Isaacman Confirmation Hearing

Ted Cruz (00:00):

Its next leader must be both disciplined and purposeful, candidly assessing what is working and what is not, while recognizing that each policy decision has trade-offs. NASA can't do everything it wants to. The agency must prioritize if we are to beat China back to the moon and then to Mars. If confirmed, Mr. Isaacman will be taking the helm just as NASA is set to launch Artemis 2. The agency's first crude use of the space launch system rocket and the first crude mission on the Orion spacecraft, which will bring American astronauts closer to the lunar surface than at any point since 1972.

(00:43)
I know Mr. Isaacman will be a strong leader who sees that Artemis 2 launches safely, successfully, and without delay. He must then turn to Artemis 3, landing Americans on the moon before China, which is aimed at sending its own taikonauts there by 2030.

(01:06)
NASA cannot take its eyes off the ball. Fortunately, Congress has given clear direction and substantial funding to achieve this goal. In the One Big Beautiful Bill, President Trump and a Republican Congress committed nearly $10 billion to specific parts of the space program, including the space launch system and future lunar missions of Artemis 4 and 5. The Gateway Space Station at the moon and the International Space Station. The vision for NASA enshrined in the One Big Beautiful Bill is unambiguous and Congress expects that it will be executed faithfully.

(01:47)
And I will note that our friend and colleague, Senator Katie Britt from Alabama has come to join us. Alabama obviously has intense interest in NASA and space and Senator Britt, we welcome you to the committee this morning. Investments and hardware alone won't guarantee mission success. Equally indispensable is NASA's workforce. Houston's Johnson Space Center is home to one of the most capable, experienced, and mission-driven workforces in the world.

(02:17)
JSC is home to our astronaut corps, America's space faring heroes who represent the best of our nation. Preserving that talent is essential, and I trust that JSC will continue to thrive under Mr. Isaacman's leadership. Mr. Isaacman, I believe will prioritize stability, accountability, and respect for the men and women who make the agency's missions possible.

(02:46)
As the commander of Inspiration4, the first all civilian space flight and the first private citizen to walk in space, he knows that every successful mission depends on the skills and the dedication of its crew, as well as the countless professionals supporting them from the ground. Mr. Isaacman, I know that you are as committed to American supremacy in the final frontier as is this committee in the entire Senate. The United States must remain the unquestioned leader in space exploration. And this imperative is why we need to confirm your nomination as expeditiously as possible.

(03:28)
My hope is that you'll be confirmed and in this role before the end of this year. Finally, a word about our nominee to lead industry and analysis within the International Trade Administration at the Department of Commerce. If confirmed, Steven Haines will also help us compete with China. He will support US companies with actionable market intelligence, help them navigate trade barriers and identify opportunities for expansion into foreign markets.

(03:59)
He brings experience as a foreign service officer and from across multiple federal agencies. Both our nominees before us will advance American interest, whether in outer space or here at home. I now turn to Ranking Member Cantwell for her opening remarks.

Maria Cantwell (04:16):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for this hearing. Congratulations, Mr. Isaacman, on being renominated to lead NASA and Mr. Haines on your nomination to be assistant secretary of commerce. I too would like to welcome our colleague, Senator Britt, from a state that has a very robust aerospace community and look forward to continuing to work with her. And I'd like to say a special welcome to two Washingtonians who are here, Bill Nye, the science guy from Washington and Mr. Dietrich, who is Mr. Haines's father-in-law. Great to have you here as well in support of him.

(04:50)
Mr. Isaacman, I supported your nomination the first time you came before the committee and I hope to do so again. As the chairman mentioned, hope to get you in this position before the end of the year. But there is no secret that a lot of NASA changes have been made since the last time you were before this committee, including the NASA decision to recompete for the lunar lander, the release of the president's proposed NASA budget, which calls for cutting the agency's budget by nearly a quarter in the workforce and nearly a third of the science funding cut in half.

(05:22)
So given all that, I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're here to answer questions about NASA's future. And I hope that today's hearing will show that there's bipartisan agreement, strong bipartisan agreement that we must redouble our efforts to get American astronauts back to the surface of the moon as soon as possible. At our committee hearing in November, we heard concerning testimony from several expert witnesses who left little room for doubt that the current SpaceX lunar lander would not be ready to put Americans back on the moon either in 2027 or 2028. And this is almost certainly would lose the race to China. And I know that you are going to have robust competition.

(06:02)
In response, the acting administrator, Duffy, reopened the contract and its competition for the lunar lander that can be ready sooner by the end of 2028. And I think this was the correct decision and I expect you to continue executing on this plan if confirmed.

(06:19)
To be clear, winning the race to the moon is not just about short-term token victories, it is the first step in accomplishing a very long-term presence on the lunar surface, which is strategic, economically, and in a national security imperative. Mr. Isaacman, I expect to hear from you today about how you will ensure we achieve these goals. NASA is also much more than just immune exploration program.

(06:43)
The agency leads in a number of other vital strategic missions, including aeronautic research, space technology, and of course, the agency's critical science mission. NASA is one of the world's leading research and development organizations. I think that's why we have, I don't know, about 50 people waiting outside to get in this hearing room. I think they really believe you're going to get confirmed and they all want to be first in line to talk about all these developments.

(07:07)
NASA is one of the leading research and development organization and agency that feeds a multiple of sectors of innovation, including AI, quantum advanced aerospace materials, and manufacturing and aviation safety. You and I have had a chance to talk about this issue as it relates to, in my home state, 1,500 companies from a robust aerospace supply chain, including 40 Artemis program suppliers and this issue of a tech hub working on next generation thermoplastics that is so critical to all space and aerospace manufacturing to get a high rate peace manufacturing production.

(07:48)
Nevertheless, as we discussed these issues, OMB director, Vought has been working to gut NASA's budget, especially in science. Earlier this year, multiple NASA whistleblowers provided evidence showing that OMB was pushing NASA to implement the dangerous cuts requested in the president's budget for fiscal year 2026 disregarding the law and the impacts that this would leave on NASA. This is just unacceptable.

(08:13)
Mr. Isaacman, if confirmed, I expect you will push back on these dangerous ideas and advocate for NASA's budget. Oh, I also invite you to visit Washington State. We'd love to continue this discussion on how to generate the next aviation innovation. It's clear that there's a lot going on that'll help us on the moon to Mars mission, not just the 40 Artemis suppliers, but a lot of other issues in how to guarantee our satellite communication for the future and how to make sure that is secure.

(08:49)
So thank you again for your willingness to step up to these challenges. Turning to you, Mr. Haines, if confirmed the assistant secretary of Commerce Industry and Analysis, you will be responsible for strengthening the globe's competitiveness in US industry and overseeing key trade analysis. You would lead a team charged with value added analysis and tools to support economic policy decisions. No doubt there's been a big sea change since COVID about supply chain issues and supply chain vulnerabilities and the interest that commerce play a larger role in identifying those risk sectors.

(09:22)
Myself and Senator Risch have been leading a charge on fusion technology and hoping that we could be very aggressive on supply chain issues if in fact fusion technology gets to the actual point of manufacturing in the United States. So I look forward to working with you on those supply chain issues and I want us to continue to know that we have to reduce tariffs. In my mind, tariffs are causing Americans to be challenged on affordability issues, and I look forward to working with you and asking you questions about that agenda as well. And welcome to our colleague from Tennessee, Senator Hagerty.

Ted Cruz (10:07):

Thank you. I will now turn to our colleague from the great state of Tennessee, Senator Hagerty, to introduce Mr. Haines. Senator Hagerty, welcome to the committee.

Bill Hagerty (10:14):

Thank you, Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell. Well, thank you for holding this important hearing. Mr. Isaacman, I want to congratulate you on your nomination and look forward to your confirmation. The reason I'm here today though is to introduce a former staffer, a good friend, and a fellow Tennessee and Steven Haines. Steven Haines is President Trump's nominee to serve as assistant secretary of commerce for industry and analysis. But before I get into his introduction, I'd like to actually address all of the staff sitting along the walls here today.

(10:43)
I hope you'll take a lesson from Steven Haines. He did a remarkable job serving on my team, a great member of my national security team, and frankly touched many aspects of our office. He's taking that knowledge and moving it into the administrative branch, in the executive branch, into this administration. And he's going to go on to do great things. I just think it's testament to the fact that the hard work that all of you put in on both sides of the aisle to support our nation and to generate the type of opportunities that we want to see for our children and grandchildren can manifest itself in a career like Steven's. And I hope, Steven, that you'll continue to advance your career. It's one of the greatest honors I have to be here and speak on behalf of my former staffers and to all of you. Thank you for your hard work that you do every day. And I hope that someday I'll be seeing you sitting in a seat just like Steven. Steven was one of my national security advisors for two years. His counsel was critical covering nearly every issue that came to my office from supporting my role as ranking member of the Banking National Security Subcommittee that covers export controls and CFIUS work to state department reauthorization and council issues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to the important work of funding the government through the appropriations process.

