Skip to main content

tv   House Joint Hearing on Space Rules  CSPAN  May 17, 2021 3:01pm-4:42pm EDT

3:01 pm
as reminders that we remain vulnerable. rob hanfield teached at the university. >> what happened is during covid demand for some things went down and some things went up but people were conserving and they weren't spending as much. and so all of these supply chains sort of slowed down. and as people got vaccinated and we started to see life coming back to the economy, people started spending again. and the supply chains don't start on a dime. they take a while to get to go up. you don't step on the gas and they just start going. >> join us for more on how the supply chain works and how we should prepare for future disruptions on c-span's the weekly. follow and listen wherever you get your favorite podcast. now a house hearing on the
3:02 pm
rules that govern commercial and military activities in space. this is a joint hearing of the foreign affairs and armed services committees. scientists have made great progress in helping us reach, explore and even briefly inhabit the harsh domain above us. but the rest of us are much slower to follow or even understand where the scientists were enabling us to travel. many nations and even some corporations are exploring high above the earth's atmosphere. testing the infinite number of ways that mastering space could help. with a 7.6 billion of us who live down here on the earth. the space age is about 70 years old and the foundational outer space treaty was just over 50 years old. that should tell us something. unfortunately, precious little has happened since the o.s.t. to organize human efforts in the inhuman domain.
3:03 pm
every satellite, astronaut, cosmonaut has to defend themselves. we're giving up on concept of a law-abiding rules base and settling for something less like suggestion space or hint space. perhaps that is the best we could do but i think we should try harder for better. can't we at least agree on space traffic management and the size of safety zones around satellites or capsules. to ban debris or to have compatible docking latches. there must be a consensus somewhere on earth for the sensible. i look forward to the discussion with eyewitnesses and i turn to today's honoree strategic ranking member mr. doug lamborn for any opening remarks he may have.
3:04 pm
doug? >> thank you, mr. chairman. can you hear me okay? >> yes. >> okay. and i want to thank you, chairman castro and ranking member malliotakis. i want to thank our witnesses for discussing this important issue as this subcommittee has highlighted again and again space is a vital component of our national security now more than ever. our global economy is totally dependent on access to space. space like the air and sea domains is a common good that we all benefit good regardless of country of origin. but space is more likely to suffer a tragedy of the commons outcome as a result of bad actors, the physics of space leaves it susceptible to long-term damage from debris created by collisions, poorly conducted anti-satellite weapons and testing and simply poor planning. the foundation international laws and norms that we currently operate under were developed under the cloud of the cold war
3:05 pm
and only two great powers could access space. as a result the outer space treaty doesn't account for the congested operations of space we see today. this treaty is also written with very broad language and phrases that are open to wide interpretation by signatories to the agreement. i do not believe china and russia are operating in good faith when it comes to their proposals as evidence by the placement of weapons in outer space sometimes referred to as the no first placement treat. this plans to ban weapons in outer space but lack any verification and also was silent on space debris caused by a sat testing and operations. most notably, however, russia and china are already weaponizing space, proposing a treaty upon which ratification they would already be in violation of. i was glad to see the u.k. submitted a resolution to quote reduce space threats through norms and rules and principles
3:06 pm
of the responsible behaviors to be considered by the u.n. general assembly in a drive to make space safer and more sustainable. what i don't want is another international treaty though that would tie our hands while others ignore limitations like the late intermediate range nuclear forces treaty. i don't want to see a treaty where the u.s. receives almost no benefits while our adversaries do like the new now dead open skies treaty. so i appreciate the experience you provide to the nation and i look forward to our discussions today. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. lamborn. now i turn to the chairman castro for his opening remarks. >> well, thank you, chairman and thank you all. it is none honor to be here today with my colleagues from both committees to discuss one of the long-term challenges we face not just as a nation, but as a species.
3:07 pm
space. specifically the rules that will govern humanities and commerce and other activity within space. both by the private sector and nation states. i give special thanks to chairman and congressman jim cooper, he's chairman of the strategic forces which oversees many of our nation's space programs, for working together with the house foreign affairs committee and my staff on this important and historic joint hearing. in a long run, the peaceful exploration of space could be one of the most significant and unifying projects that our nation and our world has ever undertaken. as president kennedy said of the moon mission, america's journey to space will serve to organize and measure the best of our energy and skills. in short, space could bring out the best in us, leading to cutting-edge technology, creating new jobs, making significant scientific discoveries and perhaps above all united our divided nation behind a common purpose once
3:08 pm
more. i commend the biden administration for pledging to continue on going plans to return americans to the moon and making clear part of this mission will be to land the first woman and person of color on the the lunar surface. ensuring that this moon landing will be seen by americans and the world as an accomplishment on behalf of all americans. yet, despite the goal of peaceful coexistence among the stars. space is not immune to the realities in a time of rising authoritarian powers or increasing lack of corporate accountability. this will serve the current and future state of human activity in space and to inform a new american strategy for preserving the rule of law, peace and international cooperation in the most hostile environment humanity inhabits. this is new territory for all of us. there is never has this many state and private actors all
3:09 pm
operating in space at once with multiple different priorities and growing risks of clashes both intentional and not. in many ways, the challenge it faces are like any humanity has faced before. it took centuries to face the law of the sea, drawing upon thousands of years of human seafaring. we don't have 100 years to set the rules for space. nor do we have traditions to fall upon. the reality that space is already critical to the military capabilities of the united states, our allies, our partners and our adversaries. the question is how we and other states will respond. and whether we'll be able to develop a set of rules to manage disputes and develop a set of rules that will also work for all of us. the united states has engaged in critical issues for decades at the united nations and at other international organizations.
