversight to his 
own financial benefit while simultaneously undermining the 
various agencies tasked with holding him accountable. And now, 
worse, inserting himself into these agencies, plundering the 
data, feeding it into his AI model so that Grok can someday 
replace many of these Federal employees. That is the conflict 
of interest raging before our eyes, and our Republican 
colleagues are whistling past the ethical graveyard.
    Meanwhile, Mr. Musk, as he works to perfect this Grok AI 
model, has been granted insane and illegal access to Federal 
data and sensitive information. DOGE officials reportedly have 
unrestricted access to NASA's personnel and contracting files. 
This raises the disturbing possibility that SpaceX and other 
Musk companies could gather proprietary information to give 
themselves an advantage over competitors. This is a moment that 
really does scream out for real oversight instead of 
Spaceballs.
    But at least we can say this about this brave, new dystopic 
world that Elon Musk is bringing us. Clearly, we now have a 
virtual Congress completely uninterested in fulfilling its 
Article I responsibilities.
    I yield back.

    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. I thought this hearing 
was about mining. Wasn't it that? Not Elon Musk.
    I am now going to introduce our witnesses.
    Mr. Misael Cabrera, Director and Professor of School of 
Mining and Mineral Resources at the University of Arizona, 
Tucson, Arizona. Thank you.
    Mr. Steven Place, Senior Policy Advisor, AstroForge, 
Washington, D.C. I am sure you are going to be getting some 
questions.
    And then Mr. Richard Painter, Professor of Corporate Law, 
University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 
Good seeing you again, Mr. Painter.
    And Mr. Saurav Shroff, CEO, Starpath, Hawthorne, 
California. Did I say that right?
    Mr. Shroff. You did.

    Dr. Gosar. Let me remind the witnesses that under our 
Committee Rules we limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but 
your entire statement will be placed in the record.
    When you start your testimony, you will see a little green 
light as it goes. Then, about a minute out, you will see it 
turn yellow. When you see it red, kind of wrap it up. If you 
could do that, we would appreciate that.
    I am going to now recognize Mr. Cabrera for his first 5 
minutes. Thank you.

    STATEMENT OF MISAEL CABRERA, DIRECTOR AND PROFESSOR OF 
     PRACTICE, SCHOOL OF MINING AND MINERAL RESOURCES, THE 
                     UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Cabrera. Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter, and 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to this 
hearing. It is an honor.
    Today I am not speaking on behalf of the university, but as 
a private citizen who understands the necessity for abundant 
economic minerals for our country's and our planet's future.
    Space mining is not the final frontier. Instead, it is the 
first way station for deep space exploration and off-planet 
minerals. Space mining presents an exciting alternative to the 
regulatory and social challenges faced by the mining sector on 
Earth.
    Given the unprecedented global demand for the U.S.'s 
dangerous over-reliance on foreign minerals, exploring space 
mining is not just exciting, but wise. The University of 
Arizona is well positioned to respond to the emerging space 
mining landscape. The university houses innovation hubs like 
the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, or LPL; the Arizona Space 
Institute; the Space Systems Engineering Laboratory; and the 
School of Mining and Mineral Resources.
    For example, the LPL led the historic OSIRIS-REx Mission 
that launched a rocket into space, navigated to the asteroid 
Bennu, collected a sample, and brought it back to Earth. The 
mission had little to do with space mining, but demonstrated 
that foundational activities for mining asteroids are 
plausible, if not yet economic. Analysis of asteroid Bennu 
samples found cobalt, nickel, platinum, iridium, and other 
metals at an extrapolated value of over $500 billion for the 
whole asteroid. However, recovering just 121 grams of material 
cost roughly $1.2 billion, an enormously negative return on 
investment from a mineral economic standpoint.
    Thus, maintaining a robust mineral supply requires that 
Earth mining innovate simultaneously, if not ahead of its 
celestial counterpart. Break-throughs in remote operations, 
automation, AI, renewable energy sources for mining equipment, 
water management, and responsible mineral extraction, all 
crucial for mining and harsh, water-scarce environments, are 
equally applicable to both space and Earth mining.
    Further, terrestrial mineral supply undergirds all, yes, 
all, technological advancement, including space mining. Thus, 
domestic terrestrial mining must undergo dramatic innovation. 
This call to action captures the scope and vision of the 
Sustainable Mining Innovation and Lifestyle Enrichment 
Initiative led by the University of Arizona and 18 educational, 
governmental, community, and industrial partners.
    However, technological innovation alone cannot unleash 
domestic mineral supply. A key factor is streamlining the 
Federal permitting process. The infographic I provided shows 
that mines on Federal lands may have to adhere to over 50 
regulatory requirements and decades-long delays before 
producing a single ton of metal.
    Another key factor in supply of terrestrial domestic 
minerals is judicial reform. A USGS report on rare earth 
elements indicates that 47 percent of the mines studied 
experienced delays related to court challenges, and that 71 
percent of the mines that had not yet achieved production were 
involved in litigation. Ensuring that citizens retain the right 
to challenge government decisions while eliminating incentives 
for abuse and unnecessary delays is long overdue.
    As global demand for minerals intensifies, space mining 
faces significant cost and technological challenges, while 
Earth mining deals with a cumbersome regulatory framework. 
Strategic foresight, investment, regulatory modernization, and 
scientific advancements are essential for both areas. 
Institutions like the University of Arizona are prepared to be 
dynamic catalysts, promoting the interdisciplinary solutions 
needed to tackle these complex issues. Success depends on 
balancing Earth's resources with the potential for space, 
guiding humanity towards a future rich in resources and 
exploration.
    And I am happy to address any questions that you may have. 
Thank you so much.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cabrera follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Misael Cabrera, PE

    Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to this hearing. My name is 
Misael Cabrera, and I serve as the Director of the School of Mining & 
Mineral Resources at the University of Arizona. The school was 
established to meet the urgent need for responsibly sourced mineral 
supplies for future generations. We do this through industry-advancing 
research, and by developing the interdisciplinary mining and minerals 
workforce of tomorrow. Today, I am not speaking on behalf of the 
university but as a private citizen who understands the necessity for 
abundant, economic minerals for our country's and our planet's future.
    Space mining is not the final frontier; instead, it is the first 
way station in revolutionizing deep space exploration and providing 
off-world sources of minerals for the human species. Space mining 
presents an exciting alternative to the regulatory and social 
challenges faced by the mining sector on Earth. Given the unprecedented 
global demand for minerals required to support population growth, and 
technological advancements in medicine, artificial intelligence (AI) 
computing, defense, transportation, and renewable energy, exploring 
space mining is not only exciting but also wise. This alternative could 
fundamentally change how humanity utilizes resources on and beyond our 
planet, especially as mining grapples with increasing environmental and 
bureaucratic complexities on Earth. Here in the U.S., the potential for 
space mining is further fueled by a growing awareness of our dangerous 
over-reliance on foreign sources of critical minerals and the recent 
technological advancements in space flight.
    In stark contrast to the burgeoning potential of space mining, 
Earth extraction is hindered by lengthy permitting delays and court 
challenges--especially in the U.S. The exhaustive regulatory regime 
means that obtaining approvals for mining operations can span years, if 
not decades, severely throttling the introduction of new supply streams 
into the global market and domestic supply. Attachment 1 presents the 
rigorous regulatory journey for hard rock mines. Mining operations on 
federal lands may have to adhere to over 50 regulatory requirements 
before producing a single ton of metal. These requirements, coupled 
with unimproved administrative processes that implement them, create 
decades-long delays that strain the supply chains, making the 
possibility of off-world alternatives attractive to both investors and 
start-ups.
    The regulatory landscape for space mining remains markedly less 
developed than its terrestrial counterpart. While providing a 
foundational legal framework, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 posits 
outer space as the province of all humankind (UNOOSA, 1967). This 
treaty offers limited guidance regarding the proprietorship of 
celestial resources. A subsequent Moon Treaty sought to prevent 
ownership claims over celestial bodies but has received limited 
ratification globally, resulting in ambiguous regulatory 
interpretations (UNOOSA, 1984). The absence of international regulatory 
consensus has opened the doors to legislation in individual countries. 
For example, the U.S. Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 empowers 
American enterprises in space resource acquisition, fostering a more 
structured regulatory trajectory for such operations (U.S. Congress, 
2015). Other countries like Luxenberg (Luxembourg Space Agency, 2017) 
and Japan (Library of Congress, 2021) have passed similar laws.
    Federal and private-sector investments in space exploration further 
buoy the current momentum. These investments manifest in billions of 
dollars allocated to developing technologies and infrastructures 
necessary for successful space mining initiatives (Space Foundation, 
2024). This is coupled with many start-ups eager to capitalize on the 
emerging space economy's opportunities (Sriram & Singh, 2024).
    The state of Arizona and its land grant institution, the University 
of Arizona, are well-positioned to respond to the emerging space mining 
landscape. The university houses innovation platforms like the Lunar 
and Planetary Laboratory, the Arizona Space Institute, the Space 
Systems Engineering Laboratory, and the School of Mining & Mineral 
Resources. With a long history of space exploration, the university has 
contributed to key achievements, from helping Americans reach the moon 
in 1969 to developing the first spacecraft to orbit close to the sun in 
2018 (Jones, 2021). Additionally, the university participates in the 
Arizona Space Commission, established through Arizona House Bill 2254, 
which aims to promote research and development in space exploration 
(Arizona State Legislature, 2023).
    For example, the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory partnered with NASA 
to lead the historic OSIRIS-REx \1\ Mission that launched a rocket into 
space, navigated to the asteroid Bennu, collected a sample, and safely 
brought it back to Earth. The mission aimed to better understand the 
early solar system and the origins of life on Earth (Lauretta et al., 
2017), and key insights and discoveries are already being published 
(McCoy et al., 2025). An added benefit of the mission is that the 
OSIRIS-REx team demonstrated that all the foundational activities for 
space mining are plausible, if not yet economic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, 
Security-Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS Rex)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Preliminary analysis of asteroid Bennu samples indicates the 
presence of iron, cobalt, nickel, platinum, and iridium, among other 
metals. Extrapolating the concentrations of the known elements to the 
asteroid as a whole and assuming current market prices for metals 
suggests that the value of the asteroid Bennu could reach upwards of 
$500 billion (Lauretta, personal communication, February 18, 2025). As 
exciting as that sounds, the cost to recover just 121 grams of material 
from Bennu was roughly $1.2 billion (Fishman, 2023)--millions of 
dollars per gram, far greater than the market value of even the most 
precious of metals. From a mineral economics perspective, that is an 
enormously negative return on investment. The cost of developing 
infrastructure conducive to mining in space represents a formidable 
obstacle yet to be surmounted. Therefore, ongoing innovation, research, 
and investment, especially in cost-effective propulsion and mining in 
harsh, waterless environments, remain crucial to transitioning from 
plausibility to economic applicability.
    History teaches us that economics is as essential as technology in 
free societies. For instance, the Detroit Electric sedan, despite 
having Clara Ford--wife of the founder of the Ford Motor Company--among 
its customers, could not compete with the economy of the Ford Model T 
after 1939 (Sadler, 2022). Only recently--roughly four decades later--
have electric vehicles been able to compete with traditional internal 
combustion automobiles in the global marketplace. Unfortunately, our 
domestic mineral supply cannot wait that long.
    Thus, domestic Earth mining must innovate simultaneously, if not 
ahead of its celestial counterpart. Breakthroughs in remote operations, 
automation, AI, renewable energy sources for mining equipment, water 
management, and responsible mineral extraction--all crucial for mining 
in harsh, water-scarce environments--are equally applicable to both 
space and Earth mining. However, dramatically reducing propulsion 
costs, a monumental technological challenge, is uniquely essential to 
make space mining economically viable.
    Further, an abundant, economic, terrestrial mineral supply must 
undergird every technological advancement, including space mining, 
until it becomes self-sustaining. Domestic mining can undergo a 
revolution by leveraging automation and AI, energy efficiency, green 
leaching technologies, waste valorization, reuse, and management, 
creating a flywheel of multi-sector benefits for the host communities. 
This captures the scope and vision of the Sustainable Mining Innovation 
and Lifestyle Enrichment (SMILE) initiative, led by the University of 
Arizona in partnership with 18 educational, governmental, and 
industrial organizations.
    Mining technology innovation alone will not unleash domestic 
terrestrial mineral supply--especially in the U.S. A key factor in 
developing a reliable domestic minerals supply chain is streamlining 
the Federal Government's permitting process. With layers of regulatory 
oversight from local, state, and federal levels, it is imperative to 
identify and eliminate duplication and waste from mine permitting 
without reducing opportunities for public input or limiting the 
comprehensiveness of environmental reviews. Real-world experience at 
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality demonstrates that up to 
90% of the total elapsed time associated with state permitting is 
waiting and that permitting time frames for even the most complex 
permit can be reduced by 60% or more (ADEQ, 2021).
    Similar thought leadership is at the root of the U.S. Federal 
Permitting Improvement Steering Council's FAST-41 \2\ process. FAST-41 
for Infrastructure Permitting is a ``coordinated framework for 
improving the federal environmental review and authorization process,'' 
and on May 8, 2023, the South32 Hermosa project was the first mining 
initiative to gain FAST-41 coverage (Permitting Dashboard, 2023). I 
recommend that this process be applied to new major mining and 
processing projects that will produce any critical mineral or material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act 
(FAST-41)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another key factor in the supply of terrestrial domestic minerals 
is judicial reform. Ensuring citizens retain the right to challenge 
government decisions while eliminating incentives for abuse and 
unnecessary delays is long overdue. In 2010, the USGS published a 
report on rare earth elements indicating that 47% of the mines 
experience delays related to court challenges and that 71% of the mines 
that had ``not yet achieved'' production were involved in litigation 
(Long et al., 2010). Legislative proposals like the 118th Congress's HR 
1 aimed to balance these needs, and I encourage this Congress to 
continue developing these concepts.
    As global demand for minerals intensifies, space mining faces 
significant cost and technological challenges, while Earth mining deals 
with a cumbersome regulatory framework. Strategic foresight, 
investment, regulatory modernization, and scientific advancements are 
essential for both areas. Institutions like the University of Arizona 
are prepared to be dynamic catalysts, promoting the interdisciplinary 
solutions needed to tackle these complex issues. Success depends on 
balancing Earth's resources with the potential of space, guiding 
humanity toward a future rich in resources and exploration.
References Cited
    Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (2021). ADEQ 8-year 
continuation fact sheet. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 
https://static.azdeq.gov/about/adeq_8yr_continuation_fs.pdf
    Arizona State Legislature. (2025). H.B. 2254, 56th Legislature, 2nd 
Regular Session. Relating to the Arizona Space Commission. https://
www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2r/bills/hb2254h.htm
    Fishman, C. (2023, September 23). How NASA's mission to the Bennu 
asteroid happened--and what's next. Fast Company. Retrieved from 
https://www.fastcompany.com/90956530/nasa-osiris-rex-bennu-asteroid-
space-mission
    H.R. 2262--114th Congress (2015-2016): U.S. Commercial Space Launch 
Competitiveness Act. (2015, November 25). https://www.congress.gov/
bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262/text
    Jones, S. (2021, May 12). I need space: The history of the 
university's involvement in NASA missions. The Daily Wildcat. https://
wildcat.arizona.edu/133857/news/i-need-space-the-history-of-the-
universitys-involvement-in-nasa-missions/
    Lauretta, D. S., et al. OSIRIS-REx: sample return from asteroid 
(101955) Bennu. Space Science Reviews 212 (2017): 925-984.
    Library of Congress. (2021, September 15). Japan: Space Resources 
Act enacted. Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-
legal-monitor/2021-09-15/japan-space-resources-act-enacted/
    Long, K.R., Van Gosen, B.S., Foley, N.K., & Cordier, D. (2010). The 
principal rare earth elements deposits of the United States--A summary 
of domestic deposits and a global perspective. U.S. Geological Survey 
Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5220, 96 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/
sir/2010/5220/
    Luxembourg Space Agency. (2017, July 20). Law of July 20th, 2017 on 
the exploration and use of space resources. Luxembourg Space Agency. 
https://space-agency.public.lu/en/agency/legal-framework/law-
space_resources_english_translation. html
    McCoy, T.J., Russell, S.S., Zega, T.J., et al. (2025). An evaporite 
sequence from ancient brine recorded in Bennu samples. Nature, 637, 
1072-1077. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08495-6
    Permitting Dashboard, Federal Infrastructure Projects. (2023, July 
10). Accessed July 10, 2023. https://www.permits.performance.gov/fpisc-
content/permitting-council-announces-first-ever-critical-minerals-
mining-project-gain-fast-41
    Sadler, B. (2022, January 26). The Detroit Electric and its place 
in automotive history. MotorCities National Heritage Area*. https://
www.motorcities.org/story-of-the-week/2022/the-detroit-electric-and-
its-place-in-automotive-history
    Space Foundation. (2024, July 18). The Space Report 2024 Q2. 
https://www.spacefoundation.org/2024/07/18/the-space-report-2024-q2/
    Sriram, A., & Singh, J. (2024, April 11). Space startups see 
funding surge as government spending remains high, report says. 
*Reuters*. https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/space-startups-see-
funding-surge-government-spending-remains-high-report-says-2024-04-11/
    United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). (1967). 
Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the 
exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other 
celestial bodies. United Nations. https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/
ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html
    United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. (1984). Agreement 
governing the activities of states on the moon and other celestial 
bodies. United Nations. https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/
spacelaw/treaties/moon-agreement.html