(11:54)
Frankly, there wasn't much that Steven didn't touch in my office. Before his time in the Senate, Steven served as a presidential management fellow. Then as a Foreign Affairs officer at the Department of State's Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Steven is a graduate of the University of Nevada and holds a master's in Asian studies from the George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs.

(12:15)
Steven's understanding of how federal agencies operate and his deep knowledge of foreign policy and national security were evident from the first day he joined my team. This expertise served the constituents of Tennessee remarkably well and his love for this country and serving the American people is palpable. He's a man of conviction, a man of loyalty and integrity, and precisely the caliber of person we need serving in government. I thank you for considering Steve as nomination, and I encourage my colleagues to support his nomination as he advances his call to public service. Congratulations, Steven. Thank you.

Ted Cruz (12:54):

Thank you, Senator Hagerty. I will now turn to our colleague, Senator Sheehy, to introduce Mr. Isaacman. Senator Sheehy, the floor is yours.

Tim Sheehy (13:02):

Thank you, Chairman. Welcome back, Jared. I'd say this is a once in a lifetime experience, but I think we're on number two now. So, Monica, great to see you. Thanks for bringing the girls. Before I introduce Jared, Chairman, I'd like to enter in, I think, 40 letters of support for Mr. Isaacman's nomination please.

Ted Cruz (13:21):

Without objection.

Tim Sheehy (13:22):

Thank you. For nearly 70 years, the United States has been at the forefront of space exploration. President Trump knows how critical it is for our country to lead the way, yet again, as our space program aims to reach new heights, and that's why he chose exactly the right man for the job, Jared Isaacman. I've personally known Jared for several years, sharing an aviation community in Montana and cooperating with him on approving the education experience for our next generation of explorers, astronauts, engineers, NASA administrators at space camp in Huntsville, Alabama.

(13:53)
Of note, both Jared and I attended space camp, and although I would say let a spark in both of us to chase the dream of aviation and aerospace, he's been far more successful than I have. We both dreamed of being astronauts as children. The difference is Jared actually is one, whereas I settle for the title of senator. We both dreamed of being astronauts as children… Sorry, America has been the leader of global space travel generations, pushing the boundaries of space and testing the limits of human endurance and intellect.

(14:17)
All Americans should be deeply proud of the incredible accomplishments of heroes like Alan Shepard, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell, and many others. The sacrifice and leadership of these brave astronauts is what most Americans know. What they usually don't know is that behind each and every one of these explorers is a massive team of dedicated engineers, program managers, innovators, test pilots, welders, electricians, truck drivers, and families who are the true heroes of our space program.

(14:41)
To lead this incredible team requires a leader who not only understands and believes in the mission, but as the interdisciplinary skillset to coordinate these cross-functional teams to achieve critical outcomes. Since the tragedy of the Columbia disaster in 2003, NASA has been an organization of great people searching for revival. And after The cancellation of the shuttle program for 10 years, it's important to remember for 10 years, the United States was paying Russia taxi fair to send our own astronauts into space.

(15:10)
This would make John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and dozens of others American leaders turn in their grave. In light of the recent Starliner mission to the ISS that left astronauts stuck in space for almost nine months. We were reminded that much work remains. President Trump knew it was time for a change and he chose the right man for the job. Despite Jared's desire to be an Air Force fighter pilot and astronaut as a child, he found out that he was smarter than most and started a disruptive software company in his garage as a teenager.

(15:37)
That company grew to be a tremendous multi-billion dollar success, and that success fueled his ascension in the Hall of Fame as a record setting jet pilot, an aggressor pilot for Air Force fighter pilots, and most recently this first civilian ever to conduct a space walk. On top of all that, Jared and I share another passion, pediatric philanthropy. Jared has personally donated millions to improve healthcare for at-risk children all over America, yet again, underlining his commitment to this great nation.

(16:02)
NASA is a point of great pride for our nation. It has carved out new frontiers for mankind and showing the world the power of freedom. China is progressing at a breakneck pace to overtake our space infrastructure and beat us back to the moon, and they fully intend to win. If we don't focus our efforts and commit to victory now, we will find ourselves going to bed under the glow of a red moon. We have a moral obligation to continue to lead in the greatest frontier ever known, and it requires strong leadership.

(16:29)
Jared is an articulate leader, a great father and husband and one of the smartest people in America. Jared understands not only how to manage a complex multi-billion dollar organization, but how to design and engineer critical systems. And to top it off, he knows how to fly spaceships. NASA is in need of spiritual rejuvenation, and that will take fresh leadership. Jared is the perfect man for the job and I look forward to adding NASA administrator to his already remarkable resume. Thank you, Chairman.

Ted Cruz (16:57):

Thank you, Senator Sheehy. I will now recognize Mr. Isaacman for his opening statement.

Jared Isaacman (17:06):

Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, Senator Sheehy for that very generous introduction and distinguished members of the committee. I'm honored and grateful to be here before you again as President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. To begin, I'd like to acknowledge my family. So my parents, Sandy and Don Isaacman behind me, my wife, Monica, my two wonderful daughters, Milo and Liv.

(17:31)
So over the years, I've found many ways to challenge their patience and politics is certainly no exception. We are also joined today by seven astronauts, some of my closest friends and crew mates together with NASA astronauts that have come to this hearing in support. Thank you very much. I also want to acknowledge and appreciate that Senator Britt from the state of Alabama is here today. So not only home to Marshall Space Flight Center, but also to Space Camp, which is where my journey began.

(18:02)
As mentioned before, I have lived the American dream. I've been fortunate to have an amazing business and aeronautics career to have led two notable missions to space to help charitable causes that matter deeply to my family. And now I'm beyond thankful for a chance to repay my debt to this nation by serving alongside the brilliant minds at the world's most accomplished space agency.

(18:23)
The last time I sat before you, I introduced myself, my qualifications, and the challenges and opportunities ahead. This time, I'm here with a message of urgency. After more than a half century, America is set to launch NASA astronauts around the moon in just a matter of months. This is a challenging endeavor to say the least and one that requires full-time leadership.

(18:44)
Secretary Duffy in his letter to this committee endorsing my nomination emphasized this point. The message is shared by more than four dozen other letters of support, including an online petition started by members of the NASA workforce and a letter from 36 NASA astronauts who like me have sat through anomaly investigations, launched and flight readiness reviews, and have accepted the risks of going to space and understand what is at stake.

(19:07)
And I know it's not lost on anyone in this room that we are in a great competition with a rival that has the will and the means to challenge American exceptionalism across multiple domains, including in the high ground of space. This is not the time for delay, but a time for action, because if we fall behind, if we make a mistake, we may never catch up and the consequences could shift the balance of power here on earth. This Congress and specifically this committee understand the urgency of the moment, placing a historic investment in human space exploration that President Trump signed in the One Big Beautiful Bill. It's now time for NASA and its partners to deliver. To that end, I want to assure you, senators, I'm not here for a personal gain to favor or enrich contractors to close centers or disrupt programs that are essential to completing America's objectives in space.

(19:56)
If confirmed, I'm here to bring urgency and an extreme focus to the mission, to do all I can working with the best and brightest at NASA, to lead humanity's efforts to unlock the secrets of the universe and ensure American leadership across the last great frontier. In concert, with that grand endeavor, we will ensure the following. The success of the Artemis program that President Trump began during his first term, America will return to the moon before our great rival, and we will establish an enduring presence to understand and realize the scientific, economic and national security value on the lunar surface. Along the way, we will pioneer the next giant leap and capabilities to extend America's reach even further into space, including expanding and accelerating investments into nuclear propulsion, both nuclear electric and nuclear thermal and surface power programs. These efforts, in addition to industry partners building reusable launch vehicles, will set the stage for future missions to Mars and beyond.

(20:52)
We will never accept a gap in capabilities again, not with our space station presence in low earth orbit or our ability to send American astronauts to the moon. We will strive to build an orbital and lunar economy that can fund the future we all want to see in space someday and not rely exclusively on the taxpayer. We'll begin making the investments now for the inevitable space fairing future that is just on the horizon. We'll make the most efficient use of every dollar allocated, pushing for more explains, more rovers and telescopes, more exciting missions like Hubble, James Webb, and Dragonfly, with the aim of enlightening the world through breakthrough scientific discoveries knowing that if NASA doesn't do it, no one else will. Some of the most talented people in America show up to work at NASA, alongside a reinvigorated culture and an intense focus on achieving the near impossible when no other organization is capable of or even dares to accomplish, we will achieve these objectives. And when, not if we get the job done. It will be because of the professionals at NASA, our international and our commercial partners. This committee in Congress and President Trump's administration that will have succeeded in ushering in a new golden age of science and discovery.

