During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing last week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) questioned NASA nominee, Jared Isaacman, about his commitment to create 'sustained human presence' on the moon or in cislunar space.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00In response to Senator Duckworth, you said multiple times, you will follow the law.
00:06Under every circumstance, you will follow the law. I appreciate that commitment.
00:10I want to go back and revisit the exchange you had with Senator Kim.
00:15Because one component of the law, you have said, and I'm glad to hear it,
00:20that under your leadership, America will beat China back to the moon. That's important.
00:27But the law is clear beyond simply going to the moon.
00:30That's part of it, that going to the moon shall be a stepping stone for further exploration of Mars.
00:36The ultimate objective is Mars, but going to the moon is critical.
00:40The law also specifies explicitly the administrator shall,
00:46and when legislation uses the word shall, it denotes a mandatory obligation.
00:50The administrator shall establish a program to develop a sustained human presence in cislunar space or on the moon.
01:00With respect to Senator Kim, you were reluctant to commit on a sustained human presence on the moon.
01:09Could you clarify your view on that to this committee?
01:12Well, Senator, as a space enthusiast, I'd like nothing more, as I've said before,
01:19to see a number of lunar outposts and Mars outposts than for us to even progress farther out into our solar system.
01:25If we are in an unlimited budgetary environment, we can maintain an ongoing presence on the lunar surface.
01:31I am more than supportive of it.
01:33I think it's imperative that we have to get back to the moon first as quickly as we possibly can,
01:38figure out, again, the scientific, economic, national security value to being there,
01:42which I am very hopeful that we are going to find in order to support the ongoing presence on the lunar surface, sir.
01:48So the statute is written in the disjunctive.
01:51It gives the choice of either the surface of the moon or cislunar orbit.
01:56What is your view on the Gateway Project?
01:59Senator, that's an area that if I'm confirmed, I would, again, would love to roll up my sleeves
02:03and get further understand what's working right, what are the opportunities the Gateway presents to us,
02:09and where are some of the challenges, because I think the Gateway is a component of many programs
02:13that are over budget and behind schedule, sir.
02:17So you're describing Gateway as over budget and behind schedule.
02:21I will say there's a long history in NASA of administrations coming in and canceling programs
02:26and causing massive delays.
02:29Barack Obama did that with Constellation, and NASA struggled for years as a consequence.
02:39As administrator, are you going to cancel the Gateway program?
02:45Senator, I have no intention as of now to say that I would cancel any program.
02:51I need to, if I'm confirmed, get in the job and understand where things are at.
02:56I want to assure you and this committee that I want to see America win and succeed and lead in space,
03:03whether that be the moon, Mars, low-Earth orbit, and beyond.
03:07I do not want to see us come in second place,
03:09and I certainly don't want to see the right-hand side of that poster you put up, sir.
03:13So I want to ask you again, because you've said you'll follow the law,
03:17are you committed to a sustained human presence in cislunar space or on the moon,
03:22and that is federal statute?
03:24Senator, if that is the law, then I'm committed to it.
03:27Okay.
03:29All right, let's talk Leo.
03:32The International Space Station is managed at a Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.
03:37NASA is planning to retire the ISS by 2030,
03:40replacing it with one or more commercially developed space stations
03:44funded partially by NASA and partially by outside customers.
03:47Unfortunately, both NASA and commercial replacements are behind schedule.
03:53Do you agree that we cannot have a gap period between the ISS and its successor
04:00when there would be zero human U.S. presence in low-Earth orbit?
04:07I do agree, Senator.
04:08We cannot cede low-Earth orbit to the Chinese.
04:11Now, I would note in the first Trump administration,
04:14there were those in the administration pushing to de-orbit the International Space Station prematurely.
04:20Given that we've invested over $100 billion in the station,
04:23I think that would be profoundly foolish to give up on that investment
04:27as long as it is safe to continue using it.
04:30After the administration floated this idea multiple times,
04:34the United States Senate passed legislation that I authored,
04:38100 to nothing, every Republican and every senator came through
04:43committing that we would maintain the International Space Station
04:47at least until 2030 as long as it is safe and scientifically feasible.