                                 ______
                                 

                                 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9390.001
                                 

                                 .eps__
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. I recognize Mr. Place for 5 minutes.
    I didn't even follow my own rules.

  STATEMENT OF STEVEN PLACE, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, ASTROFORGE

    Mr. Place. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman 
Gosar, Ranking Member Dexter, Mr. Huffman, and the rest of the 
Committee. My name is Steve Place, and I am the Senior Policy 
Advisor for AstroForge, an American asteroid mining company 
based in Seal Beach, California.
    Tomorrow at 7:15 p.m. Eastern AstroForge will launch the 
first privately-funded deep space mission in history. This 
mission brings AstroForge one step closer to our goal of 
securing critical resources for America. This mission 
exemplifies what a small group of dedicated Americans can 
achieve when they set out to explore what is possible in space 
to improve life here on Earth.
    As members of this Committee, you recognize that America's 
leadership in manufacturing, energy, and defense requires a 
reliable supply of resources. We are here today to urge this 
Committee to recognize that asteroid mining must be part of 
America's mining future.
    Right now 96 percent of platinum group metals comes from 
China, Russia, and South Africa. Our modern lives rely on these 
critical resources. Smart phones, cars, computers all require 
platinum group metals. Our supply is rapidly dwindling, and we 
will run out if something does not change. We currently have no 
viable alternative to this problem, other than going off world 
and looking to space for a solution, and we think America 
should lead the way.
    The good news is Earth is surrounded by ore-rich bodies 
known as metallic asteroids. They contain an almost unlimited 
supply of platinum group metals. We know this because our 
planet is impacted by thousands of these asteroids every year. 
We just call them meteorites. This is not a secret. Our 
adversaries are well aware that the future of mineral security 
on Earth depends on the ability to secure these resources from 
space. We must be the first to develop this technology so our 
Nation can lead what will be the most significant shift in raw 
material sourcing in human history.
    Here is AstroForge's roadmap to make sure that the United 
States leads the way. Our first mission in 2023 tested an early 
version of our refining technology in low Earth orbit. Tomorrow 
our second mission will fly to an asteroid and confirm its 
metallic makeup. Our third mission, planned for 2026, just next 
year, will land on an asteroid and directly measure its ore 
concentration. Once we complete these missions, AstroForge will 
manufacture a fleet of small autonomous spacecraft, each about 
200 kilograms in size, that can be launched on any available 
rocket. These spacecraft will travel to asteroids, land on 
them, and will mine and refine the platinum group metals on the 
surface of the asteroid itself. We will then transport these 
refined materials back to Earth to be sold.
    We have five recommendations for this Committee to 
champion, recognizing that some of them will require 
collaboration with other committees and regulatory bodies.
    No. 1, create a space resource consortium to establish a 
center of gravity for investment in innovation.
    No. 2, underwrite a price floor for off-take agreements or 
become the off-taker of last resort for space resource 
companies to provide pricing stability. At the end of the day, 
both terrestrial and space miners are competing against a 
State-backed monopoly like China that dominate and manipulate 
spot-driven markets.
    No. 3, expand the Department of Energy's loan program to 
include space-based critical mineral projects.
    No. 4, empower NASA to collaborate with commercial space 
companies on deep space missions. The success of NASA's CLPS 
mission shows that commercial partnerships work. AstroForge 
could enable NASA to do more deep space missions at a much 
lower cost.
    And finally, No. 5, allow commercial deep space companies 
to easily access NASA's Deep Space Network, or DSN. 
Communicating with spacecraft at long distances is very 
difficult using commercial technology, and making the DSN more 
accessible would drive innovation.
    We look forward to discussing these recommendations with 
you.
    I will leave you with this. Future generations will look 
back on this moment as an inflection point where America 
established its mineral independence. This Subcommittee has the 
chance to be remembered as the leaders who saw a glimpse of the 
future and decided to help forge it.
    Thank you for your time.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Place follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Steven Place, Senior Policy Advisor,
                            AstroForge, Inc.

    Tomorrow, at 7:15 p.m. Eastern time, AstroForge will launch the 
first privately funded deep space mission in history. This mission 
brings AstroForge one step closer to our goal of securing critical 
resources for America. This mission signifies what a small group of 
dedicated Americans can achieve when they set out to explore what's 
possible to improve the quality of life here on Earth.
    As members of this Committee, you recognize that America's 
leadership in manufacturing, energy, and defense requires a reliable 
supply of raw resources. We are here today to urge this Committee to 
recognize that asteroid mining must be part of America's mining future.
    Right now, 96% of Platinum Group Metals come from China, Russia, 
and South Africa. \1\ Our daily modern lives rely on the capabilities 
enabled from these critical resources--smartphones, cars, and 
computers, all require Platinum Group Metals--and our supply is rapidly 
dwindling. \2\ We will run out if something does not change. We 
currently have no viable solution to this problem other than going off 
world and looking to space for the solution. America should lead the 
way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Cohen. A. (2022, January 13). China And Russia Make Critical 
Mineral Grabs in Africa While the U.S. Snoozes. Forbes. https://
www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/01/13/china-and-russia-make-
critical-mineral-grabs-in-africa-while-the-us-snoozes/?sh=55c9cacd6dc4
    \2\ Schulte, R.F. (2024). Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 
2024. USGS. https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024-platinum-
group.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The good news? Earth is surrounded by ore-rich bodies, known as 
metallic asteroids. They contain an almost unlimited supply of the 
Platinum Group Metals. We know this because our planet is impacted by 
thousands of these asteroids every year, we just refer to them as 
meteorites. They contain the highest ore grades ever discovered, and 
the leading theory suggests that all known platinum group metal mines 
on Earth originated from ancient asteroid impacts.
    This is not a secret. Our adversaries are well aware that the 
future of mineral security on Earth depends on the ability to secure 
these resources from space. \3\ We must be the first to develop this 
technology and give our nation a lead in what will be the most 
significant shift in raw material sourcing in human history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Aedan Yohannan, ``China's Space Strategy Dwarfs U.S. 
Ambitions,'' American Foreign Policy Council, March 11, 2024 https://
www.afpc.org/publications/articles/chinas-space-strategy-dwarfs-u.s-
ambitions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AstroForge's roadmap to make sure the United States leads the way 
is as follows: Our first mission in 2023 tested an early version of our 
refining technology in Low Earth Orbit.
    Tomorrow, our second mission will fly to a near-Earth asteroid and 
confirm the asteroid's metallic makeup. \4\ Our third mission, planned 
for 2026, will land on an asteroid and directly measure its ore 
concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Upon completion of these three missions, AstroForge will 
manufacture a fleet of small autonomous spacecraft, each 200 kg in 
size, that can be launched on any available rocket. These spacecraft 
will travel to targeted asteroids, land on them, and will mine and 
refine the Platinum Group Metals on the surface of the asteroid. We 
will then transport these refined materials back to Earth to supply 
these necessary materials to drive our nation's industry and commerce.
    Our five requests for this Committee to champion are as follows, 
recognizing that some of these will require collaboration with other 
Committees and regulatory bodies:

    1. Create a space resource consortium to align private and public 
efforts and create a center of gravity to drive innovation and 
investment for space resources.

    2. Underwrite a price floor for offtake agreements or become the 
offtaker of last resort for space resource companies to de-risk 
investments and provide pricing stability, as has been recommended for 
the terrestrial mining market. \5\ This is important, because at the 
end of the day we are competing against state-backed monopolies like 
China that dominate and manipulate spot-driven markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Ashley Zumwalt-Forbes, ``Mining Financing Post,'' LinkedIn, 
February 15, 2025
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ashleyzumwalt_mining-financing-
infographic-activity-729509295 5868999680-
Q5e?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAALITNoBvvIQW1 Ka-
BqZj_VlInvhGwZe-kc

    3. Expand the Department of Energy's Loan Program to include space-
based critical mineral projects. The funding exists but currently 
applies only to terrestrial projects. A simple rule change could unlock 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
breakthroughs and new sources of capital.

    4. Empower NASA to collaborate with commercial companies on deep 
space missions. The success of NASA's CLPS missions show that 
commercial partnerships work. AstroForge could enable NASA to do more 
deep space missions at a much lower cost.

    5. Allow Commercial Deep Space companies to easily access NASA's 
Deep Space Network (DSN), communicating to spacecraft at long distances 
is very difficult using commercial technology, making the DSN more 
accessible would unlock a huge bottleneck.

    Future generations will look back on this moment as an inflection 
point for America's mineral independence. And this subcommittee has the 
chance to be remembered as the leaders who saw a glimpse of the future 
and decided to help forge it.

APPENDIX
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9390.004


                                 .eps__
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Place. I now recognize Mr. 
Painter for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF RICHARD PAINTER, PROFESSOR OF CORPORATE LAW, 
               UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL

    Mr. Painter. Mr. Chairman Gosar and Ranking Member Dexter, 
members of the Committee, especially The Honorable Pete Stauber 
of the great State of Minnesota, I am very, very pleased to 
appear before you today.
    I am not an expert on space mining. I have done a lot of 
work in corporate finance and corporate law over the years, and 
these are intriguing ideas that could yield great economic 
benefit and, if pursued at risk, and great risk to investors in 
the private sector, the return should go to the investors in 
the private sector. If space mining is pursued at the expense 
of the taxpayers and at the risk of the U.S. Government, the 
taxpayers should receive their due return.
    So those who bear the risk should receive the return. And 
if there is a joint venture between the corporate world and the 
U.S. Government, it is absolutely essential that the bargaining 
with respect to risk and return be arm's length bargaining, and 
that the U.S. Government officials who are involved with this 
process, making decisions about what to do with our money, with 
taxpayer money, be free of conflict of interest. That is what 
is essential.
    I am a government ethics lawyer. I served as the chief 
ethics lawyer for the George W. Bush administration. I have 
taught law at the University of Minnesota, government ethics, 
and corporate law now for almost 18 years. I am not here, of 
course, to speak on behalf of the State of Minnesota, my 
employer, but to speak out as a citizen about my concern that 
taxpayer money be spent on projects that benefit the taxpayer, 
and that our government officials be free of conflicts of 
interest.
    In my written testimony I summarized some of the critically 
important rules, the most important of which is the criminal 
conflict of interest statute, 18 United States Code 208. I 
explained to incoming cabinet officials and White House 
officials in the Bush administration it is a criminal offense 
for a U.S. Government official to participate in a particular 
matter that has a direct and predictable effect on their own 
financial interests, including a company they own stock in.
    And it is critically important that that rule be enforced 
not only by the Justice Department, but proactively by the 
executive branch. The Office of Government Ethics plays a 
critical role, and I was disappointed to see that the Director 
of the Office of Government Ethics was fired a very short time 
ago.
    The U.S. Congress plays a critical role, as well. 
Oversight, that is the role of this Committee and other 
committees of both houses, to make sure that criminal conflicts 
of interest do not exist in our government, and that every U.S. 
Government employee, including special government employees, 
complies with the statute.
    And second, there are financial disclosure rules that have 
been in place since 1978, in the Ethics in Government Act of 
1978. Public financial disclosure is required in all three 
branches of government. Members of this Committee file a public 
financial disclosure form. The top 100 commissioned officers in 
the White House fill out a publicly-available financial 
disclosure form. And, of course, the judges and justices of our 
courts. It is essential that the most important officials in 
all three branches of government disclose their finances.
    It is inappropriate for the government in the executive 
branch or in any branch to appoint someone as a special 
government employee, say, well, they are only serving part 
time, and therefore we are going to hide the financial 
disclosure report if that person is performing functions where 
there is a decision-making role in the U.S. Government or an 
advisory role to the President of the United States at the 
highest levels.
    And we need to make sure that the public has access to 
information about financial conflicts of interest of government 
officials who are involved in space mining or in any other 
decisions that affect the American taxpayer. We are paying for 
this government with very high rates of taxation in this 
country, and now with cutting back many essential services 
across the board in our country. And we have a massive Federal 
Government deficit, and it is our right as citizens to know 
what the financial conflicts of interest are of the people who 
are making decisions on behalf of our government, whether it is 
about space mining or any other subject matter.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Painter follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Richard W. Painter