(21:57)
We'll do it for America, for humankind, and in doing so, we will inspire the world and generations to follow to take us even farther. We are just getting started on the greatest adventure in human history and with urgency and purpose and extreme focus on the mission. NASA will lead the way. Thank you.

Ted Cruz (22:15):

Thank you, Mr. Isaacman. I now recognize Mr. Haines for his opening statement.

Steven Haines (22:19):

Thank you, Mr. Cruz. And here I was thinking that all the fanfare outside was for industry and analysis, but not the first time I've had my bubble burst. Chairman Cruz, Ranker Member Cantwell, distinguished members of the committee, it's an honor to be with you here today. I'd like to thank President Trump, Secretary Lutnick, and under Secretary William Kimmitt for putting their confidence in me to serve as the assistant secretary of Commerce for Industry and Analysis.

(22:47)
I'd also like to extend my deepest gratitude to Senator Hagerty for introducing me today. I feel incredibly fortunate to have his mentorship and support. It's also an honor to have several of my family members here with me starting with my incredible wife, Erica Haines who's sitting behind me. Our first year of marriage, she asked me what I wanted to do with my life career-wise and I thought I gave her the right answer, which was to be a good dad, to be a good husband, and she gently reminded me that that was the bare minimum and challenged me to aim higher.

(23:24)
And her continual love and support of the past 10 years of marriage has challenged me to do just that. Our first son, Henry, is here as well. It's the honor of my life to be his dad and to have him by my side. His little brother, Oscar, has been on the planet for a total of 10 weeks, and so he decided to forego the hearing, stay home with his grandmother, probably taking a nap right now.

(23:48)
My father-in-law, Guy Dietrich, is here from Washington State. Thank you for being here as well as one of my three older sisters, Heather Pray and her husband and my best friend, Charlie Pray. My parents, Paul and Christie were unable to make the trip to Washington DC today, but they're proudly watching from home in Franklin, Tennessee. I inherited a tenacious work ethic and a drive for excellence from my father and a sense of faith and conviction for my mother.

(24:21)
They shaped me into the man I am today and there's no way I could ever repay them for that. I grew up in Franklin, Tennessee in the '90s at the height of Pax Americana. I distinctly remember driving home from school with my mom and her telling me that we lived in the greatest country in the world. And even at a young age, I was filled with a sense of pride and excitement and expectation for the future. I truly felt lucky to be an American. And I carried that pride with me as I left America to study abroad and then start a career in the oil and gas industry in Asia.

(24:56)
No matter where I went, who I met, what I did, I always carried that sense that there was no place like home, my home, the United States of America. And then in the early 2010s, I started to notice a shift like a lot of people in the global geopolitical and economic landscape. And for the first time in my life, America's future felt uncertain and not guaranteed. And so through the loving encouragement of my wife, who's from the area, decided to move to Washington DC, leave the private sector and pursue a career in foreign policy and national security via public service.

(25:34)
And that journey has led me to multiple roles at the Department of State, the Pentagon, here in the United States Senate, and now for the second time at the Department of Commerce. The colleagues that I've worked with, along with the experiences that I've gained have all somehow culminated in the necessary preparation for this specific nomination. For six months prior to this nomination, I had the privilege of performing the duties of the assistant secretary for Industry and Analysis, learning its policies, its people, portfolios, budget contracts, learning every facet of the organization. And it's because of that, I feel a sense of pride and excitement to have the opportunity to lead the organization in an official capacity.

(26:21)
And if confirmed, my singular focus will be supporting America industry's competitiveness through robust understanding of analysis of sectors and supply chains, improving and growing INA's analytical capabilities to better respond to trade questions facing US policymakers and empowering the professionals, the people who work at INA to approach their work with a sense of subject matter expertise, mastery, autonomy, and purpose. And to that end, I look forward to working constructively with this committee. Thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.

Ted Cruz (27:00):

Thank you, gentlemen. Congratulations on both your nominations. And I will say, Mr. Haines, your 10-week-old son would've certainly been welcome here this morning with some frequency senators have been known to cry and sleep fitfully, and so he would've fit well in this body. Mr. Isaacman, welcome back. As you know, NASA's Human Space Flight Program and its Artemis in particular is critical to maintaining US leadership in space. But as I think you can appreciate, space flight comes at a significant cost.

(27:38)
Its success requires program stability. The United States can't dominate in space if our commitments change wildly from one administration to the next or from one appropriation process to the next. That's why the NASA section of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which I authored, outlines a stable path forward for the agency. It gives clear guidance on the Artemis moon mission. It paves the way for commercial space stations in low earth orbit and it invests in NASA's infrastructure to be able to execute its exploration missions. Will you commit to this committee and to the Senate to full and timely compliance with the law's requirements if you're confirmed?

Jared Isaacman (28:24):

Yes, senator, I do.

Ted Cruz (28:26):

Let's dive into those requirements. Congress wrote into the One Big Beautiful Bill that there shall be a stable, fully funded path for Artemis, at least through Artemis 5. Congress also dedicated money for the Gateway Lunar Orbit Space Station and the Orion Crew Capsule. Artemis is the key, I believe, to both beating China to the lunar surface and to maintaining a US presence at the moon. What concrete steps will you take to maintain the Artemis program's long-term stability?

Jared Isaacman (29:01):

Senator, I appreciate the question. And similar to my previous hearing, I absolutely believe that the current architecture with SLS is the fastest path to achieving our near term lunar objectives, which should be to return to the moon before our great rival and establish the infrastructure so that we can realize the scientific economic and national security value. Now we have the first mission, which is approaching in just a matter of months, which is Artemis 2 where we will fly around the moon. The next mission, Artemis 3, we're going to land astronauts on the moon. There's a lot that has to happen in between Artemis 2 and 3.

(29:34)
So in that respect, I am grateful that the One Big Beautiful Bill affords us the opportunity of additional heavy launch vehicles through Artemis 4 and 5. With respect to the continuity of the mission, senator, in order for us to actually land the astronauts on the moon, it will mean that, one, or ideally two, commercial partners will have pioneered reusable heavy launch lift capabilities and orbital propellant transfer to get the lander to the lunar environment. And when we see American astronauts walk on the moon again, it means one or both of them were successful.

(30:11)
So in doing so, after completing the Artemis 5 mission, which is already contemplated in the One Big Beautiful Bill, we should have numerous options available to us to have routine and affordable missions to the lunar surface for continuity beyond Artemis 5.

Ted Cruz (30:27):

It's also part of US law that it is American policy to have sustained human habitation either on the moon or in cis lunar orbit. Do you agree with that objective and do you commit to doing everything humanly possible to achieving it?

Jared Isaacman (30:40):

I do, senator. I think the President of the United States would be very excited to see a lunar base.

Ted Cruz (30:46):

And I will say just a minute ago, you talked about competing providers. I want to be very clear. I have no particular interest in one provider versus another. My interest is in making sure the objective is achieved. And at times, some have suggested that the objective of going to the moon and the objective of going to Mars are intention. I don't believe their intention. I believe both are critical. America will be the first to land on Mars. That is critically important, that is written into law, and I was proud to author that provision in law. But I also think at the same time, we cannot lose the moon and lose the race to the moon to China. Do you agree that both are critical priorities?

Jared Isaacman (31:32):

I do, senator. And again, consistent with my prior testimony before this committee, there actually are parallel efforts underway. Now, there is no question the overwhelming near term priority is to return American astronauts to the moon and, again, establish an enduring presence on what is a very scarce piece of real estate that we're interested in at this time.

(31:53)
But as I mentioned before, in order for those American astronauts to step foot off a lander onto the lunar surface, it

Jared Isaacman (32:00):

Means one or both, and actually potentially many more commercial providers will have pioneered reusable heavy lift launch capabilities and on orbit prop transfer, which is the same capability, really the next giant leap capability that America needs for missions to the moon Mars and beyond.

Ted Cruz (32:20):

The International Space Station, which is managed from Texas's Johnson Space Center, is scheduled to be retired by 2030. It will be replaced by one or more commercially developed stations, partially funded by NASA and partially by private partners. Congress has been clear that a gap in our presence in low earth orbit would jeopardize US strategic interest. Will you commit to guaranteeing a continuous human presence in low earth orbit and a continuous American presence during your tenure and to ensure that there is no gap between the retirement of the ISS and the transition to commercial LEO destinations?

Jared Isaacman (33:01):

I absolutely commit to that, Senator. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we can never accept a gap in our capabilities again, not in low earth orbit or our ability to reach the moon. I, like a lot of space enthusiasts, dream of the day where we have multiple commercial space stations in low earth orbit, but I think in order for that to be a financially viable model, we have to absolutely maximize the remaining life of the International Space Station, get the highest potential science and research to the Space Station to crack the code on the orbital economy to give all these commercial space stations a fighting chance.

Ted Cruz (33:35):

Thank you. Senator Cantwell. Thank you.