3:10 pm
specifically space raises the urgency of reengaging with our partners an establishing norms and rules. this week the united states senate or the united states made a public declaration of what our nation's interests are in space and what threats we face and how we'll engage with the international community to establish norms of behavior. this is a critical task. we rely on space for almost everything we do as a society to include navigation, accurate time keeping, global communications and weather. the number of satellites in space from both government and private actors will increase nearly ten fold in the next decade. countries including china are developing the capabilities to disable or destroy satellites in space through missiles, other satellites or cyberattacks or electronic warfare. and as the united states plans our return to the moon, that also raises the importance of minimizing the risk to astronauts into space. congress must pay careful
3:11 pm
attention to all of these issues and determine where the united states will stand on these crucial questions for space governance. this hearing will be one of the foreign affairs committees first significant opportunities to address these issues and to hear directly from the administration on what we're doing to build an international rules-based order to govern space that could meet the challenges of humanities second space faring century. with that, i yield back. >> thank you, chairman castro. now we turn to ranking member malio tackis for her remarks. >> thank you chairman, cooper. as we set out for a development of rules based order in space that serves american interest, there are two prime areas i wish to explore with our panel, government witnesses from the department of defense and state. first my colleagues made reference to the 1967 space treaty but it is the -- human
3:12 pm
kind principle captured in the second paragraph of the treaty recognizing -- all human and the progress of the exploration and use of outer space for useful purposes, unquote that i wish to highlight. this principle of international law holds that just as we are to treat our seas on earth, outer space should be free for exploration and the use of benefit of all and shall be the province of all human kind. further it means outer space should be free from exploitation by any nation state or private corporation. i draw this out because the principal practice under the ux n. convention law of the sea also known as -- [ inaudible ], it was established to set out a comprehensive -- for the world's oceans despite being a party to this convention, china has acted without regard to its terms even
3:13 pm
going so far as to ignore tribunal warning that -- behaviors from 2016. nearly five years later, there has been no action taken in china and they continue to act in -- of the law of the sea convention. last month the office of the director of national intelligence issued its annual report of worldwide threats to the u.s. national security. which includes sections on the threat of russia and china's space programs. the report reflects the collective insights of the u.s. intelligence community and focuses on the most direct serious threats the united states during the next year. the report identifies china and anti-satellite weapons program and the threat these programs pose to u.s. and forces that rely on satellite-based communications. i share in the concerns that the
3:14 pm
armed services colleagues and threat posed by china and russia space technology to the principle of common heritage of all human kind. both nations track records -- give more than sufficient reason to expect that the malign behavior will extend into orbit. the second aspect that we should highlight is a commercial exploration of space. i enjoy my colleagues enthusiastically supporting the participation between nasa and commercial space exploration. the launch of spacex fallon 9 rocket from kennedy space center propelled an international team of astronauts through the dragon and endeavor at the space station is a perfect illustration of just how far we've come in space exploration. as the safe return of the crew and astronauts while the u.s. government gets partnerships with private industry like china and russia, there is no
3:15 pm
distinction between that and the state owns and that which is privately owned -- and by extending their programs and civil and military purposes. we have seen this script before and in the waterways and commercial fishing vessels are also used by china as maritime militia. when focus pd on these two areas -- [ inaudible ] space exploration because of one offering -- opportunities to abide nation states and future generations and on the other they represent dangerous nation states unwell to be bound by rules based order and space technology that posed a direct threat to our nation's security. in our discussion we must not cast aside these realities and when -- the outer space treaty in the star trek treaties, it
3:16 pm
was attainable. but today as our global leaders pursue international norms rules and principles of responsible s now inciples of responsible fiction. the u.s. and other nation states may abide by international norms, rules and principles of responsible behavior, but our competition acts with indifference to the rule based order. this is our current operating environment and we must pursue a space policy that brings together our interests but also addressed these challenges in space exploration. i welcome our esteemed panel with our experts and the remainder of my time, but i suppose i ran out. >> thank you. first let me say that everyone should be muted. except for the witnesseskãthat call on. so me repeat, everyone should be muted. there is way too much background noise here. so please, mute yourself. our first witness from his five minute statement will be mr.
3:17 pm
john hill. now mr. hill. >> thank you, chairman cooper. ranking member lamborn, chairman castro and ranking member malio talkis. it is an honor to testify before you today along with my distinguished colleagues. you have my full written statement and with your permission i ask that it be included in the record. i will briefly summarize it. >> without objection, so ordered. >> the u.s. government efforts to foster a rules based international order in outer space, our focus is on establishing volunteer nonlegally binding measures derived from current technical and operational best practices. as one of the world's most experienced space operators, the department of defense actively supports and partners with the department of state in developing u.s. proposals within international venues in order to shape the strategic environment toward an agreed upon model for
3:18 pm
safe, responsible and professional behavior. there are many benefits to having common guidelines for space operations. among these are a safer, more sustainable, more stable and more predictable space operating environment for all space operators. importantly for d.o.d., such an operating investigation could also facilitate indications and warnings of hostile intentions and hostile acts. d.o.d. policy and practices serve as the basis for international measures. d.o.d. models responsible behavior through our routine space operations and d.o.d. works carefully to ensure that our space operations are consistent with international measures the united states supports, and with relevant domestic and international law, including the law of armed conflict and the inherent right
3:19 pm
of self-defense. for example, not only are d.o.d. operations fully consistent with the 2007 space debris mitigation guidelines of the united nations committee on peaceful uses of outer space, but d.o.d. practices also served as a source of the more rigorous standards adopted in the november 2019 united states government orbital debris mitigation standard practices. likewise, for ten years the department of defense provided one of the lead u.s. delegates to the negotiations on the committee on the peaceful uses of outer space that produces the 2019 guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities. this participation ensured consistency with d.o.d. practices and greatly facilitated implementation of those guidelines. move recently d.o.d. has supported the drafting of the
3:20 pm
united states nation submission and response to the 2020 united nations general assembly resolution on reducing space threats through norms and rules an principles of responsible behaviors. from the d.o.d. perspective, united states leadership in the development of a rules-based order for space activities reaps benefit for u.s. civil, commercial, scientific and national security space operators. as space activities worldwide become more prolific and more varied, volunteer nonbinding international norms standards and guidelines of responsible behavior could benefit u.s. national security and foster a conducive environment for growing global space activities. thank you for your time and attention and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. hill. i appreciate that. i think i would ask members one more time to please mute your
3:21 pm
microphones. there is still some background noise. and now we'll hear from general widing. >> chairman cooper and chairman castro, ranking member lamborn, ranking member malio talkis and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in my capacity as commander of space operations command on the u.s. space force perspectives toward creating a framework for rules-based order in space. i'm honored today to join mr. hill and our partners at the state department, mr. turner and mr. moore whose leadership and insights greatly contribute toward ensuring the safety, security and stability and long-term sustainability of u.s. space activities. i have the distinct privilege to lead and represent guardians and airmen of space operations command providing combat ready irs led space and combat forces to the joint force. it is from the perspective of our role to generate and present and sustain these forces that i testify here before you today. now aligned under our nation's
3:22 pm
newest service, our mission is to protect america and our allies in, from and into space now and into the future. as u.s. space commands, space force service component, we accomplished through our sustained tasks along with spock west, a headquarters we present to u.s. space command in california who plan, integrate and conduct and assess global space operations. our mission execution benefits from decades of experience operating in space while demonstrating safe, professional and responsible behavior. in fact, given our imperative to help keep the domain safe, our command in partnership with what was our combat command has for many years with the support of congress been providing orbital conjunction assessments to any space owner and operator around the globe while also making
3:23 pm