    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee: Thank 
you for inviting me to testify today.
    I am a law professor at the University of Minnesota, and I was the 
chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 
to 2007. I specialize in corporate law, securities regulation, lawyers' 
ethics, and government ethics. I am also the Associate Reporter for the 
American Law Institute's Principles of Government Ethics which will be 
published later this year.
    I do not appear before you to advocate for or against space mining. 
Mining here on earth is important to our economy and national security, 
although some proposed projects involve unacceptable environmental 
risks. Arne Carlson, a former Republican Governor of Minnesota, and I 
have expressed concern about proposals by foreign billionaires to open 
sulfide mines near the Boundary Waters. \1\ If space mining is an 
alternative that will increase supply of precious metals at reasonable 
cost, it is a concept worth exploring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Colleen Connolly, Former Gov. Arne Carlson is 88 and battling a 
massive mining conglomerate, Minnesota Reformer, June 8, 2023, https://
minnesotareformer.com/2023/06/08/former-gov-arne-carlson-is-88-and-
battling-a-massive-mining-conglomerate/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Space mining could yield minerals worth billions, even trillions of 
dollars. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Andrew Wong, Space mining could become a real thing--and it 
could be worth trillions, CNBC, May 15, 2018, https://www.cnbc.com/
2018/05/15/mining-asteroids-could-be-worth-trillions-of-dollars.html 
(``Noted astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, among others, have claimed 
that the world's first trillionaire will make his or her fortune in 
space minerals. According to NASA, the minerals that lie in the belt of 
asteroids between Mars and Jupiter hold wealth equivalent to a 
staggering $100 billion for every person on Earth.'' ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But who should pay for space mining, and who should reap the 
rewards? A space mining project funded by the government should return 
profits to taxpayers. A space mining project funded by private 
enterprise should return profits to the owners of that enterprise. A 
space mining project funded both by the government and by private 
enterprise should distribute cost, risk and return equitably between 
taxpayers and private companies that pay for it. Negotiations between 
the government and companies in space mining projects must be at arm's 
length and free of financial conflicts of interest.
    This is where federal conflict of interest statutes and financial 
disclosure requirements are critically important. Federal officers are 
prohibited from participating in government matters that affect their 
financial interests. Senior federal officers also are required to 
publicly disclose their assets, liabilities, income and other financial 
information so the public can know whether they are complying with 
conflict-of-interest rules. Federal officers involved with a space 
mining program will need to comply with these rules to assure there is 
not a massive waste of taxpayer money. I discuss those rules in more 
detail below.
Elon Musk, Space X and Space Mining
    Since the beginning of the 20th Century, presidents have brought 
successful businesspeople into their administrations to advise on 
operation of the United States Government. The Government spent $6.75 
trillion in 2024, and the total Government debt is now about $36 
trillion. Something needs to be done, and a business expert like Elon 
Musk can bring new ideas that will help.

    Space exploration and space mining are among Mr. Musk's many 
intellectual interests. Space mining is also one of his many financial 
interests. Space X is forming partnerships with asteroid-mining 
companies. As reported last month in Space.com:

        ``A U.S. asteroid-mining company has announced the target space 
        rock for its upcoming test mission. California-based AstroForge 
        has identified asteroid 2022 OB5 as the destination for its 
        Mission 2 spacecraft, named Odin, which is set to launch next 
        month, SpaceNews reports. The Odin spacecraft will be flying as 
        a secondary payload aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, which will 
        send Intuitive Machines' IM-2 lander toward the moon.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Andrew Jones, Space mining company AstroForge identifies 
asteroid target for Odin launch next month, Space.com, January 31, 
2025, https://www.space.com/space-exploration/tech/space-mining-
company-astroforge-identifies-asteroid-target-for-odin-launch-next-
month;

    Five years ago in 2020, Mr. Musk's likelihood of success in space 
mining was sufficiently serious that some financial experts believed he 
would increase gold supply and drive down the price of gold and other 
precious metals. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Billy Bambrough, Winklevoss Twins Tell Barstool's Dave Portnoy 
To Pick Bitcoin Over Gold Due To Elon Musk's `Space Mining', August 14, 
2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/08/14/
winklevoss-twins-tell-bar-stools-dave-portnoy-to-pick-bitcoin-over-
gold-due-to-elon-musks-space-mining/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Musk can bring useful ideas to the Trump Administration, 
including in space mining.

    We must recognize two caveats, however.

    First, the aim of government is fundamentally different from a for-
profit corporation. Government exists to serve the people, to provide 
essential services while minimizing tax burdens on the middle class and 
curtailing deficits that shift costs to future generations. For profit 
companies by contrast focus primarily on profits, although some 
business leaders also are aware of their fiduciary obligations to the 
public. \5\ Because of the fundamentally different objectives in the 
private and public sector, some ideas from business will work in 
government, and others not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Richard W. Painter, The Conservative Case for ESG, 9 University 
of Pennsylvania Journal of Law & Public Affairs 151 (2024)

    Second, the laws that Mr. Musk and everyone else in the 
Administration must comply with include conflict-of-interest statutes 
and regulations, financial disclosure statutes and regulations and 
other ethics rules intended to safeguard the integrity and efficiency 
of the United States Government, and our national security. As a 
federal employee Mr. Musk will work for the benefit of the United 
States, not himself.
The conflict-of-interest statute
    The conflict-of-interest statute imposes criminal penalties on any 
executive branch officer or employee (except the president and vice 
president) \6\ who:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ I believe this conflict-of-interest prohibition also should 
apply to the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress. See 
Getting the Government America Deserves; How Ethics Reform Can Make a 
Difference, Chapter 2 (Oxford University Press 2009).

        ``participates personally and substantially as a Government 
        officer or employee, through decision, approval, disapproval, 
        recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or 
        otherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding, application, 
        request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, 
        controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular 
        matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, minor child, 
        general partner, organization in which he is serving as 
        officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee, or any 
        person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has any 
        arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        interest.'' 18 U.S.C. Section Sec. 208(a).

    This statute applies not just to matters in which there are 
identifiable parties but to any ``particular matter.'' A particular 
matter may involve specific parties (for example a government contract, 
permit or case) or a particular matter of general applicability focused 
on the interests of a discrete and identifiable class of persons (for 
example an industry such as space exploration or space mining) \7\ A 
particular matter will have a direct effect on a financial interest if 
there is a close causal link between a government decision or action in 
the matter and any expected effect of the matter on the financial 
interest. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ ``The term particular matter encompasses only matters that 
involve deliberation, decision, or action that is focused upon the 
interests of specific persons, or a discrete and identifiable class of 
persons. Such a matter is covered by this subpart even if it does not 
involve formal parties and may include governmental action such as 
legislation or policy-making that is narrowly focused on the interests 
of such a discrete and identifiable class of persons. The term 
particular matter, however, does not extend to the consideration or 
adoption of broad policy options that are directed to the interests of 
a large and diverse group of persons.`` 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2635.402 (b)(3) 
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-XVI/subchapter-B/part-
2635/subpart-D/section-2635.402
    \8\ ``(i) A particular matter will have a direct effect on a 
financial interest if there is a close causal link between any decision 
or action to be taken in the matter and any expected effect of the 
matter on the financial interest. An effect may be direct even though 
it does not occur immediately. A particular matter will not have a 
direct effect on a financial interest, however, if the chain of 
causation is attenuated or is contingent upon the occurrence of events 
that are speculative or that are independent of, and unrelated to, the 
matter. A particular matter that has an effect on a financial interest 
only as a consequence of its effects on the general economy does not 
have a direct effect within the meaning of this subpart. (ii) A 
particular matter will have a predictable effect if there is a real, as 
opposed to a speculative possibility that the matter will affect the 
financial interest. It is not necessary, however, that the magnitude of 
the gain or loss be known, and the dollar amount of the gain or loss is 
immaterial.'' 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2635.402 (b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some federal employees are part time special government employees 
(SGEs) who work with or without compensation. \9\ This statute applies 
to SGEs as well as full time officers and employees with very narrow 
exceptions. A SGE serving on a committee governed by the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act may participate in particular matters of general 
applicability where the disqualifying financial interest arises from 
the SGE's non-Federal employment. However, the matter may not have a 
``special or distinct effect'' on either the SGE or the SGE's non-
Federal employer, other than as part of a class, and this exception 
does not cover interests arising from the SGE's ownership of stock or 
other financial interests in the employer. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ A ``special Government employee'' is defined as an employee 
``who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform, with 
or without compensation, for not to exceed one hundred and thirty days 
during any period of three hundred and sixty-five consecutive days,'' 
18 U.S. Code Sec.  202(a).
    \10\ ``A special Government employee serving on an advisory 
committee within the meaning of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. app.) may participate in any particular matter of general 
applicability where the disqualifying financial interest arises from 
his non-Federal employment or non-Federal prospective employment, 
provided that the matter will not have a special or distinct effect on 
the employee or employer other than as part of a class. For purposes of 
this paragraph, ``disqualifying financial interest'' arising from non-
Federal employment does not include the interests of a special 
Government employee arising from the ownership of stock in his employer 
or prospective employer.'' 5 C.F.R. 2640.203(g), https://www.ecfr.gov/
current/title-5/chapter-XVI/subchapter-B/part-2640#2640.203

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here are some examples:

    A full-time federal employee or SGE may not advise NASA or the 
White House on NASA's budget for space mining if the employee owns 
stock in a company that will financially benefit from NASA spending 
money on space mining.

    A full-time federal employee or SGE may not advise NASA or the 
White House on regulatory matters pertaining to space mining if the 
employee owns stock in a company that will be affected financially by 
NASA's regulation of space mining.