Maria Cantwell (33:37):

Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I had to step out for a minute and take a call from another member, but I just want to make sure I heard everything you just said correctly on this. So, when Secretary Duffy as the acting announced NASA would reopen to compete Artemis 3 Human Lander to ensure America would reach the lunar surface in 2028, you agree with that decision and will you fully commit to this recompetition?

Jared Isaacman (34:06):

Well, Senator, I mean, both SpaceX and Blue Origin were already awarded contracts through a competitive process to build the lander. And I don't think it was lost on either one of those organizations that the first company that is capable of delivering a lander to take American astronauts to the lunar surface and back is the one that this nation is going to go with. I think that competition is fantastic. I think the best thing for SpaceX is a Blue Origin right on their heels and vice versa.

Maria Cantwell (34:32):

Great. Well, we're glad they recompeted. And when I first became ranking member of the committee, we argued for the redundancy of competition. There is nothing like competition to get the product that we need. And I think the decision that was made was based on the urgency to return by 2028. So, you believe in that process?

Jared Isaacman (34:55):

Senator, I absolutely, absolutely agree with competition. I think we need competition for the vendors that support NASA's critical mission. I think competition among world powers is actually a really good thing just as long as we don't lose.

Maria Cantwell (35:10):

Okay. The R and D issue about high rate composites I mentioned in my opening statement, the HiCAM project, which does have NASA's support in trying to generate more composites. We have with Idaho established a tech hub in thermal plastics and really believe that the United States should not lose this race for high rate composite manufacturing. Will you fight to keep for NASA's aeronautic budget to sufficiently fund such HiCAM operations and support the technology development that is needed for aerospace materials?

Jared Isaacman (35:54):

Senator, I think it's squarely in the responsibility of the aeronautics portion of NASA to work on the absolute cutting edge materials that will ensure the competitiveness of our aeronautics industry well into the future.

Maria Cantwell (36:07):

Okay. And then how can you further leverage NASA's university work for development and research?

Jared Isaacman (36:15):

I mean, there's a couple parts to that, Senator. First, I think in general, it's part of NASA's responsibility towards inspiration and STEM education to award grants to academic institutions that give students hands-on opportunities with hardware, ideally inspire them to want to graduate and either work at NASA or contribute to industry. Also, I just think it's a great way to crack the code on important research that's going to bubble up towards NASA achieving its important objectives.

Maria Cantwell (36:45):

Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Haynes, how do we get this supply chain onshoring or supply chain materials similar to the same subject? One of the reasons I became interested in the tech hub is actually an Idaho employer came to me and said, "Do you understand the Europeans are trying to buy us?" And I was like, "No, I didn't understand that. " And he said, "Yes, everybody's looking for the best technology and they see it in our country and they want to buy it, and we're not doing it and creating the supply chain." So, how do you think this job and role you can help improve supply chain identifications for America's competitiveness, particularly in manufacturing?

Steven Haines (37:25):

Oh, thank you. Thank you, Senator. One word simply is mapping. We're doing this across a wide variety of sectors, critical minerals. One, mine to market is a term that we use often. We have to understand the supply chain, understand where their choke points are, if any. There's two components with an industry analysis that do supply chain analysis, the trade policy analysis or TPNA division, as well as the supply chain center. There's a good amount of overlap there. If confirmed, one of my sole focuses is going to be to supercharge our analytic capabilities, bring some in-house, currently out of-house tools in house to be able to answer specific questions just like that and be able to have a little bit more ball control in terms of mapping and analyzing supply chains.

Maria Cantwell (38:18):

And do you look at this issue as a true competition issue with China and other countries to make sure that we are mapping these supply chains?

Steven Haines (38:27):

It absolutely is. It's a competitive issue across the board. I would say yes, Senator.

Maria Cantwell (38:32):

Okay. And then there is a legislation sponsored by myself, Blackburn, Blunt Rochester, and Young on promoting resilient supply chain. Will you look at that and tell us whether you can support that legislation?

Steven Haines (38:43):

I have looked at it. We've provided an initial TA and have passed. I'd be happy to implement it to the fullest extent and work with committee to do so.

Maria Cantwell (38:53):

Do you see any problems with it now?

Steven Haines (38:55):

I would have to read the bill over again. The current Texas is escaping me, but I'm happy to do that and be happy to…

Maria Cantwell (39:03):

For the record, that would be great. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

Ted Cruz (39:07):

Thank you. Senator Moran.

Mr. Moran (39:09):

Chairman, thank you. Thank you and Senator Cantwell for exhibiting greater speed than the normal Senate process in having this hearing in hopes that…

Ted Cruz (39:18):

I'm pretty sure Glacier's move at greater speed.

Mr. Moran (39:21):

We share that view, Mr. Chairman, and nice to see that this committee is moving forward in regard to confirmation, consideration to confirmation of a new NASA administrator. And I look forward to his confirmation and look forward to the Senate considering his approval in this committee and the Senate approving it presumably next week. Mr. Isaacman, let me start with you. My intended questions changed a bit because I received a letter this week from a Kansas farmer and it captured my attention because I certainly share the views of Senator Cantwell and Senator Cruz in regard to the moon and Mars. And that's, I suppose, what nationally the public thinks about NASA is that we're on our way to some object in space and we're exploring space, but NASA has lots of roles.

(40:12)
You've talked about STEM education being one of them. I want to mention for a moment the mission directive of science. And the letter that captured me is from a Kansas farmer named Mr. Roth. And he indicates to me that NASA's earth science investments, I'm reading from his letter, now directly support US farmers in ways that were unimaginable even a decade ago. Tools based on NASA's data and science like OpenET, NISAR, the rangeland analysis platform provide real time field level insight into soil moisture, biomass, drought stress, water use, yield stability. These aren't future technologies, he says. They are already built functional and being used in states like mine today.

(41:03)
He mentions FIAT is a national farmer science partnership that brings early development producers together with NASA researchers to co-develop practical on farm tools using satellite data. This mission is to unite farmers with NASA to turn earth observation technology into real world decisions that support profitability, water efficiency, and risk reduction. Kansas Farmer found value in NASA. It's something that we don't always talk about and think about when we think about space. I'm looking for your thoughts in response to what this farmer is reminding me of. How do you see NASA supporting, or operationally developing the satellites that support precision agriculture? Tell me your response to this idea that NASA has a role to play in the everyday lives of Kansas and American agriculture.

Jared Isaacman (41:56):

Thank you for the question, Senator. I mean, at the present time, we only inhabit one planet and earth science is pretty vitally important. It's a role that NASA has had since the agency was established. We have Landsat satellites up there that are looking down, understanding droughts and flooding and wildfires, natural disasters is almost essentially in real time that obviously play a direct role on the agriculture community. There's obviously our GPS constellations that are going to go hand in hand with agriculture equipment for next generation farming. So, I do see this as a vital role that NASA continues to fulfill.

Mr. Moran (42:36):

I thank you for that statement, that commitment. I'm pleased to be a member of this committee and I chair the subcommittee on aviation and space, but I also serve as the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee that funds NASA as well as the Department of Commerce. And Mr. Isaacman, have you had a chance to look at our budget, our appropriations bill, and any response to what our committee has approved and what we expect to be on the Senate floor in the next two weeks?

Jared Isaacman (43:08):

Well, Senator, I don't think I can really comment on any pending legislation other than to say that we will absolutely maximize every dollar Congress affords to the agency.

Mr. Moran (43:19):

Would you expand that commitment to say that you will execute the funding that we provide to NASA in this legislation as it's intended to be spent?

Jared Isaacman (43:30):

Senator, I will always follow the laws.

Mr. Moran (43:31):

Thank you. I would also use this opportunity to indicate that upon our success in bringing the Commerce Justice Science Bill to the Senate floor, I encourage all my colleagues who are so excited about space exploration and going to the moon and going to Mars and maybe who have an interest in agriculture and earth sciences, I would encourage them to actually vote for the appropriation bill so that, in addition to authorizing and confirming personnel, we can actually accomplish the goals that this committee is spending time this morning highlighting. Let me ask about another aspect. I have 14 seconds. Let me ask you questions in fairness so that the gentleman from Tennessee is not ignored.

(44:17)
It a bit follows the question of Senator Cantwell, and that is making sure that you're using ITA not only as a trade remedy and for export promotion, but to be a proactive partner in shaping industrial policy, improving supply chain resiliency and strengthening US competitiveness, tell me that you believe that's a significant component of what your job is and will be.

Steven Haines (44:46):

Thank you, Senator. That is the core component of the job.

Mr. Moran (44:50):

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ted Cruz (44:52):

Thank you, Senator Moran. And Senator Kim has very kindly agreed to allow Senator Moreno to skip in front of him in line since Senator Moreno has to preside on the Senate floor. So, thank you, Senator Kim, and I recognize Senator Moreno.