available space track.org to foster openness and transparency in the tracking of tens of thousands of objects on orbit. as more actors come to space, the domain is changing. with an increased risk of collisions as well as miscalculations or misunderstandings. it is incumbent on the department demonstrating and acknowledging responsible behavior in space such as the widespread sharing of space situational awareness information. today we support the shift of nonmilitary space traffic management to the department of commerce. thus allowing the department of defense to focus on directed military functions in our protect and defend mission. nevertheless, the u.s. space force will collaborate with the department of commerce by providing the authoritative space catalogue in identifying and analyzing specific behaviors to ensure safe, professional and sustainable operations on orbit while further enhancing trust with allies and establishing new
3:24 pm
bonds with emerging space faring nations. however, we have long understood that our nation is strongest economically, militarily, and diplomatically when we have freedom of operation in a secure andk ses able and stable domain. it is the position of the u.s. space force that the voluntarily and confidence building measures guidelines and norms on responsible behavior to include an understanding of what constitutes safe and professional conduct would be immensely helpful toward our mission to protect the u.s. and our allies if from and to space. in concert with the secretary of state leadership of the whole of government approach to establish norms, the u.s. space force provides department of defense, a capability to both model that behavior and promote internationally accepted standards. i thank you for your support and i look forward to working with congress as we continue to transform our national security space posture. again i'm privileged to be here
3:25 pm
with my distinguished colleagues and look forward to your questions. >> thank you so much, general moore. now we will -- or general. now he'll hear from mr. moore. >> thank you very much, chairman cooper. ranking member lamborn and chairman castro, ranking member malio talkis, distinguished members of the subcommittees, i'm very honored to join you with those from the pentagon and the space command to discuss american leadership in outer space. you have my full written testimony which i would ask if you would submit for the record and of course i'll keep my remarks to less than five minutes, mr. chairman. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you again, mr. chairman. so thank you very much for the impressive senior bipartisan interest in this vastly important issue. as we all know, and many of you have noted, human activity in outer space is changing rapidly
3:26 pm
and of interest and importance to the american people. in 1990, only about 20 countries were active in space. today is more than 70. the united states leads the world in new commercial space ventures. for the first time in nearly a decade, and this is a tremendous and inspiring success, and thanks to the private sector, americans are traveling to the international space station on american-made space launch vehicles. the success of our national space program increasingly depends on international engagement and therefore depends on diplomacy. the bureau of oceans and international and scientific affairs together with the bureau of arms control of verification and compliance, conducted efforts to ensure that the behavior across all space sectors is consistent with u.s. policy and practice as well as with the 1967 outer space treaty which a number of you have cited and associated conventions and agreements. the biden harris administration
3:27 pm
has charged us to explore and use outer space to the benefit of humanity and to ensure the safety and the stability of outer space activities. this includes expanding and leveling the global field for the american space industry. we work directly with partners and through u.n. bodies and others to advance these principles. key among these are the u.n. committee for the peaceful uses of outer space, mentioned before, as well as the u.n. office for outer space affairs for over 60 years we have worked through those organizations to build support for the united states space policies and as well as for our vision to expand human presence in space and promote the responsible use of space. as chairman castro noted, in february, the biden administration endorsed the artemis program to land the first woman and person of color on the moon and develop and demonstrate new technologies, capabilities and business
3:28 pm
approaches needed for future exploration activities and go on to mars. decades ago, the apollo mission was attention but the costs were born by the american taxpayer. now through cooperation of international partners and private industry, we share both the burden and the rewards. the artemis accord in consultation with some of our close space faring partner nations are the recommitment to the principles of the outer space treaty envisioning a safe and transpart and peaceful and prosperous environment which is science and commercial activities in space. as my fellow panelists have test tested, there are space exploration objectives. some countries will work with us to establish and adhere to standards of safety and responsible behavior and others will not.
3:29 pm
we keep an close eye on russian and other activities and we engage with them on space flight safety and while countering actions inconsistent with those principles. u.s. cooperation are russia is based on a governmental agreement on cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes which was recently extended through 31st, 2030. this arrangement provides a legal framework for cooperation on the international space station, and limited space science and robotic space exploration missions. with regard to china, we maintain our engagement through a variety of means in order to understand their space science and exploration programs and encourage mutually beneficial open exchange of scientistic data. please let me underline, american diplomatic leadership is establishing international frameworks and facilitating norms of behavior based on united states policy and practice. advancing peaceful norms and
3:30 pm
responsible behaviors in outer space is critical to protecting american national security, commercial and research interests. the department of state in coordination with space council and close consultation of congress will continue to utilize multi-lateral venues and initiatives such as the artemis accord and bilateral interests in commercial space activity, responsible behavior in outer space and space exploration. thank you again for inviting us to testify, i welcome your questions. >> thank you, very much, mr. moore. and now mr. turner. >> chairman castro, chairman cooper, ranking member malliotakis and thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the rules based space order. i'm grateful for the opportunity to testify along john hill, steven whiting and jonathan moore. like others, i've submitted a longer statement for the record.
3:31 pm
it is incredibly appropriate that we are meeting on may 5th, the 60th anniversary of astronaut allen shepherds flight on freedom 7. this sub orbital flight led to american astronauts orbiting the earth and landing on moon and today traveling in continuous orbit around our planet. this flight took place in a time when there were only two countries placing satellites and humans in orbit. it also took place in a time when the legal regime regarding outer space was just beginning to be developed. the development and implementation of arms control agreements is one of the main concerns of the state department's bureau of arms control verification and compliance known as avc, which i'm representing today. in that capacity, along with our state and d.o.d. colleagues, we are leading efforts for the development and the implementation of voluntarily
3:32 pm
nonlegally binding to enhance the safety and security of outer space. in general, consistent with long standing bipartisan policy, and as reflected most recently in the 2020 national space policy, the united states will consider proposals and concepts forearms control measures if they are equitable, effectively verifiable, and enhance the national security of the united states and its allies. unfortunately, for many years, the international community has been focused on a number of flawed legally binding arms control proposals including most recently the 2014 chinese draft treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space and of the threat or use of force against outer space objects known as ppwt. the draft ppwt fails the task laid out in the u.s. national space policy■ç and the state department has a long record of enumerating its many flaws. in light of these short comings, the 2020 national space policy
3:33 pm
directs the united states government and i quote, to lead the enhancement of safety, stability, security and long-term sustainability in space by promoting a framework for responsible behavior in outer space and including the pursuit and effective implementation of best practices, standards and norms of behavior, end united states lead in promoting and forging new agreements in the united states. the united states believes that the development that the norms of behavior can reduce risk to international security and stability and increasing predictability and reducing risks of misperception and preventing conflict. that's why in 2020, the united states worked with our close allies to advance a new united nations general assembly resolution titled reducing space threats for norms for principles of responsible
3:34 pm
behavior. we believe it can serve as threats of responsible behaviort we believe this resolution coule serve as the first step of a process to describe the threats to space systems to develop ideas for responsible behaviorsc designed to manage perceived threats to space and consider the establishment of channels for direct communications to manage perceptions. as such, it provides a pragmatic alternative too flawed russian and chinese arms control eneral proposals. and many agree a withss thatemb approach. the resolution wasfa adopted byl the u.n. general assembly this last fall with 164 votes for and ome 12 against among them russia, china, iran, syria, north korea, cuba and venezuelas on maytate 3, 2021, pursuit to calls on proposed next steps, ci the state department submitted our government's views to the u.n. security general. mr. chairman, for many years the
3:35 pm
international community has been focused on flawed legally the binding space arms control nd proposals at a time when the 's outer space environment has grown in complexity and become f contested. it is time for a new approach primarily focused upon voluntarily none legal by binding principles in space and developing and implement these measures could create a safer t and more stable and predictable space environment for all space, actors. thank you very much and i look l forward to the committee's questions. >> thank you very much mr. turn turner. onuld like to thank all of theh witnesses and now we will turn to member questions. i will begin with myself but i i only have two questions and i would encourage all members to b keep it as brief as possible because we haveth a large numbe of members on web ex call today first question, you ended your statement, mr. turner, but all g witnesses seconded this theme of
3:36 pm