    A SGE serving on a federal advisory committee who is an employee of 
a company that has a financial interest in space mining, but who does 
not own stock in the company, might be permitted to participate in the 
above matters provided the matter does not have ``special or distinct 
effect'' on the company that is his employer.
Financial Disclosure
    Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 \11\ and federal 
regulations thereunder senior government officials holding ``covered 
positions'' \12\ must file public financial disclosure Form 278. \13\ 
This includes ``civilian employees in the Executive Office of the 
President (other than special Government employees) who hold 
commissions of appointment from the President.'' \14\ There are 
approximately one hundred commissioned officers in the White House 
(Assistants to the President, Deputy Assistants to the President, and 
Special Assistants to the President), and all file a public financial 
disclosure form 278.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ See 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 13101-13111: Financial Disclosure 
Requirements of Federal Personnel.
    \12\ These ``covered positions'' include the President and the Vice 
President; officers and employees (including special Government 
employees, as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 202) in positions that (1) are 
paid under a system other than the General Schedule (e.g., Senior 
Executive Service) and (2) have a rate of basic pay equal to or greater 
than 120% of the minimum rate of basic pay for GS-15 of the General 
Schedule; members of the uniformed services whose pay grade is O-7 or 
above; and officers or employees in any other positions determined by 
the Director of the Office of Government Ethics to be of equal 
classification; administrative law judges; employees in positions which 
are excepted from the competitive service because of their confidential 
or policy-making character, unless the position has been excluded from 
the public financial disclosure requirements by the Director of the 
Office of Government Ethics; the Postmaster General, the Deputy 
Postmaster General, each Governor of the Board of Governors of the U.S. 
Postal Service, and officers or employees of the U.S. Postal Service or 
Postal Regulatory Commission in positions for which the rate of basic 
pay is equal to or greater than 120% of the minimum rate of basic pay 
for GS-15 of the General Schedule; the Director of the Office of 
Government Ethics and each designated agency ethics official; and 
civilian employees in the Executive Office of the President (other than 
special Government employees) who hold commissions of appointment from 
the President.'' U.S. Office of Government Ethics, Public Financial 
Disclosure Guide, Appendix A, Definitions. (emphasis added) https://
www.oge.gov/web/278eGuide.nsf/Definitions
    \13\ The OGE Form 278e has nine substantive Parts: Part 1--Filer's 
Positions Held Outside United States Government; Part 2--Filer's 
Employment Assets & Income and Retirement Accounts; Part 3--Filer's 
Employment Agreements and Arrangements; Part 4--Filer's Sources of 
Compensation Exceeding $5,000 in a Year; Part 5--Spouse's Employment 
Assets & Income and Retirement Accounts; Part--Other Assets and Income; 
Part 7--Transactions; Part 8--Liabilities; Part 9--Gifts and Travel 
Reimbursements.
    \14\ U.S. Office of Government Ethics, Public Financial Disclosure 
Guide, Appendix A, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A SGE in the White House does not have to file the Form 278 but 
instead files a private financial disclosure Form 450. During my time 
in the Bush White House the only SGEs I encountered served on boards 
and commissions appointed by the President, for example the President's 
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. The President did not for any 
significant time frame appoint a SGE ``part time'' to perform the 
functions of a senior White House official such as an Assistant to the 
President. Using the SGE designation in this manner would be an obvious 
and inappropriate circumvention of the requirement that senior White 
House officials publicly disclose their finances.
    I am aware of only one exception to this prior to 2025; it was 
wrong; and I said it was wrong. Antia Dunn took a temporary role on 
President Biden's staff as a ``special government employee'' which, 
pursuant to 3 U.S.C. 101(f)(8) exempted her from the public financial 
disclosure requirement (Form 278) that is required for all senior 
advisors to the President and other senior employees of the Executive 
Office of the President. \15\ After I and other ethics lawyers publicly 
objected to this arrangement, in August 2022 Ms. Dunn reversed course 
and became a full time White House employee, filling a financial 
disclosure Form 278.\16\ Ms. Dunn had significant assets the public had 
a right to know about, but she was no billionaire. She certainly was no 
Elon Musk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Haisten Willis, Anita Dunn courts controversy while taking 
charge in Biden White House, Washington Examiner, September 20, 2023, 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2586994/anita-dunn-courts-
controversy-while-taking-charge-in-biden-white-house/
    \16\ Caitlin Oprysko, Anita Dunn finally discloses her corporate 
clients, POLITICO, August 12, 2022 (``Richard Painter, the chief White 
House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, said that 
Dunn and her husband's extensive investment portfolio raised another 
set of conflicts'') https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-
influence/2022/08/12/anita-dunn-discloses-corporate-clients-00051541
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applying the Conflict-of-Interest rules and Disclosure rules to Mr. 
        Musk
    Mr. Musk as a federal employee may not participate in a government 
matter that affects his financial interest. \17\ He has a control 
interest in Space X which is poised to lead the way in space mining, 
potentially earning Mr. Musk billions of dollars if projections about 
the value of minerals in space are correct. He has every right to 
pursue this as a private venture, but as a federal employee he cannot 
legally at the same time advise the Government on space mining or make 
decisions for Government agencies that affect space mining. Like 
countless other successful business leaders before him who entered 
public service, he must either divest his financial interest in space 
mining or recuse from government matters that affect space mining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Another area of concern is Mr. Musk's financial conflicts of 
interest in the efforts of DOGE to dramatically scale back or close the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Richard W. Painter, So 
Elon Musk works for the government. That comes with obligations. As a 
``special government employee,'' he must abide by conflict-of-interest 
laws and the Emoluments Clause, Minnesota Star Tribune, February 17, 
2025. Tesla like other car manufactures, finances consumer car loans 
that are regulated by CFPB. Musk is also enhancing X with a new digital 
payment platform, a consumer finance vehicle also regulated by CFPB. On 
February 6, Musk's employees--presumably DOGE employees--reportedly 
entered CFPB headquarters seeking access to sensitive CFPB information, 
including staff records, industry data, and personally identifiable 
consumer information. Bobby Allyn, Laurel Wamsley, and Chris Arnold, 
Musk's team takes control of key systems at Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, NPR, February 7, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/02/
07/g-s1-47322/musks-team-takes-control-of-key-systems-at-consumer-
financial-protection-bureau The next day, Mr. Musk tweeted ``CFPB 
RIP.'' https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1887979940269666769?s=46&mx=2. 
DOGE also is gaining access to confidential corporate data of X's 
competitors that the CFPB obtained from Amazon, Apple, Facebook, 
Google, and others. CFPB Orders Tech Giants to Turn Over Information on 
their Payment System Plans Orders will help CFPB monitor for data 
surveillance, access restrictions, and other consumer protection risks 
as payments technologies and markets evolve, Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, October 21, 2021, HTTPS://WWW.CONSUMERFINANCE.GOV/
ABOUT-US/NEWSROOM/CFPB-ORDERS-TECH-GIANTS-TO-TURN-OVER-INFORMATION-ON-
THEIR-PAYMENT-SYSTEM-PLANS/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Administration perhaps could have hired Mr. Musk as a 
government contractor, like a defense contractor, but then other rules 
would apply, such as competitive bidding for most contracts. 
Regardless, he is not a government contractor. Mr. Musk is a government 
employee. He is bound by the conflict-of-interest statute.
    Mr. Musk's companies are government contractors, however, and hence 
the conflict of interest for him as a government employee. In fact, his 
companies have about $22 billion in government contracts, $15 billion 
with NASA and billions more with the Department of Defense. \18\ If he 
were to participate in government matters affecting these contracts, he 
would stand on both sides of transactions potentially worth billions of 
dollars, and likely would violate the conflict-of-interest statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ See Elon Musk's US Department of Defense contracts, Reuters, 
February 11, 2025 (``SpaceX's CEO Gwynne Shotwell has said the company 
has about $22 billion in government contracts. The vast majority of 
that, about $15 billion, is derived from NASA.''), https://
www.reuters.com/world/us/elon-musks-us-department-defense-contracts-
2025-02-11/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Musk also should publicly disclose his financial information 
like every other senior official in the White House. Calling him a SGE 
to avoid the disclosure requirement of OGE Form 278 is a charade. Mr. 
Musk's duties in the Trump Administration in the past four weeks have 
already far exceeded the duties of any SGE who has ever served in the 
Executive Branch. The impact of Mr. Musk's decisions and 
recommendations on the Government also has far exceeded that of any SGE 
who has ever served. Once he exceeds the 130-day limit on government 
work of a SGE the inappropriateness of his SGE designation will be even 
more obvious. Disclosure law avoidance at some point becomes disclosure 
law evasion, which like tax evasion is illegal. At best Musk, if he 
does not disclose his finances, is in an in-between area of law 
``avoision'' a practice popularized in both tax loophole literature 
\19\ and even on T.V. by Bart Simpson (``Krusty the Clown goes to jail 
for tax avoision!''). \20\ Such circumvention of the law is 
fundamentally dishonest and would be entirely inappropriate for a 
public servant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ ARTHUR SELDON ET AL. TAX AVOISION (London School of Economics 
1979).
    \20\ I Don't Say Evasion, I Say Avoision (The Simpsons), YOUTUBE 
(Jan. 30, 2016), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpEaFmK3lrY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, space exploration and space mining involve matters 
important to our national security. Laws protecting national security--
including laws requiring government contractors with access to 
classified information to report their contacts with foreign nationals 
\21\--must be obeyed. \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual 
(NISPOM), 32 CFR Part 117.
    \22\ Kirsten Grind, Eric Lipton and Sheera Frenkel, Elon Musk and 
Space X Face Federal Reviews After Violations of Security Reporting 
Rules, New York Times, December 17, 2024 (``Elon Musk and his rocket 
company, SpaceX, have repeatedly failed to comply with federal 
reporting protocols aimed at protecting state secrets, including by not 
providing some details of his meetings with foreign leaders, according 
to people with knowledge of the company and internal documents.''), 
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/17/technology/elon-musk-spacex-
national-security-reporting.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
    The Executive power is vested in the President, \23\ but he is not 
a king who can empower a vassal to do anything he wants to do. The 
President must take care that the laws of the United States are 
faithfully executed, \24\ and he must obey the orders of the judicial 
branch. \25\ Commissioned officers, both civilian and military, swear 
an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not to the President. \26\ 
The Supremacy Clause is clear that the Constitution and laws of the 
United States are the supreme law of the land. \27\ Among these laws 
are those that pertain to financial conflicts of interest, financial 
disclosure and national security. These laws are not optional; they 
must be obeyed. \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 1.
    \24\ U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3.
    \25\ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (``It is emphatically 
the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.''). Fringe 
legal scholars of the left and right occasionally urge liberal or 
conservative presidents respectively to disobey orders of the Supreme 
Court. See e.g. Ryan D. Doerfler and Samuel Moyn, The Constitution Is 
Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed, New York Times, Aug. 19, 2022 
(stating that Congress should rewrite the Constitution without going 
through the Amendment process and that ``Congress would be pretty 
openly defying the Constitution to get to a more democratic order--and 
for that reason would need to insulate the law from judicial review.'' 
No Congress and no president in the 20th or 21st Century has done that.
    \26\ ``I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and 
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, 
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the 
same.'' Officer's oath. 5 U.S. Code 3331. As an Associate Counsel to 
the President appointed by George W. Bush, I took that oath in 2005, 
swearing allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. I did not 
swear allegiance to any person, even the President.
    \27\ U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2.
    \28\ I discuss the importance of ethics statutes and rules for the 
efficiency and integrity of government in my book Getting the 
Government America Deserves; How Ethics Reform Can Make a Difference 
(Oxford University Press 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Presidential power comes with responsibility, and it is the duty of 
Congress to assure that the Executive Branch is held accountable. \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ I discuss the extent and limits on presidential power in a 
wide range of areas, including appointment of White House staff in a 
forthcoming book co-authored with E. Thomas Sullivan, The Presidency: 
Power, Responsibility and Accountability (Cambridge University Press 
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Musk brings promise to the Trump Administration, but also a 
serious risk unless the President, Mr. Musk, and their advisors assure 
that the affairs of the United States Government are carried out free 
of conflict of interest. Space exploration and space mining, where 
enormous wealth is potentially at stake but also national security, is 
one of the most critical areas where Government employees must comply 
with the law.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Richard W. Painter, Professor of 
           Corporate Law, University of Minnesota Law School

Mr. Painter did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.


              Questions Submitted by Representative Dexter

    Question 1. In July 2023, before SpaceX launched its Falcon Heavy 
rocket from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) informed the company that a new facility it had 
built to fill rocket engines with fuel had not yet passed the required 
safety checks. SpaceX launched anyway, so the FAA fined the company. 
Now the FAA is facing significant staffing cuts and restructuring under 
the directives of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Both 
SpaceX and DOGE are led by Elon Musk.

    Is it legal to allow someone with direct financial and operational 
stakes in aerospace regulation to oversee the agency's downsizing?

    Question 2. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notified 
SpaceX on March 13, 2024, that its deployment of its launchpad deluge 
system was in violation of the Clean Water Act. SpaceX ignored the 
warning and operated the system again on March 14. In fact, SpaceX 
deployed the system multiple times before eventually applying for a 
permit on July 1. In a separate case, EPA fined SpaceX $148,378 for 
releasing liquid oxygen and tens of thousands of gallons of water into 
wetlands bordering the Boca Chica launch site on several occasions 
without a permit.

    Who is responsible for ensuring Musk is recused if EPA were to 
pursue regulatory actions and fines against SpaceX?

    How can Congress and federal agencies ensure that Musk does not use 
his role to expedite permits, reduce fines, or otherwise weaken 
environmental enforcement in ways that directly benefit his companies?

    What safeguards, if any, are in place to prevent Musk from using 
his position to weaken or delay environmental regulations that could 
hold SpaceX accountable for violations?

    Question 3. X (formerly Twitter) made a deal with Visa to offer a 
mobile payments service similar to Venmo or PayPal. The service would 
be directly regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
(CFPB), which has a track record of bringing cases against payment 
companies. But DOGE aims to eradicate the CFPB. Elon Musk recently 
wrote ``CFPB RIP'' on X.

    In your legal opinion, does Musk's attempt to dismantle the CFPB 
while it is responsible for regulating a service provided by his 
company represent a conflict of interest? If so, why should the 
American public be concerned?

    How does Musk's public stance to dismantle the CFPB, combined with 
his business interests, impact the credibility of DOGE's mission and 
decisions regarding financial regulation?

    Question 4. SpaceX, which runs the Starlink service, secured a 1.8 
billion dollar classified contract in 2021 and serves as the Pentagon 
and NASA's primary rocket provider. The Pentagon also pays Starlink 
millions to supply Ukraine with internet access. However, Elon Musk was 
being investigated for his secret meetings with Vladimir Putin that 
were revealed by the Wall Street Journal. The full extent of Musk's 
defense contracts is unknown since many of them are classified.

    Who is responsible for ensuring Musk is recused if he were to 
encounter a potential conflict of interest regarding his federal 
defense contracts while he is leading DOGE?

    Without assurances that President Trump is going to enforce any 
mitigation of Musk's conflicts of interest, how can the public be 
assured that the Department of Government Efficiency isn't directing 
more taxpayer money into Musk's ventures?

    Question 5. Through DOGE, Musk has gained access to agency data 
systems and sensitive information. For example, it has been reported 
that DOGE associates have been granted unrestricted access to NASA's 
personnel and contracting files. This access could provide SpaceX with 
insider information, potentially giving it an unfair advantage over 
competitors by accessing their proprietary information.

    Considering Musk's direct ties to SpaceX, would you consider his 
role overseeing NASA's data systems an example of a conflict of 
interest?

    Why is it a problem that Musk has access to sensitive information 
from NASA while simultaneously running a private space company?

    Question 6. The sweeping funding cuts and mass layoffs implemented 
by DOGE under Musk's leadership have had devastating effects on working 
families who depend on stable employment and public services. Among 
those abruptly let go without cause are single parents, veteran 
employees, and public servants who dedicated years to improving their 
communities--only to find themselves jobless overnight. Meanwhile, Musk 
continues to secure new multi-billion-dollar government contracts for 
his private ventures, funneling taxpayer money into his corporate 
empire while slashing jobs and gutting public services.

    Do you consider it a problem that the federal government is 
rewarding this behavior by continuing to provide Musk with lucrative 
contracts?

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Painter. And now, Mr. Shroff, you 
are up to 5 minutes. Thank you.

           STATEMENT OF SAURAV SHROFF, CEO, STARPATH

    Mr. Shroff. Chairman Gosar and members of the Subcommittee, 
I am grateful to testify on behalf of Starpath about the 
exciting opportunities developing in space mining.
    Right now the United States has a historic opportunity to 
develop low-cost travel to the moon and Mars. Soon it will be 
possible to use a rocket to fly to a moon base, much like we 
use airliners to fly to airports like JFK today. Building this 
future will be exciting, unlike anything you and I have ever 
seen, blending the patriotic unity of the Apollo program from 
the 1960s with the economic stimulus of the Union Pacific 
Railroad.
    This future is closer than you might think. To enable low 
cost access to the moon and Mars, you need two main components.
    First, you need a fully and rapidly reusable rocket. 
Thankfully, SpaceX is solving this with its new Starship 
rocket. Starship is the most powerful rocket ever made by the 
human species. By conducting seven, and counting, orbital test 
flights, SpaceX has demonstrated many, if not most, of the 
technologies required for full and rapid reuse. These are 
incredible feats of American engineering, and we should be 
proud.
    The second element may be less discernible to those 
unfamiliar with our industry. To unlock low-cost access to the 
moon and Mars requires a rocket propellant mine and refinery on 
the moon and Mars, in layman's terms, a gas station. Broadly 
speaking, it is impossible to operate a mission to and from the 
moon or Mars without refueling.
    Fortunately, Starpath, the company I am proud to represent 
today, has built the world's most advanced system for mining on 
the moon and Mars. In a few short days this system will be 
operational at our headquarters in Los Angeles, and we invite 
members of the Committee to come visit. By mid next year we 
will be ready to ship a refinery for the surface of the moon 
that is twice as powerful as the most powerful satellite ever 
made, the International Space Station, at a fraction of the 
cost. The following year our capacity will reach 20 times that 
of the ISS, and the following year 200 times. In less than 4 
years the system will be large enough to support a city of 
10,000 inhabitants on Mars. That is pretty cool. In doing so, 
we will put the United States at the top of a global 
leaderboard.
    Space mining can drive down space transport costs by over 
10 or 100 times, unlocking immense economic potential. 
Meanwhile, China is aggressively advancing. Last year the 
Chinese sent a mission to collect and return samples from a 
natural resource-rich area of the moon. This was the same year 
we canceled our VIPER moon mission which cost the taxpayer $800 
million. If they win, they will control land and resources on 
the moon and Mars and, worse, be viewed by the rest of the 
world as the leader at the frontier. That is unacceptable. The 
United States invented this game with Apollo in the 1960s, and 
we intend to win. In order to do so we believe that the 
government needs to excel in three areas.
    First, we need to launch rockets fast. Right now the FAA 
and groups like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and I am 
pro-fish, by the way, have an approval cadence that is slower 
than rocket launches themselves. This delays critical timelines 
for Starpath and for NASA.
    Second, congressional funding for NASA must align with this 
administration's goals to stay competitive in the global race 
for space resources. NASA has outlined a plan for a space 
mining contract called Lift-1. The contract would provide the 
necessary financial kickstart for a space resources-driven 
economy, and will return more to the taxpayer in reduced cost 
of access to space than its own line item cost. So to repeat, 
will return more to the taxpayer in reduced cost of access to 
space than its own line item cost. Moreover, Lift-1, the way we 
envision it, will put the United States at the uncontested 
front of this global race now. Lift-1 needs to happen.
    Third, we need to modernize planetary protection rules. In 
the 1960s we signed the Outer Space Treaty, which describes 
planetary protection, a well-intentioned rule set designed to 
protect planetary science. As it stands today, planetary 
protection is in direct conflict with NASA and the President's 
stated objectives to put humans on Mars. If unchanged, they may 
be the reason we lose on the global stage. They deserve 
examination and a modern refresh.
    Taking it easy has never been the American way. My parents 
moved here in the 1980s for a country that strives to be the 
best, and that drive is what keeps me here. The choice is 
clear: either America paves the way in the new space race and 
American companies own the market for space resources, or we 
cede leadership to China. What future do we want?
    Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shroff follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Saurav Shroff, CEO, Starpath Robotics Inc.