04:53Will you commit to follow the law and not de-orbit the space station before 2030?
04:57Senator, I will absolutely commit to follow the law,
05:00and I think we need to maximize the return that taxpayers have invested in that orbital laboratory,
05:06use every bit of time we have to crack the code on the space economy,
05:10and give commercial LEO destinations a fighting chance when they inevitably take over, sir.
05:15Mr. Trustee, it's been two years since the FCC lost General Auction Authority
05:21and three years since the last meaningful auction of Spectrum.
05:24The Spectrum Pipeline Act, which I introduced with Leader Thune
05:29and with Senator Blackburn last year,
05:31would restore the FCC's auction authority
05:33and would establish a clear pipeline of mid-band spectrum for commercial use.
05:38Ms. Trustee, should Congress restore the FCC's general auction authority
05:43with a clear pipeline of mid-band spectrum?
05:46Yes, Senator, and to the extent it accommodates both our economic and national security interests,
05:54and I believe it can.
05:55So what would be the benefits of restoring the auction authority
06:00with a clear pipeline of mid-band spectrum?
06:02Thank you, Senator.
06:03I think there would be tremendous economic benefits, job creation, workforce productivity,
06:09the expansion of broadband services across the country.
06:12I also think it's foundational to our leadership internationally on global technologies.
06:19As you know, the Department of Defense has been highly resistant to giving up any spectrum.
06:27And for a long time, they have given a parade of horribles
06:31as to what would occur if any spectrum moved to the commercial sector.
06:36I find that parade of horribles highly incredible
06:42and the result of bureaucratic intransigence.
06:47It's an intransigence that began when General Milley was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
06:53and DOD chose a strategy of absolutely resisting
06:59and refusing to work on freeing up spectrum.
07:02I recently had a classified briefing, of which you're aware,
07:09where I asked two questions to the senior leadership at DOD
07:14and also senior leadership of the Intelligence Committee.
07:16The first question I asked was,
07:20over 50 countries across the planet
07:23have moved substantial portions of the spectrum in question
07:27to the commercial sector,
07:28and they're being used presently for commercial purposes.
07:31Is it DOD's position that our Navy does not operate in the Pacific,
07:36that we can only defend Topeka, Kansas,
07:38and the rest of the world,
07:39our military is unable to defend the United States?
07:44You have unique expertise,
07:46having worked both on the Commerce Committee
07:48and the Senate Armed Services Committee.
07:51In your opinion,
07:52are we able to defend ourselves across the globe,
07:55even in areas where other countries
07:57have moved significant portions of spectrum
07:59to be available for the commercial sector?
08:04Senator, I appreciate this question.
08:06So I'll say,
08:06I'm not privy to all of DOD's spectrum assets and capabilities,
08:10but I do think there's an opportunity
08:12to move forward on spectrum policy
08:14that protects both our national security
08:17and advances our economic interests.
08:19And I think what that really requires is,
08:21like you said,
08:22having classified briefings or briefings in the public
08:24where multiple stakeholder perspectives are represented
08:28to challenge positions on various matters.
08:31I think it promotes transparency
08:33and ensures, I think,
08:34there's more cohesion on spectrum matters going forward.
08:38The second question that I asked DOD
08:40that they had a totally insufficient answer to
08:43was what would be the national security consequences,
08:47and I would add the economic security consequences,
08:49if America loses the race for 6G
08:53and the global telecom architecture
08:55is built by Huawei
08:57and controlled by the Chinese communists
09:00and every active duty serviceman and woman
09:02who has their own cell phone
09:03is now communicating over Chinese telecom infrastructure.
09:09In your judgment,
09:10what would be the economic interest
09:11and the national security interest
09:13if that occurred,
09:14if we lose the race to 6G?
09:15Senator, I think,
09:16I hope we could all agree
09:17that it would be devastating
09:19to our economic and national security interests
09:21if we had to be reliant on Chinese technologies.
09:25Senator Cantwell.
09:26Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:27I'm glad I made it back.
09:29Ms. Trustee, you look...