voluntary nonlegally binding efforts in this regard. to it seems like we've given up on the idea of ropes or any punishment but we're just going for spiderwebs instead. so that the best we could do?e t is that a way to get people to be in a more cooperative frame of mind? do we need more than that? >> thank you, sir, for that question. i think we aret trying to make of what is possible at this given moment in time. certainly we do not exclude thef possibility of legally binding r treaties down the road. been but that is not where we are given the kinds of competition presented posed by russia and ow china ashe discussed by some oft the speakers. so we are starting with a -- p approach where you could build with like-minded countries to develop these norms and get them to practice these normsbe and d
3:37 pm
create peer pressure so these respected by others and maybe over time enerl develop more far reaching measures.ent thank you. >> thank you, my next question is for general whiting. we've talked about transferring space traffic management out of the air force for some time.l it seems to have be d taken yea. i'm hopeful that the space force will be able to get itce done oa more timely basis because i lear don't want this space faring on nations to turn to other nations for their clear guidance on a possible collisions that might take place. so how quickly could we get theu department of commerce to pick g uper to this ball and run with fo forun that question. t or areo eager to work with the department of commerce and we found them to be an organization that is eager toare take this w on and sourity we're working diligently to do that because w do care deeply about the safetyr and security of the domain whice is why we made space track org t
3:38 pm
available over theow years. and my understanding now is that us a-- they have received resources, we're working with them over the next couple of years to transfer that work. they have been partnered with uk at our operating locations such as vandenberg air force space t and look forwardhi to continuin that.int i can't speak to c what their tu line is but we're eager to get this transferred in the next couple of years. >> thank you very much. i'll now turn to mr. lamborn. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. hill, and excuse me -- mr. whiting, in your opinion has space already been weaponized br countries like kline and japan r and who do you make of the man, satellites that reportedly shadow other satellites? of fr congressman lamborn, yes, we have seen aom weaponization of space from china and russia. if we point back to 2007, really the inflection point in the 21st
3:39 pm
century where from the fall of the -- of the berlin wall and f the dissolution of the soviet ld union, until 2007, many of those threats that had come up in space in the cold war had gone e fallow.aw but in 2007, we saw the chinese conduct a very irresponsible test.. we continue to have about 3,000 pieces of debris on orbit that j we continue toec track. f that is about 10% of the total amount off objects that we trac on orbit still from that test 14 years ago. he we continue to see the chinese d building satellites like the shin jong 17 with a robotic arm that could be used to grapple di u.s. or allied satellites. they have multiple ground lasert systems which couldhat blind oul satellite missions and russia o has sever ways to blind our satellites and it is probable they're field more later in oard decade. we know the russians have
3:40 pm
prototype satellite weapons including our orbit including ym cosmos 2519 which is a russian on orbit weapons system which qu hasent t birthed out a subsequee inspector satellite and then we've seen a subsequent third or second object, so three total come out of that cosmos 2519 wen believe that second object is a projectile. and thenn to be a we saw 2542 ln late 2019, which appears to be a similar prototype weapon to tedt gosmos 2519 which was cinch ronnizedve with a united stateso government satellite and when we moved our satellite, the russian our moes 2542 resink onnized. they must have known what they a are doing and we do not support gr pons test near our satellites. and finally the russia has a new ground based missile designed to destroy satellites in low earth
3:41 pm
orbit. but let me be clear, even with the weaponization of space, we >>ar to extend into mrace and do everything possible to . deter that. >> thank you. i appreciate that. mr. turner, i'm going to finish with you. in late 2019, we've already touched on this. russia launched a satellite that then deployed a sub satellite ta and u proceeded to synchronize with a u.s. government satellite and it is not the first time the russians have done this. had the russians been told that this behavior is unacceptable and if so what was their sec response? mr. turner. tu yes. sorry. it took me a second to turn my t sound buttonhe on. yes, we have met with the russians about some of these issues. most of thesatory. discussione are less than satisfactory. sometimes theon russianse don'to want to acknowledge that certain activities are indeed taking o
3:42 pm
place. besttth to bring hus experts, military and diplomatic experts to some of the meetings to discuss the issues but thus far the russians have not engaged in a satisfactory way. >> and finally have there been any other international discussions with the russias and china defending standards of oa behavior for roundti a view and proximity operations? mr. turner? us >>, i i don't -- not to my t the knowledge, actually. asas we were saying, all of us i think in our statements, we areh just at theav beginning of this process to start to define what some of the norms of behavior are. which would we hope define such things as how much space to los, between -- between bodies out ie space and how one might approac them. t there would be communications, there would be notifications, ao number of things likew. that.oma but what we are just at the beginning of this process now.
3:43 pm
>> so no direct communications with the chinese on this. even though there have been some preliminary discussions with the russians? >> i would urge you to -- i coe think ourag d.o.d. colleagues would have a better fix on that kind of a question. >> general whiting, very ah, certkly, my time is almost gone. >> yeah, mr. congressman, i'm . nothill aware of any discussionh the chinese but i would defer to mr.do hill. >> congressman, if you like, we do not in the defense departmen have direct engagement with china regarding space.acti there are some very clear statutory limitations on d.o.d. interactions with china as with russia these days. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i back.apologize. on this is jonathan more, i have ar bit more of an, answer for the d ranking membero if i may offer a it, mr. chairman. th okay. go ahead. >> we do engage with china on outer pace through both a
3:44 pm
bilaterally and multi-lateral en channels. our primary goal isng to ensure safe flight safety and we've been working to try to encouragt china to improve communications between our perspective satellites in orbit and we've naen coordinating to ensure that their navigation satellite system bedu, does not cause radio frequency interference with our gps satellites and we're trying to encourage interer operability for civil users. we do havecords, discussions, not part of the artemis accord, but we do however expect them ts follow the norms and standards. we have been clear with them about that as has been referredy to in different contexts by my colleague mr. turner. the results have certainly not been consistent or satisfactory. >> thank you.cast >> mr. moore, now chairman castro. >> thank you, chairman, i have r question about the artemis admi thcords tor the panel.
3:45 pm
the artemis acards organized by the last administration and s by the biden ng administration represent aing significant step forward in the shaping norms of behavior in te space and bringing our allies and partners to work with us on the return to the moon.gram it is also the first time since the apollo programs where a kne administration maintained the goals of the previous administration. assign off continuity that raises the chances the artemis program proceeds. i intended to exceed pre-existing treatments and treaties, in practicality, whatw is the binding effect of these accords for their signatories, whatand role will the artemis a so far nine countries have es to signed artemis accord including italy, ukraine and the uae, do r you expect othert countries to join and what steps are the e fr united states taking for
3:46 pm
expansion of the a -- accords. very much for that question. when we first started art worki with our colleagues in fassa and in the previous administration d on the concept of the artemisis accord there was some discussiow clout making them legally binding. legal as that discussionly continued, particularly with our space req faring uipartners, it became clr that legally binding arrange. s would also require ratification and could take an extremely long time to negotiate. so the artemis accords instead, as previously drawn up and very much endorsed by the biden/harris administration as you have stateded are notot legally coope binding. they are mutual statements of values and vision for cooperation in space. and neither are legally binding nor for that matter do they have direct financial implications. with regard to who signed on to the artemis accord, nine aged i countries have signed on to the so far. we have engaged in activity ty discussions with a number of other countries that are quite
3:47 pm
interested in signing on.re throughout the world. this is a project that, in facti party continent where there are populations, many countries whether they are long-term allies or new friends and partners are very interested in joining us in a transparent effort to set values and standards in space. >> all right. anyone else? no. okay. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> very thank you, chairman. ranking member malliotakis. >> thank you very much.artmen i have a more general question.o i'm justordi curious to know hoi state department andcula departt of defense coordinate on space related activities. particularly when it relates toi ouron, partners, allies and adversaries, it is more of a broad question but i was just looking for more insight. >> i don't mind startk this ball
3:48 pm
rolling.oreign p you know, of course the state department has the lead role in basically in foreign policy outreach. in the case of the abc bureau, we're very active in a number of multi-lateral organizations where we'll present ouretit viem because we havee to do that competitively with others, for instance in the u.n. framework or in the we conference on disarmament or any number of other foray and we have regular consultations with our nato allies, with our asian allies, and that isis what our job basically about, is to go around and talk to people and build support for the way that we want to do network things and the un states is very fortunate to have a very broad network of allies which allows us to leverage our efforts and multiply them in a way that is generally not available to -- to countries an that such as russia and china.