    Chairman Gosar and members of the subcommittee, Starpath 
appreciates the opportunity to testify about the exciting opportunities 
developing in space mining. This timely hearing indicates the 
Committee's recognition of the importance of America staying on t he 
forefront of this emerging industry.
    Starpath is building a rocket propellant mine and refinery for the 
Moon and Mars at mega scale. This means that Starpath designs and 
builds three main categories of equipment as part of a vertically 
integrated system. The first is equipment that can mine and transport 
huge amounts of raw resources on the surface of the Moon and Mars. The 
second is equipment that can process those resources into highly 
valuable commercially salable products including rocket propellant, 
water, and eventually exportable goods like Helium-3, which is an 
important natural resource that can only effectively be sourced from 
the Moon. The final category is equipment to cheaply generate huge 
amounts of power for both aforementioned components. Starpath will be 
an important part of the United States' domination of our adversaries 
in the new space race and it won't even be close.
    Right now, the United States has the opportunity to develop low 
cost travel to the Moon and Mars. Soon, it may be possible to use a 
rocket to fly to a Moon base much like we use airliners to fly to 
airports like JFK today. Building this future could combine the 
inspiring and patriotic unifying effects of the Apollo program from the 
1960s with the stimulating economic activity of the construction of the 
Union Pacific railroad in the 1860s.
    This future is closer than you might think. Enabling low cost 
access to the Moon and Mars requires two main components.
    The first is a fully and rapidly reusable rocket. Amazingly, 
SpaceX, an American company, is expeditiously developing its new 
Starship rocket, which will be exactly that. Starship is the most 
powerful and largest flying object ever made by the human species. 
SpaceX has successfully flown and publicized seven orbital test 
flights, and demonstrated many if not most of the technologies required 
for full and rapid reuse. These technologies include catching their 
booster stage out of mid air with giant mechanical arms, and high 
velocity reentry of their upper stage into the Earth's atmosphere. 
These are incredible feats of American engineering, and we should be 
proud.
    The second element may be less discernible to those unfamiliar with 
our industry. To unlock low cost access to the Moon and Mars requires a 
rocket propellant mine and refinery on the Moon and on Mars; 
essentially, a gas station. Broadly speaking, the laws of physics limit 
the operation of a mission to and from the Moon or Mars without 
refueling. Fortunately, Starpath, the company I am proud to represent 
today, has built, in America, the world's most advanced system for 
mining on the Moon and Mars. Starpath is excited to announce that this 
month, that system will be operational in a fully integrated state at 
our headquarters in Los Angeles--we invite members of the committee to 
come visit! This outcome to the credit of the incredible Starpath team. 
The Starpath team is currently working tirelessly to bring our first 
system to flight readiness, and to put ourselves, our partners, and the 
United States at the top of a global leaderboard of space-faring 
countries. Our mindset is that there is no prize for second place. By 
mid next year, we will be ready to ship a mine and refinery for the 
surface of the Moon that is twice as powerful as the most powerful man-
made satellite ever made, the International Space Station. The 
following year, Starpath's capacity will reach 20 times that of the 
ISS, and the following year, 200 times. In less than four years, the 
system will be large enough to support a city of 10,000 inhabitants on 
Mars. These mines will extract resources and produce commodities to 
support billions of dollars of commercial activity each year, and yet 
will cost less than $100 million to produce. These aren't just the most 
powerful systems of their class, they are the most powerful space 
systems ever made.
    Space mining has the potential to unlock costs of space transport 
hundreds or even thousands of times lower than what we see today, and 
correspondingly, to drive immense, unprecedented commercial activity. 
China also has plans to go to the Moon and Mars, and they have 
demonstrated an ambitious attempt to equal and exceed U.S. efforts in 
tapping space resources. Last year, the Chinese launched a mission 
specifically to collect and return samples of natural-resource rich 
land on the Moon. This was in the same year NASA canceled its flagship 
VIPER mission to map valuable resources on the Moon. If China succeeds 
in its goal of exceeding U.S. presence and capacity in space, they will 
control land and resources on the Moon and Mars. Perhaps more 
importantly, China will be viewed by the rest of the world as the 
country pushing the edge of the frontier. We refuse to let that happen. 
Americans invented this game in the 1960s with Apollo, and this is 
still our game to win.
    In order to do so, we believe that the government needs to do an 
excellent job in three areas. The status quo in these areas is 
commendable, but there remains some room for improvement.
    First, aerospace companies in the U.S. need to launch rockets 
frequently in order to accelerate the inevitable cost reductions of 
access to space. Right now, the Federal Aviation Administration and 
various government environmental groups, such as the US Fish and 
Wildlife Service, have an approval rate slower than the cadence of the 
rocket launches themselves.
    These delays limit our ability to engineer, and tangibly push back 
crucial timelines for businesses like Starpath.
    Second, congressional funding for NASA must align with this 
Administration's goals to stay competitive in the global race for space 
resources. NASA has outlined a plan for a space mining contract called 
LIFT-1. The contract will provide the necessary financial kick-start 
for an economy driven by space resources, and will return more to the 
taxpayer in reduced cost of access to space than its line item value. 
Moreover, LIFT-1 will give the U.S. an edge in establishing dominance 
in the emerging space resource s economy.
    Third, we need to revisit rules designed to protect the ability to 
conduct scientific research in space. In the 1960s, we signed the Outer 
Space Treaty. The Outer Space Treaty describes ``planetary 
protection,'' which is a well-intentioned ruleset designed to protect 
other planets from our own biological contamination. As it stands 
today, planetary protection rules are actually in direct conflict with 
NASA and the President's stated objectives to put humans on Mars. The 
ability to run frequent, low-cost missions to the Moon and Mars--an 
ability which is unlocked by space mining and efficient utilization of 
space resources--will be a boon to scientific research. If left 
unchanged, the Outer Space Treaty may be the reason the U.S. loses 
ground against competing countries in space research. The treaty 
deserves careful examination and a modern refresh.
    Starpath is grateful to the Committee's attention to this exciting 
area of untapped economic potential and technological innovation. The 
future we envision is a future where America dominates the new space 
race, where American companies own the market for space resources, and 
where America cements its position as the dominant technological force 
of planet Earth. To make this future a reality will depend on the 
support of Congress, and on establishing the crucial public-private 
partnerships that have driven some of the most ground-breaking 
innovations in this country's history. Starpath thanks the Committee 
for convening this hearing, and looks forward to providing its 
honorable members with any further information.
    Please contact saurav@starpath.space with any questions or if we 
can provide any additional information.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. Thank you. I thank the witnesses for the 
testimony. Now we are going to go to the Members for their 
questions. The first Member up is Mr. Collins from Georgia.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, as a fellow 
small businessman and entrepreneur, it is incredible that we 
have hearings like this to talk about the future of things, 
especially critical minerals, which are the future especially 
for mining and what we need. But it is nice to see that we are 
highlighting some small businesses that are out there taking a 
chance on doing something. I want to focus on one particular 
area.
    Mr. Painter, surveying your career, the courses that you 
teach, the publications that you publish out there indicate 
that you specialize in corporate law, securities, and ethics 
issues. However, the purpose of this hearing is to highlight 
America's needs for minerals and explore modern solutions. So 
yes or no, do you have any technical expertise on modern mining 
practices and technologies?
    Mr. Painter. No, I do not. I do not. My expertise is also 
on government ethics.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you.
    Mr. Painter. As the chief ethics lawyer for President 
Bush----
    Mr. Collins. Let me ask you this. And yes or no, when you 
work at the University of Minnesota Law School do you teach 
courses on mining law or policy?
    Mr. Painter. I just answered that question. The answer is 
no. I teach courses on ethics.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you.
    Mr. Painter. And if you don't care about ethics, then you 
shouldn't have invited me to the hearing.
    Mr. Collins. So yes or no, in the past you have run for 
political office and publicly expressed opposition for hardrock 
mining projects in your home State there in Minnesota, while 
touting your experience as an ethics attorney.
    Mr. Painter. Some of the hardrock mining projects, I 
believe, are dangerous and they were conducted by companies 
funded by foreign billionaires who weren't willing to put their 
guarantee on the table that if they created a mess they would 
clean it up.
    Mr. Collins. So yes or no, you have also at the same time 
publicly expressed support for growing the solar industry in 
the United States. Correct?
    Mr. Painter. Well, that is one way to create energy, yes.
    Mr. Collins. But Mr. Painter, don't you understand that 
solar energy requires critical minerals and other hardrock 
minerals?
    Mr. Painter. I do.
    Mr. Collins. Do you suggest that America is better off 
sourcing these materials from abroad?
    Mr. Painter. Certainly not. I just simply said that the 
people who have opened up mines be willing to clean it up if 
they make a mess.
    Mr. Collins. Do you deny that labor and environmental 
standards in the United States are among some of the strongest 
in the world?
    Mr. Painter. Some of them are and some of them are not, 
depending on who is administering the Environmental Protection 
Agency and who is conducting oversight. I am here----
    Mr. Collins. ``Depends'' is a big word.
    Mr. Painter [continuing]. As an ethics lawyer, not as a 
mining expert.
    Mr. Collins. Sir, are you aware that China dominates global 
mineral supply chains and backs mining operations using forced 
and child labor?
    Mr. Painter. I am sure they do, and the Chinese are taking 
advantage of the fact that we just have partisan fights----
    Mr. Collins. Do you know----
    Mr. Painter [continuing]. Back and forth all the time and 
make a bunch of false----
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Painter----
    Mr. Painter [continuing]. Accusations against each other 
instead of focusing on the issue at hand.
    Mr. Collins. Here is what is troubling to me, Mr. Painter. 
It is troubling to me that, despite dedicating your career to 
ethics issues, you have no problem championing a radical, anti-
mining agenda that is unsupported by science and is advanced by 
dark money and Chinese-funded non-profit organizations.
    Mr. Painter. I support mining. That is just simply not 
true.
    Mr. Collins. No----
    Mr. Painter. I support mining, I support safe mining.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that critical 
hardrock mining and critical minerals, they are essential for 
our future. And there are two things which are a common theme 
that I see up here time after time. That is, No. 1, that there 
is an over-reaching, out-of-control Federal agency that is 
stymieing and controlling every bit of this mining industry, 
also the frivolous and non-ending lawsuits that are out there. 
And the other thing is just the willingness, like Mr. Painter 
said, to allow China, which provides the majority of our 
critical minerals that are processed right now, because we have 
to send them over to China to get them processed, they are over 
there mining with forced and child labor.
    You know, it is time to unleash the American 
entrepreneurial spirit and make sure that we are and remain the 
best country in the world and America first. And with that, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. Will the gentleman yield?
    [No response.]
    Dr. Gosar. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Collins. Yes, sir. I would yield.
    Dr. Gosar. Because you have a good couple seconds.
    Mr. Painter, you said you would support mining. Give me 
some examples of those mines.
    Mr. Painter. I support mining. In Minnesota, we have had 
mining for iron for many years, and the iron mining industry 
has been successful in creating jobs in Minnesota. It has been 
very successful and is well regulated and complies with 
environmental regulations.
    With sulfide mining we could do it, but we need to do it 
with companies that are willing to step to the plate and 
promise to clean up if they make a mess. Glencore in the 
PolyMet mine was refusing to guarantee cleanup. We have a 
company run by billionaires in Europe doing deals with the 
Russians, and they refuse to guarantee the PolyMet mine. I 
oppose that.
    Dr. Gosar. Hold on a second. So you don't bond your 
hardrock mining?
    Mr. Painter. Hardrock mining can be accomplished and can be 
safe.
    Dr. Gosar. Oh, I understand, but you are supposed to bond 
it. That is where your cleanup comes. And you should be very 
much aware of now these microprocessors, that they are very 
green, they have very little water use, and you are getting 
everything out of this ore. So you have got to be really 
careful here.
    So I stole his time, so I am going to get back.
    Mr. Painter. You are right Mr. Chairman. You do need to be 
careful, and the people who do the mining need to be willing to 
guarantee to clean it up, and Glencore wasn't willing to do 
that in Minnesota. And former Governor Arne Carlson, a 
Republican, and I opposed that project for that reason.
    Dr. Gosar. I yield back.
    Mr. Collins. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I yield back. The gentlewoman from Oregon, I had 
to think about this because I said it wrong last time, Ms. 
Dexter.
    Dr. Dexter. All right. All right, so thank you, Mr. Chair.
    So SpaceX is part of at least three Federal reviews for its 
failure to comply with national security protocols, including 
by failing to disclose details of Musk's meetings with foreign 
leaders. For example, The New York Times reported that Musk had 
meetings with Vladimir Putin during which they discussed space, 
and Putin allegedly asked Musk to do a political favor for 
China's President Xi Jinping.
    Mr. Painter, if these findings were to be confirmed, why is 
that a problem for the American people?
    Mr. Painter. I gave the ethics lectures for the White House 
under President Bush at the President's direction on use and 
misuse of classified information. And one thing that is 
absolutely critical is when government contractors are 
entrusted with classified information they must report to the 
U.S. Government specific information about their dealings with 
foreign countries, and those reports are mandatory, must be 
filed, and they cannot be misleading.
    A material misstatement of the U.S. Government is a felony 
under 18 United States Code 1001. I don't know what happened in 
this specific case, but I will emphasize that those who are 
entrusted with classified information must file those reports. 
It is absolutely critical. We can't have our classified 
information in the hands of the Russians or the Chinese.
    Dr. Dexter. Great, thank you. And under normal 
circumstances, how might the Office of Government Ethics advise 
Musk to deal with a conflict of interest like this? What are 
some of his options?
    Mr. Painter. Well, if Mr. Musk is going to make any 
decisions involving recommendations involving space mining, for 
example, he would need to divest from SpaceX. There is just too 
close a connection. There is no way that you can get involved 
in space mining and have a financial interest in SpaceX without 
violating the criminal conflict of interest statute.
    So divest is the best option. Recuse and have nothing to do 
with the matter is the second best option.
    Dr. Dexter. Great. And under current arrangements, with 
Musk as a special government employee, who is responsible for 
ensuring Mr. Musk is recused or divested of his conflicts of 
interest?
    Mr. Painter. The appointing officer is responsible at first 
instance, and that is the President of the United States.
    I should emphasize that Mr. Musk is performing functions 
well beyond the functions that are ordinarily performed by a 
special government employee. In fact, he is performing 
functions that are performed by an employee who is appointed 
and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, a principal officer of the 
U.S. Government. And so there does need to be an additional 
appointment made with a confirmation hearing if he is going to 
continue doing what he is doing.
    Dr. Dexter. OK. And what safeguards are in place to prevent 
Musk from using his leadership at DOGE to obstruct or delay 
these inquiries by cutting staff, cutting funding, or killing 
investigations directly?
    Mr. Painter. The first safeguard is the Office of the 
President of the United States, the Executive Office of the 
President, and I would entrust that President Trump would make 
sure that everyone he appoints is complying with the government 
ethics rules, including the criminal conflict of interest 
statute.
    Second is Congress and the oversight obligations of both 
houses of Congress, including this Committee, to call witnesses 
to gather information and, most important, to get Mr. Musk's 
financial disclosure form, which should be available to the 
public, certainly should be available to the members of this 
Committee.
    Dr. Dexter. Thank you. Pivoting, the FAA, or Federal 
Aviation Administration, which regulates aerospace operations, 
has investigated and fined SpaceX multiple times, including for 
safety violations. Now the FAA is facing significant staffing 
cuts and restructuring under DOGE's direction, and a team from 
SpaceX has been brought in to assist with overhauling the FAA's 
air traffic control system.
    Mr. Painter, what is the risk of allowing SpaceX personnel 
to influence FAA restructuring?
    And would this situation fit the legal definition of a 
conflict of interest?
    Mr. Painter. Mr. Musk retains a financial interest in 
SpaceX. He should recuse from most all government matters 
pertaining to the Federal Aviation Administration while the 
Federal Aviation Administration is regulating and in these 
controversies with SpaceX. You either divest or recuse. That is 
what is required under criminal conflict of interest statute.
    Dr. Dexter. Thank you. And as you know, Trump fired at 
least 18 inspectors general, including the one at the FAA. 
Given that the traditional independent oversight mechanisms 
have been weakened, how can we be certain that Musk won't use 
his influence to undermine FAA regulations that could 
negatively impact SpaceX's bottom line?
    Mr. Painter. I would strongly urge that the President 
rehire the inspectors general. There is no reason to fire the 
inspectors general unless they are derelict in their duty in 
office. We need inspectors general to make sure there is no 
waste, fraud, or abuse in the Federal Government. And once 
again, it is the obligation of the House and Senate to exercise 
oversight, as well.
    Dr. Dexter. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. You are welcome. The gentleman from Alaska, Mr. 
Begich, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Question for you, Mr. Painter. You have stated that the 
U.S. taxpayer should have a return, and I agree. The taxpayer 
should have a return when making investments in public-private 
opportunities. Given your background in corporate finance, what 
structure would you recommend would be best for investments in 
space mining?
    Are we talking about direct equity participation, debt, 
debt with long-term warrant coverage, or some other structure 
that would allow the U.S. taxpayer to achieve participatory 
returns?
    Mr. Painter. Well, first and foremost, it is absolutely 
critical whoever is negotiating on behalf of the U.S. 
Government and getting involved in any of these issues 
involving space mining not have financial conflicts of 
interest, not be involved in companies like SpaceX.
    Now, once you have somebody in place who has financial 
expertise and does not have financial conflicts of interest, 
you can consider the various options. Given the enormous risk 
involved, I would think that some sort of equity participation 
might be ideal because debt participation, if you have a 
company that launches a space mission, the government lends 
them a lot of money and it goes belly up, well, you are not 
going to get repaid. So you may need some sort of equity 
participation through the U.S. Government.
    There are a lot of different arrangements we can look into, 
but the key is when government and private enterprise are 
working together they do not become crony capitalism, the kind 
of thing that our founders rebelled against and that Adam Smith 
wrote against.
    Mr. Begich. OK, I appreciate that. Thank you for your 
feedback. My time is limited, so I am going to move on to Mr. 
Place.
    Mr. Place, for AstroForge I think some of the technology 
you are describing is very exciting: autonomous mining 
capabilities that would return raw materials to Earth. You 
mentioned that they would then later be for sale. Would you 
imagine that these raw materials would remain in orbit, in a 
geostationary orbit of some kind so they could be later used 