Senator Moreno (45:05):

Thank you, Senator Kim. And that doesn't mean I'm going to be less harsh on you in the pickleball court, but thank you for doing that. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mrs. Isaacman for putting up with this double take process. I'm sure having a great supportive spouse has been critical in your life like it's been for mine. Mr. Isaacman, as the administration looks to accelerate Golden Dome and strengthen national security space capabilities, how do you see NASA and the US Space Force better coordinating their work in power, propulsion, communications, and hypersonic missile testing, especially given the unique test environments at places like Armstrong test facility to avoid duplication and move faster?

Jared Isaacman (45:57):

Thank you for the question, Senator. So, clearly NASA's job is the peaceful exploration of air and space. It's also not lost on us that this is a domain that is of great strategic importance. And I do think in a fiscally constrained environment is important that we are not having duplicate infrastructure or various bespoke programs when we could have a more unified approach to it. So, for example, a lot of the work that is done both at Glenn and Marshall Space Flight Center with nuclear has applications for peaceful exploration of space, surface power programs, but also department of war implications. And I'd hope that we could collaborate at least with some of our counterparts and other agencies, again, to avoid any duplicative spending or inefficient application of resources.

Senator Moreno (46:51):

That's great. Speaking of nuclear at NASA Glenn Research Center, we're leading the development of a hundred kilowatt lunar fusion reactor. How should NASA build on this leadership in nuclear power and propulsion to ensure that the US stays ahead in returning to the moon and reaching Mars?

Jared Isaacman (47:10):

Oh Senator, I love that question. I think NASA is funded by the taxpayers to do the near impossible. As I mentioned, my opening remarks, what no other agency or organization or even company is capable of doing or dares to do. I think NASA should be evolving to work on grand, almost mini Manhattan Project nuclear programs that have the benefit for surface power applications, especially when you're out of sunlight or you're undertaking discovery missions, let's say past Mars, for example, or even actually on the surface of Mars for manufacturing propellant. So, I think there is this working, whether it's on nuclear electric propulsion, nuclear thermal propulsion, surface power programs, there is a ton of applications that NASA should be working on in that regard.

(47:56)
And when NASA does work on the near impossible, what no one else is doing, it attracts the kind of talent that wants to participate in those programs and achieve these kind of, I guess, world changing breakthroughs.

Senator Moreno (48:10):

Appreciate that. And look forward to having you and hosting you in Cleveland at NASA Glenn. Very easy trip from home. So, I won't keep them long. You'll be home for dinner if you comes and visits as opposed to Texas, really far away. It's a very out of your way trip to go down there, but Cleveland right around the corner. Mr. Haines, the US depends on specialized aerospace supply chains. What is your plan to strengthen domestic component manufacturing and reduce reliance on Chinese suppliers?

Steven Haines (48:41):

Thank you for that question, Senator. And thank you again for meeting with me yesterday. I appreciated the time and hearing what your priorities are. I would say three things. One is the role of industry analysis is to support a wide variety of trade policies. We are currently conducting a number of different investigations. We're supporting a number of different investigations like section 232s, 301s at USTR. And as a part of that, we are understanding what these supply chains are, where they head, and how to create the incentives to bring those back here to the United States. We're meeting with industry regularly. Our deputy assistant secretary for manufacturing was just at the Dubai Air Show.

(49:27)
He's met with Boeing. He's met with a number of different aviation companies understanding what their needs are and coming up with creative solutions to bring that back here to America.

Senator Moreno (49:37):

Perfect. And last question. You do obviously a lot of data. I mean, your job is to really make certain that people understand what the set of circumstances are. Others opine and make decisions, et cetera. Would it be possible without President Trump's policies for us to have gone from 51% of the cars sold in America, being made in America at the beginning of this calendar year, to where we are right now, which is at 57% in climbing of the cars sold in America being made in America? Without President Trump's policies, would that six point swing in less than a year have been possible?

Steven Haines (50:20):

No, Senator.

Senator Moreno (50:21):

Thank you. No questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ted Cruz (50:25):

Thank you. And now I recognize Senator Kim.

Senator Kim (50:27):

Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Isaacman, good to see you again. Last time around, we had a lot of opportunities to be able to talk between the two of us. We both stress how important NASA is and space exploration is to our country, to our science. And while we didn't see II and everything, I was willing to support you. Now you come before us again. And one thing that has come up that is on my mind right now is having seen a document named Project Athena. So, I guess I just want to ask you, what is Project Athena and do you stand by what is in that document?

Jared Isaacman (51:10):

Thanks for the question, Senator. So, at the time of my previous nomination, moving into a new environment such as government service, responsibility as great as the leadership of NASA, I had called a draft document that I continued to update based on my interactions with, well, the briefing leadership at NASA's agency, my interactions with various senators and their staff, basically ideas, thoughts on the direction of the agency, research requests. It was always something that was meant to be refined with actual data should I have been confirmed in it. But I do stand behind everything in the document, even though it was written seven months ago, I think it was all directionally correct, consistent with prior testimony and my interactions with various senators.

Senator Kim (51:58):

So, you're the author of the document?

Jared Isaacman (51:59):

I am, Senator.

Senator Kim (52:00):

Are you the sole author of the document?

Jared Isaacman (52:01):

I am, Senator.

Senator Kim (52:03):

So, I guess the challenge that I have is when you came before this committee a couple months ago, actually in response to the chairman, you said to him, "Senator, I have no intention as of now to say that I would cancel any program. I need to, if I'm confirmed, to be getting a job, understand where things are at." And what we had talked about is that if you were confirmed that you would go in, you would allow yourself to be in the job before you make these decisions, you would engage with the NASA employees and others.

(52:33)
So, when I see in Project Athena, comments like calling for a reevaluation of sustained lunar presence, I mean, you said to the chairman today that you're committed to Artemis, committed to an enduring presence on the lunar surface, but then you just tell me right now that you stand behind the document and stand behind, I assume, this statement about reevaluating the sustained lunar presence. So, I'm just having trouble understanding what to believe. So, do you stand by that comment in that line in Project Athena about reevaluating a sustained lunar presence?

Jared Isaacman (53:13):

Well, Senator, I mean, it was 62 pages worth of material. So, I imagine any one sentence or so can be taken out of context. But in my prior testimony before this committee, I said it was imperative for us to realize our near term lunar objectives. I think at the time, I said in determine the scientific economic and national security value of being on the lunar surface. I think today I come before you, because there's overwhelming clarity within the administration of not only to return the moon before our arrival, but also establish the infrastructure for an enduring presence. So, that naturally, six, seven months is an awful lot of time.

(53:50)
But I would say, Senator, there's probably 10 pages within that plan that call for research requests to make sure that you gather the accurate information to inform a definitive plan. But I certainly do stand behind the idea that if anyone's going into a position of great responsibility, it's better to go in with a plan than none at all, sir.

Senator Kim (54:08):

But isn't it better also to have humility in the job and to be able to go and engage the experts and the scientists who have been doing this work? I mean, I don't mind people having a vision and having priorities, but you had told this committee that you would hold off on making up your mind, but the document very much came. And I wasn't trying to take anything out of context. I'm giving you the opportunity to explain it. So, for instance, you responded to a colleague of mine about the importance of climate science and the role that science is playing, NASA is playing in that way. But in the project Athena, or you say NASA should be, "Taken out of taxpayer funded climate science business and leave it for academia to determine."

(54:53)
That stands in contrast, I feel like, with things that we've heard you say before. So, I guess I wanted to ask you, do you stand by that statement of taking NASA out of climate science business?

Jared Isaacman (55:04):

Well, and Senator, first of all, I completely agree with you, by the way. I think humility is an important quality of leadership. And that's why, again, I would say if it's not 10 pages, it could be 20 pages of the 62 that specifically call for research requests from across the associate administrators, the various subject matter experts to inform a definitive plan. That's throughout the entire document. They're very…

Senator Kim (55:28):

Your statement here did not seek a request. It was determinative in saying that it should take out. And also in terms of laying out cutting of thousands of civil servant positions. So, look, I'm out of time. We will follow up, but as I said, I'm trying to be someone who can work together. I think this needs to be bipartisan going forward, but some of what I saw in that document, so in contrast to things that I heard you say before, at least what you had assured me about, it's okay to say that you changed your mind or that you don't agree with everything that you said in that document. I had expected you to say that, but instead when you come here before us today and say that you stand behind what's in that document, that ever causes us to have further follow up here to understand what your positions are.

Jared Isaacman (56:10):

And Senator, I would welcome any opportunity to get together and I would happily talk through anything in that plan, or that document and give you the rationale behind it and I'd welcome your feedback. To do this job is going to absolutely take the collaboration, cooperation with this committee and the Congress.

Senator Kim (56:26):

Thank you for that. And with that, I yield back.

Mr. Schmitt (56:29):

Thank you. Mr. Isaacman, I wanted to ask you. So, let's just pretend you're in Missouri among a group of students, constituents, just a good cross section of my state. If you were to answer the question, why is it important that the United States of America gets to the moon first or gets to Mars first ahead of the Chinese, what would be your answer?