3:49 pm
so that is where the united states and has a distinct advan and that is where consulting with our allies and building d t support for everything that we n do is really one of the most effective ways that the united and achieve the kinds of ste goals that we've been talking about today. and of coursee every step we tae is, even though we may have theg lead on the foreign policy issues, i would like to say that all of the activities, especially involving our arms control and some of the security issues are -- are what we do ig the result of a very intensive interagency process that brings in all of the different playersm the intelligence community, joint staffs, osd, et cetera, e cetera, nasa, depending on what is being discussed and what is at stake. of so it is quite an intensive esea process. >> and the department of defense
3:50 pm
end. >> yes. yes,conc representative, i woul glad to give you some concrete c examples of how d.o.d. really, typically supporting state department in these cases talking here about these cases but, for example, mr. turner ositio mentioned the civil space talks his office has with china. of course the department of defense operators the global positioning system and we'll provide that technical expert to support that talk in that respect. the other example would be last summer the united states and russia met in vienna in the epam context of space security exchange there. this was related to some other talks going on..oneeral
3:51 pm
of course state department led t andio organize it but departmen of defenseside a general shaw wp there from the operational side i was there from the policy side. we were able to provide prob perspectives relative to positions russia was taken and s the russian behavior we find it problematic. third example would be this united kingdom resolution that passed in the general assembly and the toghe united states res to it. again, we cooperated very caosely in how the united states will put together the position. so a state department can be brnfident what they were carrying oaforward was somethin goodod for the national securit from our perspective here as well as good from the broader perspectives they have to represent across thetime breadt the government. >> great.oon just curious any thoughts russia and china announcing their
3:52 pm
intentions to jointly develop a research station on the moon and any concerns congress should beo aware of. >> we will keep a close eye on that. that's probably the most i can comment at this point. thank you. >> understood,lady's thank you. the gentle lady's time has almost expired. >> i yield back. >> the. order of questioning a interest next four members. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank our witnesses for testifying today. n appreciate your contributions to theot discussion.y let me begin. several think tanks have alread noted that cyber, moor electromagnetic spk trm ande,
3:53 pm
directed energy attacks are you growing threats for space ds assets. mr. turner and mr. moore, to what extent have these topics been discussed regarding be standards of responsible state based behaviors? >> what we have done in the report we just sent to the united nations, some of the n issues -- well, that's not it. t we have listed a number of different kinds of threats to space and to date there are no s standards for those threats at all. these systems are being
3:54 pm
developed. there are no international rules to govern them. as part of our contribution we had a whole section describing t the kinds of threats that are gd out there. aked ground to space, space to spacet ground to ground, space to ground. and weo talked about radio frequency interference, directed energy weapons, cyber threats ts command and control, attacks on terrestrial space t infrastructure, missiles which were discussed earlier, thbotics, et cetera. we're at the stage of the out process where we are identifyinr the kinds of threats that are o out there, and eventually this b will lead that to principles ofe behavior for how nations should behave in space, but there are no normal agreements covering a number oaf these issues. >> good. mr. moore, any comment from you? you're on mute i think.
3:55 pm
>> thank you, congress. u we focus more on.s the civilian side of trying to set the standards and a enforce u.s. interests, so i apologize, i don not haveor more for you on that. >> okay.l well, let me ask you this with respect to cyber we already hav norms related to the targeting of critical infrastructure. i'd be curious to hear quickly from all it the witnesses would you support designating space as a critical infrastructure sector? and i ask this because dhs is currently doing correctionally mandated review of critical sectors.cture >> i could step in here briefly, and first i'd like to cleanup 's something i said previously. i referenced the civil talks. that's mr.on t moore's office, course, not mr. turner's office.
3:56 pm
i misspoke previously.luded on this one with respect to the critical infrastructure question mycture understanding is that s has been included as a critical infrastructure in homeland infr security ascontext. of and there are individual defense assets maybe also included as defense critical infrastructure. >> i wasn't aware of that designation, but we'll take that so, and double-check. i think it certainly should be e designated as critical infrastructure. so understanding that you have behavi be able to adkwetly moni the environment to ensure d act responsibleua behavior. general, how would you assess es our space situation awareness and attribution capabilities?pae and actually before that i go to that any other witnesses thoughts on designated space as
3:57 pm
critical infrastructure? i assume you wouldvi agree?r lo >> congressman, if i may offer n view. that is worth taking a more deeper look at. inre sect certain that space ha been designated as a critical infrastructure sector. obviously the question of cyber security is of paramount interest to the biden-harris administration and many of us at the state department are working on that.ave perhaps our bureau somewhat mor peripherally. see in terms of space as a critical infrastructure sector we'd have toto review that and get back t you. >> fair witne enough. i see my time is about to expire. anything else from the witness s critical infrastructure? >> nothing on the critical infrastructure piece, but i'll briefly talkil aboutable our sp domain awareness capabilities. s
3:58 pm
we have theec best in the worldi that's why we make that o available to promote a stable n and secure space domain. capab but with the growing threats i p spoke to earlier, we need to ae improve that domain awareness we could help to know when future norms are beinn violated and give warnings of potential bad actors in space. >> gentleman's time has expiredi mr.on w wilson. >> thank you for coordinating this very important joint hearing. additionally, i'd like to thank the four witnesses. each one of you have come acroso as very impressive and your appc service to our country is very, very much appreciated. in terms of7z questions, genera what progress has been made in operationizing or international
3:59 pm
space partnerships through our i combined space operation center. >> we've made some substantial progress through the combined space operations initiative. we've now have allied personnels across many of our formations and group to include the combined operations center at s vandenberg and u.s. space command in fact now has a named operation, operation olympic defender which some of those wh countries have t signed up whic means we operate day to day with them. that unique pairing of countries we're blessed to have is really an advantage for the united states and we'rer excited abouts thathare progress. a >> i sharere your view about beg blessed. in regard to that,nada, what ar leading countries that cooperating? >> it's some of our closest allies, mr. congressman, like canada, the united kingdom, australia and others. >> again, best wishes on that.ey
4:00 pm
and mr. hill, expanding w commercial spaceith infrastruct is uniquely american solution to spaceasing capability of resilience. i'm impressed with the ingenuity of the private sector to keep space accessible. what is the appropriate level oa government oversight necessary o to ensure entities are integrated. how should the administration mn incorporate them into a future c defense spaceom strategy?y? >> ifi thank rst you, congressm wilson. on commercial space there's a number of places going on. your question kind of touched or regulation in one respect.ha and there was at major overhaul of commercial remote sensing regulation that took place in n the past year which dod worked very closely to really bring us cat of the 2006 era of the old
4:01 pm
regulation into the 2020s era where we have much more prolific commercial capabilities, and we need to let that competitive a sector compete around the world. and the so a big change in the philosophy there. o we of course leveraged u.s. ness commercial space -- our space launches off commercial launch providers. for example, there's growing commercial space situational awareness capabilities we interwave with our own oesn't capabilities. and so f depending on the sectod we use more or less. there's some areas commercial doesn't find a great market so s we have to put more government investment. other places like satellite bef communications,it tremendous opportunities to leverage commercial. >> it's exciting to see the mutual benefit. tha and mr.t eral lin turner, the june 2020 defense space strategy includesd several lines of effort one of
4:02 pm
which is to better inform international and public in audiences so the growing do adversarial threats in space. what can congress to do to ensure our constituents understand the benefits of an stable space? >> sorry.ld sometimes i forget i have to al unmute. today's hearing is one such hea step, i think, because this is available on live streaming so h presumably others besides all ty us can hear what's going on. thr i think americans need to be her made aware of how much hay actually depend on space not only for their security but also for their prosperity. we do a certain amount of outreach as well which is very e effective in that regard. and of course i think one of things that ensures this will c reach the right audiences and thus far our efforts in space
4:03 pm
have been supported by a bipartisan consensus in it a congress, and it's sort of liked the old saying domestic policy ends on america's shores. i think it also needs to end si where we start to lead the atmosphere and get into outer space. so i'll leave it at that for right now. >> thank you very much. and indeed the chairman is leading the bipartisanship. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. now mr. garamendi, are you still with us? if not, mr. issa. are you still with us?e >> no, i'm with you.t thank you. i think i'm going to continue o pretty much with the same line of questioning we've been doingf but i'll change it up a little d
4:04 pm
bit. general, i think maybe t you ca handle this sort of as a joint representative. in the domains we've operated on during your career -- sea, land, air -- we have international ned rules and conventions, and they're broadly agreed to and signed onn by all the parties wo mentioned here today. would you say that's fair to say? >> yes, sir, i would.to >> and asmo we sit here today w will have today, tomorrow, or certainly last week and the next three weeks, we'll have our iranian gun boats that will enter our space and endanger ships, may or may not have te another taking of our maritime folks. and china is building count isls complete violation of right-of-ways for countries alw throughout that region.