for zero-G construction? Would they be returned to Earth's 
surface?
    Mr. Place. Great question. Short answer, that is possible. 
But our bread and butter is the refinery itself. So the physics 
behind getting to and from asteroids is pretty settled. What 
our core technology does is basically mine and refine the 
asteroid in situ, so right on the surface.
    So we have a few options. We can bring that refined 
material, about a metric ton of platinum group metal, back and 
de-orbit that, or it is definitely possible we can use that for 
in-space manufacturing.
    Mr. Begich. Thank you. And then a final question for Mr. 
Shroff.
    Aside from moving at a rapid pace, how do we achieve an 
enduring competitive advantage versus China or other nations in 
terms of space mining?
    Mr. Shroff. Thank you for the question. That is a great 
question, and it is actually a bit of a tough one to answer 
because I think that you actually hit the nail on the head.
    Moving at a rapid pace is what gives you an enduring 
advantage. Innovating faster than your competitor is the 
definition of an enduring advantage. There is simply no world 
where you innovate slower than your competitor and expect to be 
better than them for any duration of time. That philosophy 
guides development at Starpath. That philosophy, in my opinion, 
should guide development at really any competitive private 
company.
    If your question is referring to what the government can 
do, I outlined some of the things in my testimony that I think 
the government can do to support industries like ours, many of 
which are free. And, you know, so I will stop there and I will 
just say, you know, going fast is really everything when it 
comes to competing, and anything the government can do to make 
sure that industry isn't slowed down, which right now we think 
that the government is doing a fantastic job at in our 
industry, is two thumbs up from us, and really supported.
    Mr. Begich. One additional question, Mr. Shroff. Do you 
imagine a scenario in which you would be working with 
AstroForge in order to achieve some of the mission that has 
been laid out by your company?
    Mr. Shroff. Yes. It is a bit of a long answer, and I will 
do my best to keep it short.
    The short summary is that the product we build, which 
produces rocket propellant in space, makes it easier to do in-
space transportation. So if AstroForge was, for example, 
interested in--you know, I will try to keep this simple--moving 
their mined material from a highly energetic lunar orbit to a 
less energetic Earth orbit where it would be, you know, more 
easy to sell or closer to the point of being sold, our 
technology and our product could make that cheaper.
    Mr. Begich. Thank you. I think that highlights just how 
important it is for us to ensure that we are building all 
components of the space ecosystem in order to achieve actual 
mission success.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Puerto 
Rico, Mr. Hernandez, is recognized for his first 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hernandez. Thank you, Chair Gosar and Ranking Member 
Dexter, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here 
today.
    My question is for Mr. Painter. As you know, fFinancial 
conflicts of interests in the Federal Government can have 
serious consequences for Americans. When public officials 
prioritize personal or financial interests over the public 
good, it can lead to mismanagement of resources, 
inefficiencies, and even corruption. This not only wastes 
taxpayer dollars, but also undermines public trust in the 
government. For Puerto Ricans who I represent and who already 
face unique challenges in accessing Federal support and 
resources, these conflicts could disproportionately affect our 
community's ability to benefit from government programs and 
policies.
    Mr. Painter, can you tell us why the average American 
should care about the potential financial conflicts of interest 
of those working in the Federal Government?
    Mr. Painter. Because our money is at stake here. We pay 
taxes, and tax rates are quite high for many Americans. We pay 
taxes. We should expect a return on our investment in essential 
services from the U.S. Government. And if there is extra money, 
they shouldn't be taxing us so much.
    They also should be paying down this enormous deficit, 
which is going to have to be paid off by our children if that 
isn't taken care of.
    And the problem when we get into these ventures like space 
mining, if there is going to be government investment as well 
as corporate investment side by side, is that if you don't have 
arm's length negotiations and you have conflicts of interest, 
then you get into the crony capitalism which is exactly what 
our founders rebelled against, the crony capitalism of the East 
India Company who was bribing the members of parliament and 
trying to force us to drink their tea.
    You know, and this is what is going to be going on here if 
we are going to be dumping a lot of taxpayer money into a 
project and then private companies get the return. That is 
crony capitalism. That is what Adam Smith objected to, what 
Edmund Burke objected to.
    I believe in free enterprise, where private money is 
invested in projects and there is a private return. If there is 
going to be government involvement, I want to make doggone sure 
that this government is represented by officials who do not 
have their own financial conflicts of interest. And we are not 
going to have crony capitalism in the United States if we want 
to succeed as a country.
    Mr. Hernandez. And for the benefit of Americans, are there 
any historical precedents of conflicts of interest harming the 
American people in projects like these?
    Mr. Painter. We have had historical precedents of conflicts 
of interest ever since the founding of our country, where 
government officials have allowed their own financial conflicts 
of interest and their businesses to interfere with their 
decisions in government, whether it was large plantation owners 
who obstructed efforts to abolish slavery in the early years of 
our country's history running up to the present, where we now 
have billionaires entering the U.S. Government and the 
executive branch with conflicts of interest.
    It is OK to have successful business people in our 
government, but they must, one, file a publicly-available 
financial disclosure form so we can find out what they own and 
what the conflicts of interest are. The public has the right to 
that information.
    And second, they must comply with the criminal conflict of 
interest statute at 18 United States Code 208. And that is what 
I am asking Mr. Musk to do and all the other officials in the 
executive branch, just as I did during the Biden administration 
and during the Bush administration when I was in the White 
House under President Bush.
    Mr. Hernandez. Thank you, Mr. Painter, and I agree of the 
importance of transparency, accountability, and preventing 
conflicts of interest at the Federal level, at the State level, 
at the local level, at all levels of government.
    With that I yield back the remainder of my time.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. I will recognize myself 
for the next 5 minutes.
    So Mr. Shroff, you have employees, don't you?
    Mr. Shroff. We do.
    Dr. Gosar. Do you ever evaluate your employees from time to 
time?
    Mr. Shroff. We do.
    Dr. Gosar. Do you ask them to show what they are doing?
    Mr. Shroff. We absolutely do.
    Dr. Gosar. Why is that important?
    Mr. Shroff. At risk of stating the obvious, it is important 
because high-performing employees should be encouraged to keep 
performing highly and equipped with the resources to keep doing 
so. Low-performing employees, there should be a careful look 
taken to make sure that they have all the resources they need 
to succeed and if they are not in the right position to make 
the necessary changes.
    So without stating the obvious, because, you know, we want 
to run efficiently as a private company.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, I tell you what. Captain Obvious should be 
here for that very statement.
    Now, Mr. Place, how about you? Do you have employees?
    Mr. Place. I am not the CEO, so no, sir.
    Dr. Gosar. You don't have any employees?
    Mr. Place. Employees at AstroForge, yes.
    Dr. Gosar. OK. Now, Professor Cabrera, you have got 
students, you have got probably a number of people answering to 
you. Do you have some constant oversight of those students?
    Mr. Cabrera. Yes.
    Dr. Gosar. I mean, I was once a GA. So did you actually try 
to improve on how they were going to do things?
    Mr. Cabrera. Yes.
    Dr. Gosar. And if they don't show up, what is their battle 
axe?
    Mr. Cabrera. In every sector, private, government, and 
academic, when people don't perform they should be released.
    Dr. Gosar. That is what I thought. I was a business owner, 
too, so I just thought that was pretty obvious. I am waiting 
for Captain Obvious to show up again. Still here.
    So now, this whole thing is about mining. So I want to get 
back to you, Dr. Cabrera. Is Resolution Copper one of those 
places where you can actually look at some of those mining 
techniques that you will be using in space?
    Mr. Cabrera. Yes.
    Dr. Gosar. Why?
    Mr. Cabrera. They are looking to do mining in harsh 
underground environments.
    Dr. Gosar. At what depth?
    Mr. Cabrera. I believe it is 8,000 feet.
    Dr. Gosar. Yes. We did a hearing out there in the Western 
Caucus, and we called it the journey to the center of the 
Earth. It was really interesting.
    So now, we are going to develop these miners of the future, 
let's just call them that. Because of the intense pressures 
down below there that is hot, it is probably not the best if 
you have a cave-in, because they are going to do some modified 
mining. What do you expect from them to do, and where would 
this be first tested, these robots?
    Mr. Cabrera. All of the technology necessary for space 
mining is necessarily going to be tested right here on Earth, 
innovating in the mineral supply that we have on the planet.
    Dr. Gosar. Our environment in space is as valuable as it is 
down here, right? So we don't want to contaminate anything, 
right? The gentleman said it, Mr. Place said it. They are going 
to use concentrators up there, right? And so you are not going 
to bring a bunch of ore down. You are going to bring the real 
product. That is because it is so expensive.
    So how do you go about those concentrators, do you look at 
those here in real life? And I understand that you have to 
prove your process, that it works. Then you have to look there 
is no contamination for any environmental aspects. And then 
third, can you do it to scale, right? So that is the three 
parameters.
    OK. Well, won't those be tested here?
    Mr. Cabrera. Yes.
    Dr. Gosar. What are you going to test them on? What mine? I 
am trying to figure this out because we have had people over 
and over come here saying, ``Not this mine, not this mine.''
    I had the Good Earth Guardians over here just a couple of 
years ago saying, ``Listen,'' I have been down to Resolution 
Copper. When I started asking them questions, they would recant 
that. But they would never give me a mine that would work.
    Now, Mr. Painter, what if I told you that the Twin Metals 
mine actually has a higher standard than any other mine, 
period? Do you know why? You should know this one.
    Mr. Painter. Well, you can----
    Dr. Gosar. Congress came in there and did a different area. 
They gave the area of the mine site, and then they did a whole 
area so that you couldn't mine in that outlying area. So they 
actually looked at it, did they not? And if you are not 
actually having a bond aspect, that is your problem because 
that is required by law, a bond, and they have to remediate 
that.
    So you know, we are going to do a second round, but I have 
much more to talk to you, and you will be able to answer that 
one. OK?
    I yield back.
    Mr. Painter. That is a question?
    Dr. Gosar. No. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Shroff, I want to delve into Starpath here for a 
minute, because----
    Mr. Shroff. Sure.
    Mr. Collins [continuing]. I find this pretty fascinating 
and incredible. So you all are going to mine rocket propellant 
on the moon?
    Mr. Shroff. That is correct.
    Mr. Collins. OK. All right, so you are an actual mining 
company.
    And I want to pick up on what you all are talking about 
with the rapidly progressing nature of this mining opportunity. 
What factors have led to the acceleration of prospects for 
mineral extraction in space?
    Mr. Shroff. I would say at the absolute top of the list is 
the cost and access of launch to space.
    You know, I am generally not a political guy, and I know 
this is a politically sensitive topic with Elon being in the 
government, and that is not my domain, but SpaceX you know, 
roughly holds a 90 percent market share on launch market. And 
if it wasn't for SpaceX, the U.S. actually would not even be a 
competitive country in the space industry at all. And we are 
the leader. And the fact that SpaceX has brought online such an 
immense, unprecedented capability to launch payload to space 
and are actually increasing it by an order of magnitude with 
their new rocket Starship has completely changed the game for 
businesses like Starpath.
    Mr. Collins. Would you----
    Mr. Shroff. I should say, go on.
    Mr. Collins. Would you say SpaceX is a success?
    Mr. Shroff. Again, at risk of stating the obvious, I would 
say yes.
    Mr. Collins. Yes.
    Mr. Shroff. And it is totally not a political statement. It 
is just based on the fact that SpaceX has enabled businesses 
like AstroForge, like Starlink which connects millions of 
people around the world which, SpaceX's own, and countless 
other businesses that service a whole boatload of interests on 
Earth.
    Mr. Collins. So let me----
    Mr. Shroff. So yes, I would say----
    Mr. Collins. Let me ask you this, then. So when you hear 
about all these extensive timelines that we have for mining 
projects here, and what we have been talking about just around 
the country, and the Federal regulatory burden that hinders 
progress in this field, have you got any concerns for further 
regulations affecting the space mining industry?
    Mr. Shroff. So, first of all, I will say I am not an expert 
in terrestrial mining, so I don't know what the regulatory 
process looks like. But I am learning as we go and 
understanding that it is burdensome.
    And yes, we have some concerns, although not that many. And 
I described a number of them in my opening testimony----
    Mr. Collins. You did.
    Mr. Shroff [continuing]. That, you know, basically we 
should regulate, we should make sure that the public is safe 
for sure, there should be no compromises with respect to public 
safety. But regulation, particularly related to protecting 
science, shouldn't slow down, and I know this is going to sound 
ironic, technologies like Starpath, which will advance science.
    Mr. Collins. Right. So and also you described in your 
testimony that Starpath is seeking to resolve one of the 
biggest barriers to regulate space travel and resource, the 
extraction in space. So currently, how does the inability for 
spacecraft to refuel in space set limitations on missions and 
what is compromised?
    Mr. Shroff. Yes, that is a phenomenal question.
    So the Apollo era is a perfect example of a time when we 
didn't have access to refueling in space. And the way we 
overcame that problem is by throwing away 99 percent of our 
rocket. So we launched a rocket into space, it did a thing that 
we call staging, which means that, you know, a portion of the 
rocket separates and gets discarded and the rest continues to 
fly, and we did that five or six times from launching on Earth 
to getting astronauts to the moon and back. And I think Apollo 
is great, but that came at a really high unit cost, a unit cost 
of roughly, inflation-adjusted, $10 billion per astronaut per 
trip. And that is not a unit cost that any sort of commercial 
business model can support.
    Mr. Collins. Right.
    Mr. Shroff. But with refueling and with Starship and other 
fully and rapidly reusable vehicles, that $10 billion per 
person can be like $200,000.
    And I am totally serious when I say that you could have, 
like, a multi-order of magnitude improvement in cost. And when 
you have that multi-order of magnitude improvement in cost, you 
open up possibility for all sorts of commercial business 
models, including mining helium-3 on the moon, mining platinum 
group metals from asteroids, and tourism to exist completely 
not publicly funded and completely funded only by private 
companies that are buying the end products.
    Mr. Collins. Let me ask you one last thing, because we are 
getting short on time now. So when do you think this capability 
is going to be established?
    Mr. Shroff. Starpath, if everything goes to plan and all of 
the timelines with launch vehicles stay on track, plans to 
establish its first mine on the moon at the end of 2026, and 
our intent is only to scale exponentially from there.
    So I would say for a customer that is interested in the 
commercial product, between 2026 and 2028, which is, you know--
--
    Mr. Collins. Around the corner.
    Mr. Shroff [continuing]. Two to 4 years from today.
    Mr. Collins. Yes, yes. All right.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. The 
gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Begich, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First question for Mr. 
Painter, picking up where we left off previously.
    Let's say that we have equity participation in some of 
these programs, where the U.S. taxpayer is contributing to 
advancing them. Where do you think that equity should be 
parked? Do you think it should be parked in this proposed new 
sovereign wealth fund?
    Mr. Painter. It could be. It could be parked in a separate 
or governmental entity or semi-governmental entity set up for 
that purpose.
    The government has gone into various businesses such as 
mortgage lending, Fannie Mae, and student loan lending, 
although we see there is a lot of abuse in these governmental 
entities that have combined public sector and private sector 
work. There is great risk here, and you would need corporate 
finance experts and investment bankers to look at how to 
structure this in the best interest of the U.S. Government. 
Because if our taxpayer money is being used for these projects, 
we get our fair share.
    And so I am not the banker or the finance expert who is 
going to come in and tell you exactly how to structure it. My 
role is to make absolutely sure, and that is what I did in the 
Bush administration, make absolutely sure that the government 
officials who do have that expertise----
    Mr. Begich. Understood, understood, yes.
    Mr. Painter [continuing]. Have no conflicts of interest.
    Mr. Begich. OK, I appreciate that context. So the sovereign 
wealth fund may be an area that this equity could be positioned 
if an equity position were taken.
    Mr. Painter. We could do that.
    Mr. Begich. OK.
    Mr. Painter. But it is somewhat ironic for a government----
    Mr. Begich. Thank you.
    Mr. Painter [continuing]. With such a massive government 
deficit to be talking about a sovereign wealth fund.
    Mr. Begich. No, I appreciate that. I come from a State 
where we have been able to utilize a sovereign wealth-like 
fund, and it has been very successful. It is the Alaska 
Permanent Fund, and it has allowed us to dramatically reduce 
the pressure of taxation in my State, and it has been a great 
program.
    But moving on to Mr. Shroff, let me just say I appreciate 
that you are here with us, as well as Mr. Place.
    Mr. Shroff. Thank you.
    Mr. Begich. And I would suggest that you continue to be 
involved because much of what has occurred in this Committee, 
and a number of other Committees in Congress, is that we are 
constantly dealing with a Federal Government that has grown 
beyond its original intent and scope. And as bizarre as this 
may sound to you at the moment, don't be surprised if we end up 
having conversations in this body talking about an EPA-like 
agency in space. It seems ridiculous, but I guarantee you there 
are colleagues in this body that will propose it at some point, 
and maybe not in the far-distant future. And so your 
involvement here is very important to make sure that people 
remain engaged and involved, and that you assure that the 
regulatory environment does not prevent you from actually being 
able to advance in the areas that you would like to advance in.
    One question for you, Mr. Shroff. Can you describe the 
risks of letting China surpass us in what many are calling the 
new space race for extracting resources?
    And a follow-up to that: how does harnessing lunar 
materials help the United States?
    Mr. Shroff. Two great questions. I will answer the first, 
you know, I am not a political expert, so, you know, you guys 
are going to be experts in this domain, but it would be the 
same risks as letting any foreign adversary take, you know, 
take strides past us in any emerging industry.
    If we were developing AI, which we are, and, you know, I am 
not involved in the development of AI, and it was only, for 
example. I am just going to pick a random country, France that 
was developing AI, we would be looking at each other thinking, 
how can we get involved? Why aren't we the leaders? America has 
been for so long the technological leader across so many 
technologies.
    So it is the exact same risks that you see in any emerging 
industry, so nothing special. And you guys are the experts in 
evaluating where we want the United States to be the best. And 
it is just my personal opinion, as an American that loves to be 
in America, that we should be the best in everything we can. 
And this is an area where we definitely can.
    Mr. Begich. Thank you.
    Mr. Shroff. Your second question, and I will try to be 
fast, I know we are short on time, is how can harnessing lunar 
resources benefit the American people? Two ways.
    First, if you produce propellant on the surface of the 
moon, you can drastically reduce the cost of moon missions, 
many of which are sort of, of the class that we have already 
spent billions of taxpayer dollars on. So the Artemis missions, 
for example, you know, I support and I think are incredible, 
cost a lot, you know, over $2 billion per launch for the SLS 
rocket, which is the rocket that was designed for Artemis. 
Those figures could be 100 or maybe even 200 times lower in a 