Jared Isaacman (57:02):

Well, Senator, I think there's a couple reasons. One of which is fulfilling a promise that's been made by every president since 1989 and over a hundred billion dollars that's been funded by taxpayers on our grand return to the moon. I think it's imperative that we do so and failing to do so calls into question American exceptionalism beyond just our expertise in the high ground of space. Second, I do believe, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that when we return, we will have an opportunity to determine and realize the scientific economic and national security value on the lunar surface. Now, an example I used in my previous hearing is that there is helium three on the moon. Not a lot of it, but certainly more than there is here on earth.

(57:45)
And that is predicted to be a more efficient source of fusion power. Now, I mean, our foreign policy and wars have been fought for a century over sources of power. To get that wrong could have implications here on earth that could change the balance of power.

Mr. Schmitt (58:03):

We have in this country, I think, a pretty robust ecosystem of new companies, small businesses, disruptors that have entered the fray here as it relates to whether it's commercial space exploration or travel or what have you. How can NASA in your role help cultivate that work with them? Because I do think that's one of the advantages we have over China in this race. What can you do in potentially this new role?

Jared Isaacman (58:32):

Senator, it's a great question. And a lot of people do believe generally these are new developments, but in reality, going back to the 1960s in the space race, NASA worked alongside some of our great aerospace companies. I mean, whether it was Boeing or McDonnell Douglas-

Mr. Schmitt (58:48):

McDonnell Douglas.

Jared Isaacman (58:49):

… and Northrop for sure, sir. So, a lot of those names are still very relevant within the space program today. And then there's also a lot of new names that is referred to sometimes as new space or commercial space. I think it's going to take the contributions of the many to do the near impossible. Now, where NASA can play a role is consistent in the past, which is sharing its expertise and talent to help these new companies. When NASA does tend to figure out the near impossible and it's mature enough technology to hand it off to industry where innovation can improve upon the capability and lower cost, that's a great outcome. I also think NASA can do a very good job expressing the need. What is the requirement? Because there are lots and lots of commercial space companies now.

(59:33)
I think ranking member Cantwell mentioned, I think she's had over a thousand in her state alone. That's fantastic. We just want to make sure they're all working on things that bubble up to our most important objectives. So, I think NASA can do an even better job of working with industry to outline the problems that need to be solved and ensure we're concentrating American ingenuity in the right direction, sir.

Mr. Schmitt (59:52):

Well, I think that to put on the parochial hat for a moment, I think St. Louis is a defense tech hub with former McDonald Douglass and Boeing with their defense side, the NGA West, which is completing their new facilities, a lot of opportunities, which leads to the next question on quantum. Washington University and St. Louis is doing a lot of really important work here. How do you see NASA's role in furthering that mission to be on the cutting edge? Because I think what I was getting at with the first question, all of this, civilizations come and go, right? And in many ways, whoever has the most advanced technology, whether it's warfare or on more of the commercial side, they tend to thrive and win out, win this great competition.

(01:00:33)
And NASA is playing a very important role, continue to play an important role. How do you see on the quantum side, NASA working with research institutions and the private sector?

Jared Isaacman (01:00:43):

It's an excellent, excellent question, Senator.

Mr. Schmitt (01:00:46):

Thank you, by the way. Thank you for that.

Jared Isaacman (01:00:51):

I mentioned earlier about the importance of determining the orbital economy. So, for 60 years, other than a few exceptions, the space economy has still come down to launch observation and communication, which is largely funded by the government. And if we do want a very exciting space faring civilization in the future with lots of space stations and orbital lunar outposts and Mars spaces, we're going to actually have to figure out that economy. There's a lot of prospect when it comes to quantum computing, quantum communications.

(01:01:22)
And what I would like to do is ensure that the highest potential science and research has a expeditious path to the International Space Station, so we can maximize that remaining life and then hopefully crack the code on the orbital economy that gives all the commercial space stations a fighting chance. So, Quantum has a number of applications that can take advantage of the unique environment of microgravity, sir.

Mr. Schmitt (01:01:44):

Well, thank you for your service and I wish you all the best in this new position. Good luck. Yep.

Mr. Peters (01:01:51):

Welcome, gentlemen. Welcome to the committee and congratulations on your nominations. Mr. Isaacman, welcome back to the committee. You You were here before for this position. And as we all know, President Trump withdrew your nomination earlier, citing concerns with your, I believe, political donations to Democratic candidates. And in a July 6th post on Truth Social, the president also stated that it would be absolutely inappropriate for you to head NASA given your close relationship with SpaceX CEO, Elon Musk. Since that time, there have been additional reports that in the time between your nomination being pulled and now being renominated by the president, I think you've donated roughly $2 million to President Trump's super PAC.

(01:02:44)
So, based off this information, I'm concerned that the decision making around this position may not have been about ensuring NASA has strong leadership to carry out its mandate. So, could you please explain what happened to make President Trump reconsider the decision to pull your nomination and what assurances you may have provided, if any, that your relationship with Elon Musk and SpaceX would not create a significant conflict of interest for you in this role?

Jared Isaacman (01:03:18):

Well, Senator, there's a lot there. So, I will try and hit it all. If I miss…

Mr. Peters (01:03:22):

Back it all.

Jared Isaacman (01:03:23):

If I miss anything, please ask me to correct. So, first foremost, I wouldn't even begin to want to speculate why the president nominated me, withdrew it, and renominated me other than to say I was grateful for the opportunity in the first place. It was an incredible experience. When the president pulled my nomination, he gifted me an extended summer vacation where I could take my kids on some adventures before they lose interest in me. And then I understand that he ran a competitive process and interviewed several candidates. I was grateful for consideration at the time

Jared Isaacman (01:04:00):

I'm happy to be here now. In terms of donations, I think it was covered over the summer. I actually felt I had enough exposure to Washington and got over maybe some of the initial intimidation factors, so much so that I thought perhaps I would have a political career, maybe be able to contribute for all the right reasons. So it shouldn't be surprising that I supported the Republican Party. I mean, at the same time period, I probably made 30 times that amount in donations to charitable causes.

(01:04:32)
And then with respect to Elon Musk, that question comes up. In fact, every story I see that writes about my nomination refers to the Musk ally or the Musk friend. It's funny that in a world where everybody has a phone with a camera on it, there are no pictures of us at dinner, at a bar, on an airplane or on a yacht because they don't exist. My relationship with Mr. Musk is the fact that I led two missions to space at SpaceX because it's the only organization that can send astronauts to and from space since the shuttle was retired. And in that respect, my relationship is no different than that of NASA.

Mr. Peters (01:05:09):

Mr. Haines, congratulations on your nomination to such a critical role as well. If confirmed as the assistant secretary, you will oversee the Office of Industry and Analysis, which is housed under the International Trade Administration. As part of the office's responsibilities, I&A produces trade data that is responsible for informing trade policies and decisions across the federal government. I think it's safe to say, and I'd hope you agree, that without accurate data, the federal government and this administration risk making shortsighted and ill-informed decisions that could impact domestic industries and workforces, as well as alienate some of our closest international allies.

(01:05:52)
As you may be aware, earlier this year, the president fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is responsible for complying critical economic data like employment numbers, as well as the inflation rate. Not only was this firing clearly political in nature because the president didn't like what the data said, it also calls into question the accuracy of data produced going forward from the BLS. So my fear is that this firing and other offices throughout the federal government, including I&A, which you'll oversee, will face political pressures from the president to produce certain figures, certain metrics that align with his policy goals, rather than actually publishing what the country needs, which is unbiased data and statistics.

(01:06:42)
So my question for you, do you believe that there is any political influence in the data currently being produced by the Office of Industry and Analysis? And how do you plan, if confirmed, in ensuring that I&A continues to produce the unbiased data, which is absolutely essential to policy baking?

Steven Haines (01:07:00):

Thank you for that question, Senator Peters. The short answer is no, there is no political bias in the data that we produce. And if confirmed, it'll be one of my highest priorities to ensure that the data we receive both from industry partners, American companies, and from unbiased data sources, both private proprietary will remain of the highest integrity.

Speaker 1 (01:07:37):

Thank you. Senator Sheehy.

Tim Sheehy (01:07:43):

Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Haines, we've heard a lot about the politicization of job numbers and economic statistics over the past year since President Trump's taken office, but isn't it accurate that Gina Raimondo had an 800,000 job revision when she was Secretary of Commerce under the Biden administration?

Steven Haines (01:08:04):

That's possible, Senator. I'm not sure the exact statistics, but-

Tim Sheehy (01:08:07):

Yeah. No, that's what happened. That's the fact. So we're routinely told that this administration of the Publican Party has politicized numbers, we've warped data and we've lied to the American people. And the truth is, we saw manufacturing flee this country 97% of rare earths and critical minerals are processed in China. That data didn't seem to move the needle at all despite us watching for decades as manufacturing critical industries fled this country under overburdensome regulation and incentivization that sent those industries to other countries.