4:05 pm
it's y beginning to encroach or not allow people to have what s has been hundreds of years of sn free travel.o so would you say as we look to a space is there any special affe reason notct to leave that all the factors that effect air, land, and sea around our hemisphere, that any of those m will be significantly different? we not dyords, canan expect at least similar spac activities as we have similar s bad chi actors or the same bad actors f who areor already in s such as china and russia? >> mr. congressman, thank you f, for the question. certainly, i think those dow analogies are useful.gn but if we push them too far of course analogies will start to break down.sp there's sovereign maritime space, sovereign airspace. belie there is nove sovereign space space in space. so there are some differences we'll work through. but we certainly believe in
4:06 pm
space force that the establishment of voluntary e of nonlegally binding norms of responsible behavior will help p us to identify when others are acting outside of those everyon. and when they're acting are irresponsibly much like when we're on the not interstate and everyone is following orules you can quickly see who those are and when they're not following d the rules. >> and i agree with you. and as i a follow-up and i do n agree there's certainly sovereign space. but using the 2007 in which china demonstrated its ability to destroy a satellite in deep space albeit its own, but for the purpose of showing us that there but for their good gracess that could have been one of oury satellites or a number w of the. that activity certainly was outside any reasonable
4:07 pm
interpretation of their sovereign rights, wouldn't you agree? >> it certainly was irresponsible, mr. congressman.o 10% of all the trackable objects on orbit, i can't imagine what t led them to do that and to istoy continue to pollute the domain and put us all at risk. >> so the history of the -- of our planet being at relative peace for the last half of the last century wass hatmarilyly through a combination of, you know, international agreements and a degree of enforcement tha the united states and its allie notably nato and others enforcer with a periodic enforcement by s the united nations. so in the remaining time, if you could answer sort of one of those great questions for orwara
4:08 pm
all-time. isn't it fair to say that we must go drforward and establishd those international rules, draw in as many convention signers u including potential bad actors n as possible, but also form those alliances that would mimic in c, space if necessary the same sort of alliances that have, in fact, kept us relatively peaceful for. the last 70 plus years?those don't we sort of have to do all of them, produce the u.n., past produce the agreements but also build those alliances with the expectation that just as in the? past, the future there will be those who will not respect the very agreements they've signed? >> mr. congressman, we've certainly seen nato recognize id space as a war fighting domain t in just the last couple of years. we've seeno many more like mindd countries putting more interest on space and we can now coalesce
4:09 pm
around these norms of respon responsible behavior.aviors and as those begin to establishd and our state department colleagues can maybe workng further agreements down the road. i think it's only goodness to bring more and morediscs. mr. partners into these discussions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has gin expired. i would like to give general whiting the opportunity to ing clarify something. i think you not may have left t impression so far there's not ht much sovereign in space. i would say that each individual nation'ss capsules or astronaut are, in fact, sovereign entitier even though they're traveling through space.n >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was specifically referring to the physical space itself, which is in the outer space domain not to man made objects that are put on space. thank you for that clarification. >> thank you. mr. garamendi? >> i stepped away for a moment.a
4:10 pm
clearly we have a situation in which on the military side of it space is a domain for war, and t unfortunately we are all not just the united states, russia and china but others rapidly militarizing space with the ha anticipation there could beppenn trouble in the future and it happens to create an extraordinary risk when all of our countries are dependent upoo space for early knowledge what the other is doing.. i'm going to leave that aside. mr. issa went into in some detail. i want to deal with the commercial side of it we've seen an evolution of commercial activity in space for many different reasons. photo almost so thats our military np longer depends solely on itselfs for highly detailed photos of s what's going on in the world, ir
4:11 pm
whather reporting and on and ony so let's talk about norms on the commercial side of the activity putting aside for the moment the military side for which i suspect the norm is he who is strongest will win at the end of the process and we'll all be dead. but let's go ahead on the commercial side.esses, let's start with dod, what is your interest in the commercial and then to the other two witnesses ending up with the state department. congressman, very interested in that. the acronym described a proxi
4:12 pm
commercial body to talk about how to what do servicing and 's rendezvous proximity b approximations and figuring out when to do this.y, it's a community user interest group. andof telecommunications starte out in that same way, ably t communities of interest coming together on it. i think it's sort of pulling off on its own.to f the commercial community will probably be taking more of a lead inig that. we that's the kind of example where we'll partner with the commercial community and figure out how do we encourage the stakeholders to>> take on the public -- the interest of the l commons? very much.uou >> congressman garamendi, if i may jump in as well. one of the difficulties we facer
4:13 pm
with russia and china, there really aren't commercial we activities. they're state run,ha state supported activities. when it comes to the united states when we have such amazing commercial partners like spacex and blue origin, exactly the ones that have allowed us to get to the iss without relying on t russia we support those standards, they help set the ccd standards for the rest of the world. and of course again through thea artemis accordsnd working with those values, that vision and those standards other countries and their potential commercial space operators are very interested in joining part of that process.s one of thein problems with the process is that there are over 90 countries in it, and does all its work by consensus. so unless everyone agrees, nothing gets done. when it comes to commercial space operators, the united m states sets the standard and we're working very actively, bilaterally and broader to set the standard for the world.