future where you have access to lunar resources.
    And the second, I know we are running out of time, the moon 
has an abundant supply of a resource called helium-3. Helium-3 
is likely to be one of the highest unit cost materials we ever 
use, ever. And it is likely to be the case, in my opinion, that 
in the near future probably all of our helium-3 supply, 
practically speaking, will be sourced from the moon.
    Mr. Begich. Thank you. My time is expired, I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Alaska. The gentleman 
from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, is recognized for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to first thank 
you for convening today's hearing as we take a wide look at the 
future of our Nation's critical mineral supply chains as demand 
for these minerals grows at a rapid pace.
    That said, while I believe it is important that we take 
this wide view, Mr. Chair, I cannot help but reflect on how we 
have gotten here. Why is it that we are literally looking to 
outer space for these minerals, minerals we are blessed with 
right here in the United States of America? The regulatory and 
permitting frameworks that govern our domestic mining industry 
are making it damn near impossible to responsibly develop the 
minerals we are blessed with here in the United States, 
including the Duluth Complex in northern Minnesota, the biggest 
untapped copper nickel find in the world. Think about it, Mr. 
Chairman. Our regulatory and permitting system is so difficult 
and costly, so broken, that we are looking at outer space as a 
reasonable alternative.
    Mr. Cabrera, it is great to see you again, and thanks for 
being here. In your written testimony you note it would take 
$1.2 billion to recover just 121 grams of material from the 
asteroid Bennu. Can you provide a ballpark of how much it would 
cost to recover those similar minerals right here domestically 
in the United States?
    Mr. Cabrera. I can't, frankly, do that math in my head. But 
what I would say is that, I want to distinguish between the 
regulations themselves and the delays associated with how they 
are implemented, those are very different things. But short of 
the delays, it should be much more inexpensive to derive those 
minerals from Earth.
    Mr. Stauber. So it is safe to say Americans will face lower 
costs if we responsibly mine here in the United States of 
America. Is that correct?
    Mr. Cabrera. Yes.
    Mr. Stauber. What kind of impact would this have on our 
local communities and our national security if we domestically 
mine in the United States?
    Mr. Cabrera. The benefits are untold. The mining industry 
of today understands how important it is to be responsible not 
just for the environment, but for the host communities.
    In addition, mining companies are increasingly deriving co-
products from their primary metals, and often those co-products 
are the rare earth elements or, let's say, not economically 
viable elements that our defense system needs.
    Mr. Stauber. Right. And I will never use the term again 
``waste pile rock,'' because as the technology gets better that 
waste pile rock in the 1950s and 1960s is now valuable because 
of the technology. You look at the Eagle Mine in the Upper 
Peninsula of Michigan. Right now they are looking at mining the 
ore out of the tailings because of technology.
    Mr. Painter, thank you for being here today. It is great to 
see a fellow Minnesotan before the Committee. In response to 
questions for Mr. Collins you suggested that you support mining 
if there is proper reclamation and cleanup work, and I agree 
with that. Do you know where the cleanest drinking water can be 
found in the State of Minnesota?
    Mr. Painter. No, you should tell me. I am sure it is in 
your district.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Painter. It is not in the Twin Cities, I can assure you 
that.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Painter, you are exactly right. It is in 
the heart of mining country in Buhl, Minnesota. This is thanks 
to proper reclamation and cleanup work that is being conducted 
every single day by our modern domestic mining industry.
    And you also noted the use of child and forced slave labor 
by the Chinese in their mineral supply chains. Mr. Painter, are 
you aware of any domestic mining projects that utilize or 
propose to utilize child slave labor?
    Mr. Painter. No, I don't know of any domestic mining 
projects owned by Americans. I mean, my concern is foreign 
billionaires trying to come in and mine northern Minnesota. I 
want to have American-owned mines where Americans are 
responsible and responsible for the cleanup.
    Mr. Stauber. And you support union jobs?
    Mr. Painter. I absolutely support union jobs.
    Mr. Stauber. We have been mining in northern Minnesota for 
145 years. Can you tell us an instance where ever child slave 
labor was forced upon that mining industry in Minnesota?
    Mr. Painter. Well, if it has happened, it has been a long 
time because we have child labor laws in the United States. And 
once again, the mines in Minnesota, they have such a fabulous 
history, are owned by Americans, controlled by Americans who 
are willing to clean up after themselves----
    Mr. Stauber. And you have----
    Mr. Painter [continuing]. If they make a mess.
    Mr. Stauber. You have seen you have seen reclaimed mines in 
northern Minnesota, haven't you?
    Mr. Painter. Yes.
    Mr. Stauber. They are beautiful, aren't they?
    Mr. Painter. I am sure they are.
    Mr. Stauber. They are beautiful.
    Mr. Painter. I usually go to the Boundary Waters to go 
canoeing, but visit some mines, too.
    Mr. Stauber. If you would indulge me, we have bike paths, 
recreational swimming, diving in mine pits. We farm hay on 
reclaimed mines. We have birds, bees, we deer hunt on reclaimed 
mines. So we do it right.
    And you noted your support for mining. Where would you like 
to see mining take place, in the United States of America or 
foreign countries that are adversarial to us?
    Mr. Painter. I would like to see mining take place in the 
United States with mines owned by Americans who are willing to 
clean up after themselves as we have had in Minnesota for many 
years. We have a proud tradition of iron mining in the most 
beautiful part of the country, which is your congressional 
district.
    But I am not going to stand for foreign billionaires coming 
into this country with companies like Glencore, founded by Marc 
Rich, who was pardoned by President Clinton for tax fraud. They 
have a terrible record all over the world and setting up some 
company to try and operate in northern Minnesota. I want mines 
owned by Americans.
    Mr. Stauber. That is why we have laws. They are going to 
follow our rules, our regulations, our EPA, clean water, clean 
air standards, and our labor standards.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentlewoman, the 
Ranking Member, Ms. Dexter, is recognized for her 5 minutes.
    Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Shroff, I really appreciated your testimony and giving 
the United States two thumbs up on our innovation and our 
investment in space exploration and mining. I wonder if 
suddenly that investment was to stop, what would the impact be 
on your company and, you think, that rapid innovation that we 
have been successful in attaining so far?
    Mr. Shroff. Well, for my company specifically, and I can't 
speak for all companies, we would figure it out. And the reason 
why we would figure it out is because our business is built 
around a commercial-first approach. In the long term we want to 
have, you know, the smallest possible percentage of our revenue 
coming from Federal dollars and the largest possible percentage 
of our revenue coming from customers who are getting a product 
that they want, whether it be helium-3, tourist services to the 
moon, or something even crazier.
    And I suppose this isn't exactly an answer to your 
question, but one of the things that I will say is that a lot 
of really promising commercial businesses come out of public-
private partnerships. Falcon 9, the rocket that services about 
90 percent of Earth's payload to orbit, not America's payload 
to orbit, but Earth's payload to orbit, was actually developed 
through a public-private partnership between NASA and SpaceX. 
And I think that is amazing because Falcon 9 now exists and 
serves all sorts of commercial-first companies like AstroForge 
and like countless others.
    Dr. Dexter. Right.
    Mr. Shroff. So the real answer that I feel to your question 
of what would happen is we would lose out on the other Falcon 
9s, right, the other things that we may create that have 
worldwide massive impact to their industry through public-
private partnerships.
    So would the world collapse if the government were to, you 
know, suddenly cut things off? No. Would Starpath fail? No. But 
do I think it would be a missed opportunity? Yes, and I think 
that that part is definitely obvious. And, you know, it is up 
to you to figure out how much you are willing to spend, and how 
valuable you think that is.
    Dr. Dexter. I appreciate----thank you so much. So Falcon 
9's success is benefiting the American taxpayer directly, then, 
somehow?
    Mr. Shroff. Yes, absolutely. So, I mean, first of all, I 
will make a disclaimer here that says, you know, I don't speak 
for SpaceX at all, and I can only talk about----
    Dr. Dexter. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Shroff [continuing]. You know, publicly available 
information.
    But if you look at Starlink, which I think is the case 
example, because Starlink is the plurality of Falcon 9 
missions, Starlink connects millions of Americans across the 
country, where actually, Starlink outperforms otherwise 
taxpayer-funded Internet services. So----
    Dr. Dexter. But I want to be clear about the question. 
Sorry, I might have not been clear. Is there direct equity in 
that success coming back to the American people from that 
investment?
    Mr. Shroff. While I don't know the internal workings of 
SpaceX.
    Dr. Dexter. I am----
    Mr. Shroff [continuing]. I believe the answer to your 
question is actually a resounding yes.
    Dr. Dexter. OK.
    Mr. Shroff. And that is because NASA is a big customer of 
Falcon 9, and NASA is able to buy Falcon 9 launches for a 
cheaper price than what they would have to pay if Falcon 9 
didn't exist.
    Dr. Dexter. So I am just going to pivot to Mr. Painter.
    We have talked about equity funds and different ways to 
share equity in investments that the American taxpayers are 
funding. Would you agree that the American taxpayers, the money 
that they have invested in these explorations, are directly 
benefiting back to their pocketbooks?
    Mr. Painter. Well, yes. I feel like I am appearing on the 
show Shark Tank.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Painter. We are making a proposal, and you are deciding 
whether to invest in it while sitting on a $36 trillion Federal 
debt.
    You know, I wonder whether we even have the money in the 
U.S. Government to invest. But if we do, I hope that those of 
you who are investing on behalf of the taxpayers are free of 
financial conflicts of interest, and at least I have your 
financial disclosure form.
    Dr. Dexter. OK. And so, when we talk about things like a 
sovereign wealth fund or other ways to invest, my understanding 
is that we have a deficit and we don't have liquid assets that 
we can just readily do that. I am understanding that we may be 
looking at liquidating public lands and investing dollars in 
exploration activities at the risk of really harming our 
current Federal public lands. Do you have concerns about such 
an investment strategy?
    Mr. Painter. I have a lot of concerns about the idea of the 
government throwing money into more projects when we are 
running these enormous deficits and we can't seem to manage our 
budget.
    But I want to insist that those who are representing the 
government in this type of venture have to be free of conflicts 
of interest. Mr. Musk can't be involved with SpaceX and have 
anything to do with space mining in the U.S. Government. That 
would just be flat-out corrupt.
    Dr. Dexter. OK. And my last question is pivoting towards 
SpaceX again. SpaceX is NASA's largest private contractor, 
receiving about $15 billion in contracts. And since running 
DOGE, Musk has received even more contracts. So SpaceX recently 
obtained another $7.5 million supplemental research and 
development contract with NASA, bringing their total deal with 
Musk's firm to $38 million in taxpayer money.
    Mr. Painter, how can the public be assured of impartial 
government contracting when Musk, as head of DOGE, oversees 
cuts that could impact agencies like NASA while SpaceX receives 
billions in Federal contracts?
    Mr. Painter. Mr. Musk cannot have anything to do with 
overseeing NASA while he has a financial interest in SpaceX 
which has contracts with NASA. So it is one or the other. He 
divests from SpaceX and then he can get involved in matters 
involving NASA or he completely recuses. He has to. It is 
required under the criminal conflict of interest statute, and I 
would trust that the President of the United States would 
insist on that. And if the President doesn't do that, the 
Congress must insist through oversight.
    And this is a criminal statute, so it could have very 
serious consequences for everyone if it is violated.
    Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Painter.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Dr. Gosar. The gentlelady yields back.
    So Dr. Cabrera, you know, you are pretty familiar, with 
being in Arizona, with Resolution Copper. How much did they 
spend to remediate that site?
    Mr. Cabrera. I am not exactly sure, but it is in the tens 
of millions of dollars for the cleanup.
    Dr. Gosar. It is approaching two billion. How many 
corporations do you know in America that can afford that $2 
billion before you get an ounce of copper?
    Mr. Cabrera. Not many.
    Dr. Gosar. Not many. That is right.
    So Mr. Painter, why I brought this up was because you made 
the comment you want all Americans to do the mining here in 
America. Well, tell me one of these all-American mining 
companies. Resolution Copper is going on its 33rd year, 33 
years to get a permit. That is unacceptable. Now I am going to 
come back to you, but I got to ask a couple more questions 
here.
    Mr. Cabrera, are you familiar with these micro smelters?
    Mr. Cabrera. Say again, sir.
    Dr. Gosar. Micro smelters. They are the concentrators.
    Mr. Cabrera. Yes.
    Dr. Gosar. So what they are doing is they are looking at 
this retrieving of metals that uses typically acids, right? And 
they are making very small, very efficient, and they are 
getting everything off. They will get gold, silver, titanium. 
They will get all that based on their atomic weight, all the 
little surfactants, all those little different things. Wouldn't 
that make a big detail for you, depending on the size of your 
mine, you would be using a couple of these or three or four of 
those. Doesn't that make more sense?
    Mr. Cabrera. When the technology is fully proven out at 
scale, yes.
    Dr. Gosar. OK. Well, it is really at scale now.
    So what I was trying to get back at, Mr. Painter, was there 
is a buffer area up in Minnesota. And because Congress dictated 
that buffer area it has got more processing ability. Now, just 
north of us, north of that mine is also some sulfuric mining, 
right, in Canada?
    Mr. Painter. Yes.
    Dr. Gosar. Do they have any examination there?
    Mr. Painter. I don't know what the regulations are in 
Canada.
    Dr. Gosar. No, they don't because they just have not had 
any problems there. So I have a little more faith in aspects of 
that.
    Now I am going to ask you a couple more questions. You keep 
bringing up the American people. Would you support a law that 
requires that if any business is deemed a national security 
interest or an energy interest, that everybody on the operating 
and oversight boards be required to have either a green card or 
be a citizen?
    Mr. Painter. That might make sense, but I would insist that 
there be a security clearance. I mean, that is what is 
critical----
    Dr. Gosar. Oh, I agree.
    Mr. Painter [continuing]. That there be a security 
clearance, because there are a lot of Americans I wouldn't want 
on those boards.
    Dr. Gosar. Oh, I agree with you, and where I was getting at 
is if a green card or a citizen, if they do something wrong you 
can hold them to treason, right?
    Mr. Painter. Well, yes, but there are a lot of people who 
have a green card or American citizens who I don't want 
anywhere near those boards because they are a national security 
risk.
    Dr. Gosar. I agree. So I would take that as a benefit.
    Now, you also bring up the public. What if we did this? 
What if we took our public lands, like the last administration 
tried to amortize our public lands and put them on the stock 
exchange, the New York Stock Exchange. Now, that wasn't a good 
idea and they scrambled it. But what if we did this in a law, 
where we actually put some of the holdings or money that we get 
off of public lands and put it in the Social Security trust 
fund? That sounds to me like it would be something up your 
alley, would it not?
    Mr. Painter. Well, if the U.S. Government gets money, and 
they should, from the public lands, get its fair share, the 
Social Security Trust Fund would be a very good place to put 
it. I would appreciate getting that check when I retire.
    Dr. Gosar. Oh, I am loving where we are going with this 
one, because I actually have a bill like that. It is called the 
LASSO bill, OK? And it does exactly that. And what is going to 
happen now is that the American public is going to look at this 
and say, you know, we got all these public lands. Some are off 
topic. You know, we have monuments, we have parks. But there is 
a whole heck of a lot of other land, and they are not really 
generating much. So mining would be energy. And under FLPMA you 
must energy, and must minerals, and you must forest, and you 
must improve your leasing, grazing leasing.
    So it sounds to me like, how important Social Security was 
in the last election, I am not going to trust a bureaucrat. I 
want to see that tangible asset.
    So Mr. Begich, the gentleman from Alaska, brought up, this 
fund that would help generate some of this stuff. I think that 
would be something that the American public would just 
gravitate to. I am also a businessman. So when I have an asset 
at $2.91 trillion, OK, going against my liability, and I can 
transfer it where they are going to gain all that money and 
then some, and they are going to monitor the whole fund, 
doesn't that help us on our budget?
    Mr. Painter. It might or might not. I haven't looked at the 
details of your bill and what the proposal is. The problem is 
that for 100 years, and I mentioned this last year when I 
testified with the Interior Department, since the Teapot Dome 
scandal we have had private interests who, by greasing the palm 
of somebody here in Washington, D.C. manages to get a benefit 
that other people can't get.
    And my focus is the corruption, and to make absolutely sure 
we don't have corruption in the relationship between the U.S. 
Government and the private companies that are engaging in 
mining on Federal land. Otherwise, if we don't have the 
corruption and we make sure we address those problems and 
confront those problems, we can make use of Federal lands, 
whether they use the money for Social Security or pay down the 
Federal debt or for whatever other purpose.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, so I have to pay Social Security because 
it is the people's money, right? We took their money and we are 
supposed to be holding it, which we are not.
    But anyway, I have one more last question. In your 
testimony you said that government exists to serve the people, 
right?
    Mr. Painter. Yes, it does.
    Dr. Gosar. Bureaucrats not chosen, failed to serve the 
people. Ezekiel Emanuel would be one of those who helped draft 
the Affordable Care Act is an example of that. Is that not 
true?
    Mr. Painter. That the Affordable Care Act serves the 
American people?
    Dr. Gosar. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Painter. Well, parts of it do. Yes, I mean, that is a 
policy debate we can have.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, I would think that, that is the biggest 
information, is about our genetics, our health care, being 
healthy and wealthy and wise. So Emanuel is not a lawmaker, was 
he?
    Mr. Painter. No, but----
    Dr. Gosar. He was a private-sector doctor, right?
    Mr. Painter. Well, yes, and we rely----
    Dr. Gosar. What did he disclose? He didn't disclose 
anything. He shouldn't have been part of the crafting of that 
health care model.
    Mr. Painter. But he wasn't sending emails to Federal 
employees telling them to report back to him with what they did 
last week or he is going to get them fired.
    Dr. Gosar. Whoa, whoa, whoa. How do you know that? How do 
you know that? You made a blanket statement. You have no idea.
    Mr. Painter. I just said he wasn't doing that.
    Dr. Gosar. You don't know that. You don't know that at all. 
But I would tell you, as much inferences and input he had in 
there, he did. I will bet you he sent a number of emails. But 
it is only hypothetical.
    In your line of work, as an ethics person, you have to say 
that has to be that way, right?
    Mr. Painter. Special government employees serve on boards 
and commissions and advise the President. I worked with them in 
the Bush White House. Special government employees don't do 
what Mr. Musk is doing. Mr. Musk can be appointed and confirmed 
by the Senate. And with a Republican-controlled Senate, I am 
sure it would go very, very smoothly. He divests from his 
conflicts of interest, submits a financial disclosure form, and 
everything is going to work out fine. We just need to go 
through the process.
    Dr. Gosar. I just presented you one that didn't, and that 
worked just fine.
    So from that standpoint, we are going to end this, but I 
wanted to say thank you very much.
    The Members may have additional questions for you to 
answer, and we ask that you respond to these in writing. Under 
Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must submit these 
questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, 
February 29. The hearing record will be held open for 10 
business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, the Subcommittee stands 
adjourned.