(01:08:39)
And every administration, whether they had politicized data, non-politicized data, they chose you either ignored the data or lie about the data and sent those industries overseas. And now we are paying for that every single day. And Jared's job is going to be exponentially harder because so much of the critical materials he's going to need to send our astronauts back to the moon and maintain space dominance doesn't come from America. And some of our most sensitive technology is built with components that are made in China, the very country that is working every single day to undermine our supremacy.

(01:09:09)
So I'd like to hear your plan on making sure that not just that we have the data, but you are ensuring that data is shared in a timely manner so that we can make sure we're making policy decisions in this body, as well as in the executive branch, to ensure that we're bringing those industries back and ensuring we have dominance for the next century.

Steven Haines (01:09:32):

Thank for that question, Senator Sheehy. First, you do have my commitment that we'll be able to share that data with this committee and work collaboratively to solve these critical issues.

(01:09:41)
In the executive branch, I can give one specific example. I&A plays a critical role in the investment committee that is currently tasked with solving our critical mineral supply chain issues. We are mapping mine to markets for all 54 critical minerals. We've identified over 700 projects and have already deployed or committed letters of intent and term sheets for about $16 billion worth of projects covering about half of the 54 critical minerals. That's just one aspect of the work that I&A is doing in terms of providing that data and making sure that principals and decision makers in the White House, obviously Secretary Lutnick, have the information they need to make the decisions to solve these problems. And we'll continue to do that if confirmed.

Tim Sheehy (01:10:29):

Is there a statute that structurally ties you to the Department of War so that the economic data that you're gathering and synthesizing is actually communicated in a timely manner to the people that need to know and DOW?

Steven Haines (01:10:44):

I'm not aware of a specific statute. We do have good connectivity with the Pentagon, Office of Strategic Capital, and other areas within acquisition sustainment, partly due because we have just some cross-pollination of personnel and just good relationships with the folks over there, but it could be strengthened. And if there are ideas from this committee of how to strengthen that, I'll be willing to share them and would be willing to work with you to do that.

Tim Sheehy (01:11:14):

Yeah. I would encourage you to do that because obviously what we've seen, again, especially in the last 35 years, is we've seen a pretty sclerotic bureaucracy overtake our defense acquisition system, which has placed process over outcomes. There needs to be a forcing function that ensures that DOW is not making procurement decisions and national economic strategy decisions related to our defense industrial base that are de linked from the economic reality of what happens here. And unfortunately, there's not a real feedback loop there and the results have been apparent. China build ships 230 times faster than we do. They have the ability to put more planes in the air times than we have missiles to shoot them down. They have more material on the battlefield, the ability to project that power. And when we talk about the space economy, every American interacts every single day with space a thousand times a day. They don't even realize it.

(01:12:09)
GPS, without thinking about, we press go on the Apple Maps and don't realize that if we don't have an orbital infrastructure that provides that GPS data, life shuts down. I mean, Uber doesn't show up at the street corner with you anymore. Your DoorDash doesn't arrive. Our entire life evolves around an orbital economy that will be critical in Jared's new role, but probably even more critical given your role to ensure we understand that those rare earths, the quantum computing that Senator Schmidt talked about, that all is going to derive from the data you provide DOW to make sure that our economic supremacy goes hand in hand with our military supremacy. So I would encourage you to try to make that link a little more structural and strengthen that because it's going to be absolutely critical in the next 10 years. Thank you.

Steven Haines (01:12:48):

Thanks, Senator.

Speaker 1 (01:12:49):

Thank you. Senator Markey.

Senator Markey (01:12:52):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you again, Mr. Isaacman. You may recounter that during your last nomination hearing, you refuse to confirm whether Elon Musk, with whom you have deep personal and financial ties, was present at the meeting that then President-elect Trump offered you the job of NASA administrator.

(01:13:18)
So I wanted to give you one more chance to set the record straight. Was Elon Musk in the meeting at Mar-a-Lago when President Trump offered you the job?

Jared Isaacman (01:13:30):

Senator, it's great to have a conversation again. I thought we really ran this one to ground last time, but what I will tell you, Senator, and I wish I had the opportunity to explain it further before, is my first interview with the president, I think I've had several opportunities since to reengage, was in a ballroom type setting, Senator. There were dozens of people moving in and out that I would not say were in the meeting.

Senator Markey (01:13:55):

It's a very simple question. Was President Trump in the room when … Was Elon Musk in the room when President Trump offered you the job?

Jared Isaacman (01:14:03):

Senator, my interview, my conversations with the president, and there were dozens of people moving in and out of the room, and I don't think it's fair to bring any of them into this matter.

Senator Markey (01:14:13):

So once again, you're refusing to tell us whether Elon Musk was in the room that day. And that actually makes me think that Elon Musk was in the room that day, but that you understand that it's a clear conflict of interest that he was there. You're asking us to confirm you as the next NASA administrator, and SpaceX gets 15 billion from American taxpayers for its business with NASA. You also have multiple financial relationships with Elon Musk, including investments in SpaceX, a contract between his company, Starlink, and your payments company. And even more you bought space flights from SpaceX.

(01:15:01)
Mr. Isaacman, what was the value of these contracts for space flights with SpaceX?

Jared Isaacman (01:15:06):

Well, I mean, Senator, just to clarify on these points, I have no direct or indirect equity exposure to any aerospace company, including SpaceX. I have disclosed all of my financial ties to the ethics officials at NASA as well as the Office of Government Ethics. They've generated an ethics letter I fully intend to adhere to it. I more than acknowledge that I went to space twice with SpaceX, but I point out they're the only company capable of sending astronauts to and from space since the shuttle was retired. My relationship with them is no different than NASAs. In fact, if there was more than one company, I suspect I would've paid less.

Senator Markey (01:15:43):

So what was the value of the contracts for space flights with SpaceX?

Jared Isaacman (01:15:48):

I mean, Senator, I don't think it's lost on anyone that going to and from space is rather expensive. We never disclosed the-

Senator Markey (01:15:56):

Well, your financial paperwork suggests that was over $50 million. So was it 100 million? Was it 200 million?

Jared Isaacman (01:16:03):

Senator, I mean, we've never disclosed it other than the fact that we were able to raise substantially more than the cost of the mission for charitable causes like St. Jude.

Senator Markey (01:16:11):

So you won't tell us how much you paid the man who publicly campaigned for your nomination. Will you request that SpaceX release you-

Jared Isaacman (01:16:20):

They didn't give me a discount, Senator.

Senator Markey (01:16:21):

I appreciate that, but you were paying him. Will you request that SpaceX release you from the NDA so that you can provide the committee with this information?

Jared Isaacman (01:16:31):

Senator, I will commit to always work with the appropriate ethics professionals to make sure I'm continuously in compliance with my ethics agreement.

Senator Markey (01:16:39):

Will you ask him to release you from the NDA so that you can provide that information to the committee?

Jared Isaacman (01:16:44):

I have no issue asking them to release me from non-disclosure, Senator.

Senator Markey (01:16:48):

Okay. That would be helpful. Mr. Isaacman, can you tell us, since President Trump initially withdrew your nomination, have you had any communication with Mr. Musk about the job of NASA administrator?

Jared Isaacman (01:17:02):

I have not, Senator.

Senator Markey (01:17:03):

You have not. So the American people actually deserve to know how much money you have spent personally on SpaceX and whether the head of SpaceX and Starink, Elon Musk, was personally involved in your nomination because we're looking at conflicts of interest so big that they have their own center of gravity and we just have to make sure that it's all out there and it's fully understood by the American people.

(01:17:33)
And since your last nomination, we've received the president's 2026 budget request, which proposes a nearly 50% cut to NASA's science funding. Do you support President Trump's proposal to cut NASA's science funding in half?

Jared Isaacman (01:17:49):

Senator, I certainly support the president's goal of reducing the deficit and shrinking our national debt. Now, an awful lot has happened from the initial presidential budget request, to the continuing resolution that we've been operating in, to the One Big Beautiful bill that has plused up additional funding for NASA. So if I'm confirmed, I'd love to get my arms around where we are presently at.

Senator Markey (01:18:13):

Well, a 50% cut to the NASA science budget is dramatic. And considering reports about your "Project Athena" plan for NASA, which literally banks on the decimation of our scientific abilities, among other things, this document calls for NASA to stop collecting its own data and instead set up a taxpayer-funded subscription service from private companies for their products, companies that will set their own price for data that NASA needs to function on an ongoing basis.

(01:18:47)
Would Starlink or SpaceX be companies that NASA would potentially have to turn to obtain data?