4:14 pm
>> thank you. anybody else want to jump in ond this? >> just the briefly again. just to say building on what jonathan moore justt said, you know, there are opportunities there, of e standcourse, when oy commercial sectoron leaves you start to set these standard ande those become the passive h standards for everyone, and then countries such as russia and china are maybe forced to deal with those standards as well ana then would apply them to their own effort. so that again is one of the itvantages of developing the systems of norms.. >> thank you. it seems to me on the military side we're not going to get very far. on the commercial side buildingp on what mr. issa said working with our current leadership and develop a commercial set of standards and then allow the
4:15 pm
others to join would be very, very fruitful. mr. cooper, i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. so now mr. moulton. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i want to continue on a consistent theme which on rcemen effectivet, enforcement. without effective our enforceme rules and norms obviously limit our own activity in space that do nothing to impede malined activity by our adversaries. i want to ensure this is not an empty or symbolic endeavor. if we do not intend to enforce, the quote, voluntary, nonlegally binding rules or expect our themrsaries to abide by norms in space, what happens when they
4:16 pm
violate them? we see this issue in cyberspace. and so we can name and change to a certain extent, but what are i the realgn consequences of settd down rules that are then going to be ignored, and how do we actually respond and deal with this more effectively? >> a very good question.plianc it's always a very complicated issue compliance with whether it's legally binding obligations or whether we're talking about h politically binding, non-legall binding commitments in other areas. each one has its advantages and disadvantage. the advantage ofofvi aol treatya
4:17 pm
legal obligation. in some y ways you could argue violation is more straightforward except if you've ever worked with a lawyer you would know one of the things yoa and into is you get into this very, very difficult and complicated interpretations of j what the treaty actually says, y thatthat can be also a very long process. one of the not a advantages of because it's not a legally y binding norm does not mean it's not a norm and does not mean you somebody out for violating that norm, nor does i, mean you can't take potential action if an actor is not supplying that particular norm.l in some cases you may even have more flexibility to react in those kinds of situations precisely because it's not a hoe legally binding agreement.ften and lastly, i would add is event when certain actors violate en thoseviro norms, they often pay,
4:18 pm
price for doing so.nds on in today's social media environment or media ing, environment, whatever you want wh it, where so much narrative of who's doing the right thing and who's not doing the right thing and can still be useful to put diplomatic and public pressure on maligned actors. >> it seems to me this has to be a lot more clear.m and hoping that one of our genea adversaries will be shame on social media does not seem liked an effective strategy here. general, question for you on st this same vein. a rules based order in any effot domain b requires a certain lev of transparency and trust, and i understand there's a current effort by u.s. space force and policy to review potential classification of satellites and activity in space to be more transparent into publicly communicate about our space
4:19 pm
operations more easily.de how are you integrating with this effort to ensure we have enough transparency to allow for verification of our own behavioe while m still providing to systn and activity we're not preparede to share. >> through the website i mentioned earlier spacetrack.org we make available to the world because we care about preserving the domain for our long-term on operations there. and continually make even more information available, of course just like in other domains we're not going to show exactly where our ships are critical to can national defense. >> do you think we have that ied balance right, or are we still e on the side of too much being classified and using the ourney transparency we need to promote enforcement? >> i would say it's not an en
4:20 pm
state, it's a journey and we'ree constantly working to get that y balance exactly right. i think we've made important strides and we'll use those reviews to ensure that domain is safe. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. gentleman for yielding. mr. waltz, are you with us? if he's not, mr. carbajal?he >> here i am. i'm having glitches here.ing thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for the technical difficulties i was having. one of the most pressing issues to be addressed is obviously h debris mitigation. the space force is tracking about 30,000 pieces of debris with a half million other
4:21 pm
objects in orbit too small to track while the united committee on the peaceful use was endorsed by the general assembly in 2007i the voluntarilys t guidelines lacked measures for accountability and that compliance with contrib debris mitigation guidelines, and it is the bigger contributor to a greater collision risk.. based onthere the current leve space debris and voluntary international policies, will o there be a point where there spa will bece an unacceptable risk d posed by space debris to the rea united states space assets r the including both national security and commercial operations? >> mr.ace, congressman, thank ner the question. i certainly want to communicate we are concerned about the growing congestion in space, but i think certainly t over the ney
4:22 pm
several years we have plans and make sure n place to we can safely continue to operate. but we do support intergovernmental measures that will reduce debris, and i'll df defer to my colleague, mr. hill, to maybe speak about what the department of defense is doing regard.t >> so in 2019 the united statese governments that updated our ora debris mitigation standard practices that actually go well beyond what the united nations practices are. m and in fact they drew from a lot of department defense and existing regulations providing o much clearer statements of the e hazard risks, more options how to get the debris out of orbit,i particularly higher orbits overn
4:23 pm
time. but as general reading said ofh there is concern and particularly in the lower orbit region where things get crowded in some of the polar orbits in particular. butct debrisor a mitigation is important. the emergence in the commercial sector and some government a support, am places of active debris removal is encouraging, >>t i think there is a lot of work t to be done in this respet >> thank youhe very much. general whieding in your testimony you write some ot discussions can be challenging but more often than not there's agreement on what constitutes responsible behavior. the degree to call out responsible behavior. what has been the biggest barrier to moving forward with
4:24 pm
creating an international accepted framework? >> mr. congressman, each of the countries we have mill to mill discussions with, and these are allied countries, they all haves their own legal frameworks, policy traditions, and we work through those in forums like the war games tabletop exercise we conduct every year. but through that we find there o is aund coalescing around some generally accepted ways of thik operating that are responsible, safe, professional. and so those are -- we think through dialogue we can work kinds of issues.serv >> thankices you. commercial companies are heavily investing incompan satellites a launch services. space technology companies are d developing have the propensity h to be dual use which creates nel challenges. is there federal governmentnd engaging with commercial actorsw as part of your discussions in g developing rules and norms, and could you comment on how dual
4:25 pm
technology is being considered? >> i mean, i will defer to my colleague from oes about the commercial aspects of that. over a security standpoint this is one of the issues with developing rules of behavior and one of the issues when you're y talking about threats in space.e we're very acutely aware of the fact a number of things are duae use simply by nature.at you- so they can simply have benefits or potentially be used against satellites. so it's one of those issues tha> needs to be talked about, and again why we are in favor of these rules of behavior. >> yes, congressman carbajal, bruce touched on the aspects of dual use. a we are very much trying to ed sa support thete development of th commercial sector, and again this is a place where companieso in the united states are leading the way and setting the standar
4:26 pm
of helping again to return us to iss so that we're not dependent on otherer countries for that.t. as part of the broader efforts through the artemis accords to build partnerships and share values and visions on space, we're again very grateful for hc the strong endorsement of this administration for those roles.o that is part of the discussion with the commercial sector. >> thank you veryry much. get i'm out of time. mr. chair, i yield back. >> thank you. was the gentleman is in fact out of time. we tried to get mr. waltz earlier. he was not available. mr. brooks was next and he's i think the next questioner will be mr. liu.i >> thank youam vchairman cooped castro, for holding this important hearing. i'm very thankful for the expertise from other panelists today. i m usedy to serve active duty y
4:27 pm