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

                                ------                                


            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gosar

                     Black Moon Energy Corporation

                             Houston, Texas

                                              February 26, 2025    

House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Gosar and Ranking Member Dexter:

    On February 25, 2025, the House Committee on Natural Resources 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing entitled: 
``Full Blast: Contrasting Momentum in the Space Mining Economy to the 
Terrestrial Mining Regulatory Morass.'' I write to you on behalf of 
Black Moon Energy Corporation, a U.S. company headquartered in Houston, 
Texas, and request this letter be included in the hearing record.
    Black Moon Energy Corporation (BMEC) is a privately funded venture. 
Our purpose is to advance energy security and sustainability by 
providing an abundant and reliable supply of Helium-3 for terrestrial 
fusion energy production reactors. While some companies may do so, BMEC 
does not seek any government subsidies or grants. In fact, our business 
model intentionally does not seek out or require any government 
contracts or government funding. Our only request of the government is 
a regulatory regime that facilitates, discourages barriers to, and 
promotes commercial celestial resource extraction and recovery. The law 
as it is today does that.
    Fusion energy--the energy that powers the sun and stars--can 
produce an essentially unlimited amount of electricity on a footprint 
thousands of times smaller than renewables. Even better, electricity 
generated by fusion fueled with Helium-3 supports a massive 
CO2 reduction, is totally clean--no greenhouse gases, no 
carbon emissions, no radioactive waste--and will be cheaper for the 
consumer. Helium-3 exists in quantity only on the moon, where there is 
enough to satisfy Earth's energy needs for over 10,000 years. While 
many companies are engaged in perfecting commercial fusion reactors, 
Black Moon Energy has developed a profitable plan to delineate and 
retrieve Helium-3 resources from the lunar surface and bring it to 
Earth, where it can be sold to replace and supplement fossil fuels used 
to generate electricity--particularly important as electricity demand 
is forecast to double in the next 25 years.
    In the hearing, questions were raised about the legality of 
conducting celestial resource extraction and recovery. It is our 
understanding, consistent with over fifty years of legal interpretation 
from the U.S. State Department Legal Advisor, across Administrations of 
both parties, that international law permits commercial exploitation of 
celestial resources. Furthermore, 51 U.S.C. Chapter 513 explicitly 
recognizes the property rights of U.S. citizens over any celestial 
resource recovered and directs the President to remove regulatory 
barriers and encourage private sector exploitation of celestial 
resources. Finally, the Artemis Accords recognize that commercial 
extraction, recovery, and use of lunar resources is consistent with 
international law, including the Outer Space Treaty. The Artemis 
Accords also provide for the notification and establishment of ``safety 
zones'' around commercial lunar operations, providing protection for 
personnel, equipment, and operations from harmful interference.
    In the hearing, competition with China in commercial celestial 
resource activities was raised. Ever since Apollo 11, the U.S. has 
prided itself on unmatched leadership in space exploration and 
utilization. As it stands today, China has recently extracted samples 
of Helium-3 from the lunar surface and is simultaneously investing 
heavily in its fusion energy infrastructure. As adversarial nations 
like China continue to expand their space operations, maintaining U.S. 
superiority in the stars has never been more essential. Strategic 
advantages, national security interests, and legitimacy in 
international affairs all lay in the balance of maintaining 
competitiveness in the future of the space race: resource extraction. 
Pursuing the American extraction of lunar Helium-3 to keep pace with 
our competitors is thus not an ``if'' or ``when,'' but a ``now.''
    In closing, I highlight for the Committee that supporting the U.S. 
commercial space industry has historically been a bipartisan 
Congressional endeavor, including in the 2015 Commercial Space Launch 
Competitiveness Act, the Act that codifies U.S. citizen property rights 
over any celestial resources recovered. I encourage the Committee to 
continue to support the U.S. space industry with law and policy that 
encourages investment and removes obstacles to commercial recovery of 
space resources.

    Thank you for your interest in U.S. commercial extraction and 
recovery of space resources.

            Sincerely,

                                               David Warden
                                                            CEO