the air force and now i do my s reserve duty and i'm thrilled cn the united states space command has t chosen to locate space systems command one of three s t major commands under the space force at los angeles air force base.. passing day space becomes more important. realso wanted to clarify the criticalas infrastructure questn congressman asked earlier. the reason there's been confusion there's approximatelye 16 critical infrastructure questions such as the is, communications sector, the energy sector. space is not one of them. however, if there is, for example, a space communications satellite that would arguably be to captured within the ything communications i sector that's been designated as critical infrastructure, to alleviate this confusion and capture everything in space i'm working on legislation that would in fact designate space as a sector. and that goese. in line with
4:28 pm
the former administrations and this administration's focus on space. so my first question is to by secretary moore, i know first oy allwh i'm super impressed by th. but your title doesn't include s space anywhere in it. the department of defense has created an inspire space force dedicated to space.e? do you think that's a good ideay or should weou have a departmene to elevatepres space? >> congressman liu, thank you very much for your serviceou bo in uniform and the house of ronn representatives, and thank you for the excellent question. i'm very pleased to tell you ta across the list of the derves i the bureau of oceans and off environmental and scientific affairs, we have nine action a offices. one is n the office of space affairs. it is staffed by a number of diplomats and experts with in
4:29 pm
advance degrees and the core team that coordinates and other countries in lockstep with the pentagon, of course with nasa and congratulations to administrator nelson on his recent confirmation. wetle, b have a very distinguis team. the word space may not appear in our title, but because of the tax we have here in the bureau t can assure you space is front and center. toda for all these reasons we're grateful for the opportunity toh testify today and respond to no just your questions today but h work with yourel staff as we ha done in the past and many offices in congress to help asplain y and gain information d guidance from you. >> thank you.bure i just request you and others in state department consider havinl space not just as an office but a separate bureau. my next question goes to generao
4:30 pm
whiting. thank you for your service as well, sir. we have other countries such as ..ina and russia who don't necessarily follow. norms, and china has done anti-satellite weapons test. so we could have two possibilities. either we allow all countries to do anti-satellite weapons testing or allow no country to do it through a binding legal regime. do you think the u.s. should be allowed to do anti-satellite tests or should no country be k allowed y to do that? >> thank you, mr. congressman, for the question. from my perspective the real danger with those tests, and he we're talking about tests now is the long-lived debris we continue to operate around ce, today. i think we do absolutely want to establish a norm no country's g
4:31 pm
action in space should create long-lived debris. with that i'd defer to mr. hill for questions of legality regarding the test.rms >> o to pick up on what general whiting just said, in terms of tests you're correct. there is no -- there is no prohibition today on anti-satellite tests. there is quite a bit of scorn to be earned, kina earned in 2007 with their tetss. the question is if you were to a try and prohibit weapons what is the definition of a weapon, and what are these systems which are so inherently dual use, lasers can be used for communications, lasers can be used as weapons and it goes on from there.
4:32 pm
and so what we really have to focus on is reducing the benefits people might seek to derive from employing a capabilities as weapons.ie exat goes to resilience andld b mission assurance which is api s longer topic.c. didhank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i did not know anyon mr. moore multilingual, but i did note from the video he hass the largest office than anyone on the call, so congratulations. mr. waltz is back, so now it's mr. waltz it was turn.l, a >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, everyone. mr. hill as an osd alum it's great to see you in this capacity. it's been a augh long time.ce in i want to ask you about thinking
4:33 pm
through how we established deterrents in space. as many of you have said and many of my colleagues have said, you know, our entire modern economy could be greatly adversely impacted should some of theseatsets been taken down.o as we're seeing the chinese ojes increase a their alliance as thr gps system comes online, their military increasingly projects and also becoming increasingly dependent, how do we establish deterrents in space? i know the vice-chairman is working on a declassification o effort, but i want them to know what we can do and what we can't do as a deterrent measure.st what efforts were there along those lines?
4:34 pm
mr. hill, i'll go to you first, but anyone feel free to answer. >> congressman waltz, it is good to see you again after many years. deterrence in space, we spent quite a bit of focus on this. cl as i started to mention in my te previous response, a nation highly dependent on space both in our civil life, our daily commercial lives, private lives as well as in our military lifei it ison fundamentally important it should be a norm to have reliability, mission assurance of capabilities as a level tu comenseerate toral e those thrs capabilities. you had to design for the threats, design for jamming and you did that. as these more convention threata
4:35 pm
emerged we had to transition our artectures. leveraging the innovation cominn out of the commercial sector and the significant cost reductionse we've c seen in both launch andn space capability themselves ave allows us to do entirely different artectural approachesd itay takes time to transition t that. but you ultimately transition to architectures more inherently vulnerable.nefit o and as in any other domain, you have the ability to accept and survive, combat casualties. that's the key part of denying anon attack. ite cost and position side of things that's when m you may bee looking a lot more across domain type of activities.where. it may be the cost to impose may not be in the space dedomain, mb may bee elsewhere.hat those are some of the things to think about. >> communi maybe
4:36 pm
your state department colleagues are better to answer this, what are we communicating that we're willing and capable to do.te d because that's how misjudgmentsw miscalculations happen.s and to your state department colleagues what are we communicating now, and in terms of our capability and will?as >> one of the reasons we had a meeting in july with the russians about space issues wasi to communicate very clearlys toe them the kind of concerns we have about what they're doing, and thisin is for the same reas the biden administration is er interested in beginning strategic stability dialogue with the expla russians that wi cover nuclear and other issues as well. but the whole point is to explain very clearly to them what our concerns are, what we
4:37 pm
do not want them to do and to iron some of these rules so they know exactly the risks they're taking if they engage in certain types of behavior. >> one of the things i'm most concerned about is our nuclear f command and control systems.t t and when we're talking about t standards in terms of how close you can get, one types of do now that wcan other countries are up in geo synchronous, we need to be clear on our end but make it clear so we don't have those catastrophim miscommunications. be expired and i yield. >> i appreciate the gentleman being so precise.e. we completed the first round of
4:38 pm
question, and i was going to cue it t off.rs w we've beenho in the session for? about an hour and 45 minutes. n are there any members who have a final question they'd like to ask? if not then i want to thank the witnesses for their excellent testimony, thank the members for showing up and thank the staff a for assembling all this. so it's hard to have a remote hearing, but this wentz[ñj veryu well. certainly an important and c historic hearing we have today to get these efforts under way, so thank you for being part of this historic effort. weeknights this month we're featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span 3. tonight world war ii oral histories in a 2012 interview.
4:39 pm
clinton gardener shared his experiences in the war's european theater. injured during the d-day invasion he took part in the battle of the bulge. ■ç served in the liberation and watch tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern and enjoy american history tv every weekend on c-span 3. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> brausbound is a force for empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions, building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to
4:40 pm
democracy. on c-span's the weekly, a lesson on america's supply chain. our how our pandemic, a pipeline cyber attack and a barge stuck on the suezcanal all serve as reminders we remain vulnerable. >> what happened i think is demand for a lot of things went down, some things went up, they weren't spending as much. and so all of these supply chains sort of slowed down. as people got vaccinated and we started to see life coming back into the economy, people started spending again. and these supply chains don't start on a dime. they take a while to go up. you don't step on the gas and they just start going. >> join us for more how the
4:41 pm
supply chain works and how we should prepare for future disruptions on c-span's the weekly. you can follow and listen wherever you get your podcast. up next a house hearing on expanding access to high-speed internet and potential legislation and make sure acesis affordable. representatives from the ill no industry testified.ri >> okay,ng the committee will n come to order.and eq today the subcommittee on communications and technology in holding a hearing entitled 19,t broadband equity, addressing disparities in access and affordability. due to covid-19 public health emergency today's hearing is being held remote. allearing, members and witnesse be participating via videoconferences. as part of

20 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on