Jared Isaacman (01:18:53):

Well, Senator, first of all, I think pretty much everything you just said there was not correct. What that draft document contemplated was working with commercial companies for certain types of earth observation data, not SpaceX or Starlink. I think I specifically called out Planet and Black Sky as examples of companies that might be able to deliver Earth observation and climate science data at lower costs, specifically to free up resources for other planetary science missions that commercial companies are not capable of doing.

Senator Markey (01:19:24):

Well, I would say this, the proposal… And this is the truth, the proposal would strip NASA for parts and instead transfer taxpayer funds directly to the bank accounts of Starlink and SpaceX, companies owned by the very same man who may or may not have been in the room when Trump offered you the job. And we're just going to have to keep a very close eye on what will unfold at NASA if you are confirmed.

(01:19:50)
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Speaker 1 (01:19:51):

Thank you. Senator Budd.

Senator Budd (01:19:53):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here. Mr. Isaacman, great to see you again. Let's talk about NASA's Quesst program of quiet supersonic. It's designed to de risk the science, validate the quiet supersonic technologies, and then let American industries like Boom, for instance, which has a presence in North Carolina, let them take the lead in building the commercial market.

(01:20:18)
So as administrator, how will you ensure that NASA stays focused on enabling that new industry and avoids creating unintentional regulatory or technical barriers for the next generation supersonic flight?

Jared Isaacman (01:20:33):

Well, Senator, this is certainly a subject that I'm pretty passionate about. I do think it's NASA's job, I believe it's funded by taxpayers, to explore the near impossible in air and space. And when they arrive at a major development and that capability is mature enough, to hand it off to industry where competition can drive innovation and bring down costs.

(01:20:55)
X-59 is an interesting example. There is some overlap with what Boom's doing. I think actually Boom is an extraordinary company. I'd love to see a lot more American companies trying to break the status quo and take on big, bold projects like that. I think NASA just needs a lot more explains, honestly. That was a really exciting one that we all had an opportunity to watch rather recently alongside the recent performance from Boom. But I'd love to see us have multiple programs that are exploring radical designs in airframe and propulsion. And when they do have those breakthroughs, not dissimilar to the 1970s, 1980s when NASA was experimenting with fly by wire and thrust vectoring capabilities that have made their way in commercial aircraft as well as military aircraft like the F-22.

Senator Budd (01:21:37):

Do you think there's a problem with Quesst eventually competing against Boom? Do you think that's a potential problem?

Jared Isaacman (01:21:44):

No. I would certainly hope-

Senator Budd (01:21:46):

I would say the whole industry, not just Boom in particular.

Jared Isaacman (01:21:49):

I'd certainly hope not, Senator. I actually don't think NASA is at its best when it's doing what industry is doing, because at that point, talent would naturally probably gravitate to industry where they get the advantage of, who knows, appreciating stock options and such. I think NASA should constantly be recalibrating to work on that near impossible, what no one else is doing, which is going to attract that kind of exciting technology, that's going to attract that kind of talent to work on that exciting technology. When they figure it out, they hand it off to industry and they recalibrate to the next big bold endeavor, I think that serves the talent workforce and the mission of NASA very well.

Senator Budd (01:22:25):

Thank you. In your testimony earlier, you were clear that United States is in the middle of a second space race. The great rival that you mentioned spent more than a decade establishing a space Silk Road, offering collaboration on satellite space launch, space infrastructure development to more countries across the Middle East and North Africa.

(01:22:45)
So how does this sort of space diplomacy from an adversary affect our prospects for continuing dominance in space? And what's your vision for space diplomacy of ours?

Jared Isaacman (01:22:58):

Well, Senator, I think there's a couple parts to that. So first, NASA has always been referred to as a soft power. There's lots of diplomatic implications to their mission. A lot of our greatest endeavors are worked on with our allies across Europe, the Middle East, Canada, for example. I think what's concerning now is that some of these countries have more than one choice. So for the longest time period, America owned the ultimate high ground of space, and that attracted the interest of many nations to want to collaborate and partner with us. The Chinese do have their own space station now. They went from a single orbit approximately 20 years ago to having a space station where they're launching at an extraordinary cadence. So I think this is why there needs to be urgency to take a close look at NASA, what's going right, and do a lot more of that. And the things that are going wrong, to clear those obstacles and paths so we can get back to doing world changing missions again.

Senator Budd (01:23:56):

Yeah. Sounds great. Thanks again for your time. Chairman.

Speaker 1 (01:24:02):

Thank you. Senator Lujan.

Senator Lujan (01:24:04):

Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much for that and for calling this hearing.

(01:24:08)
Mr. Isaacman, welcome back to the Commerce Committee. I guess I'll just start out by simply asking, Mr. Isaacman, do you believe in science?

Jared Isaacman (01:24:19):

Of course, Senator.

Senator Lujan (01:24:20):

You support science?

Jared Isaacman (01:24:21):

I do, Senator.

Senator Lujan (01:24:21):

You've conducted a lot of science experiments throughout not just your youth, but through your career, correct, sir?

Jared Isaacman (01:24:27):

Yes, sir.

Senator Lujan (01:24:27):

I appreciate that. Now, a few of my colleagues have raised the concern about the nearly 50% cut to NASA's science mission directorate, a directorate that is explicitly foundational to NASA's 1958 congressional charter. I think by the very nature of the number of questions that you're receiving today from colleagues about NASA, it shows the broad support for the science mission at NASA as well. Congress has already made clear that we rejected these cuts and will continue to fund the scientific missions that uphold NASA's statutory purpose.

(01:25:03)
My question, yes or no, is, do you agree that NASA has a statutory obligation under its founding charter to conduct and support Earth and space science for the benefit of the nation?

Jared Isaacman (01:25:13):

Yes, sir.

Senator Lujan (01:25:14):

I appreciate that. This is going great, Mr. Isaacman. Many of NASA's science programs are not commodities. You cannot run a value-added calculation on dual use information that supports both science discovery and national security. Now, for example, these missions provide indispensable space weather data. We were chatting about that before. I appreciate my colleague reminding us all across America when we pull out our devices or we're depending on the simple services that we interact with every day, that we're touching some of this and we depend on it.

(01:25:48)
Like your friend, Mr. Musk, I would say some of the commercial actors, they depend on after solar activity has repeatedly disrupted their constellations as well. Now, NASA, Earth science assets also ensure GPS integrity, track environmental changes, everything you just described. US military readiness, critically important. National security, the importance of the science directorate.

(01:26:14)
So let me ask you directly, yes or no, will you execute the funds appropriated by Congress for NASA's critical science missions exactly as Congress has directed?

Jared Isaacman (01:26:25):

Yes, sir. We will maximize the scientific value of every dollar that Congress affords the agency.

Senator Lujan (01:26:31):

I appreciate that very much. My last question is, while I didn't support the reconciliation bill that passed over the summer, there are pieces of it, particularly in NASA's section that hold promise, and I appreciate the inclusion of them. For example, the NASA section funds a Mars telecommunications orbiter, specifically one that was proposed independently when NASA solicited its commercial industry for Mars sample return mission architecture from space. I see you nodding. You're very familiar with this, I imagine.

Jared Isaacman (01:27:00):

Reasonably familiar, Senator.

Senator Lujan (01:27:01):

The orbiter would not only support future exploration missions, but most importantly, it would help support the critical comms relay needed for existing and future science missions like the Mars sample return. Now, New Mexico's home to companies like Rocket Lab who produced the world's highest efficiency space grade solar and powered critical NASA missions and would power the MTO, for example.

(01:27:23)
So yes or no, do you commit to following through on the letter of the law and ensuring a rapid acquisition strategy for the MTO to be able to deliver it by the law's 2028 due date?

Jared Isaacman (01:27:35):

Senator, my commitment to you and all the other members is always to follow the law. As a space enthusiast, I am super excited about any activities that open up further science and discovery on Mars.

Senator Lujan (01:27:47):

Appreciate that very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(01:27:51)
Thank you. Senator Klobuchar.

Senator Klobuchar (01:27:58):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

(01:28:00)
And I'm going to start out with a kind of interesting question about agriculture data, Mr. Isaacman. I don't think many people understand that NASA satellite data is hugely valuable for farmers. Programs like NASA Acres and NASA Harvest use satellite imaging to forecast production and monitor crop yields. I'm the ranking member on the Ag committee and I've introduced legislation called the Agriculture Innovation Act to strengthen that data collection.

(01:28:32)
Could you talk about your plans to preserve and expand those types of monitoring programs, weather patterns and the like, and how you can better work with the Department of Agriculture?

Jared Isaacman (01:28:45):

Sure, Senator. I appreciate the question. As I mentioned with Senator Moran before, at the present time, we at least inhabit only a single planet, and it's probably important for us to continue to study it to the greatest extent possible. NASA's had a long-running program with IntelliSat. I fully support that we should be gathering data that especially contribute to hardships here on Earth. I mean, obviously there's great agriculture opportunities, but these can be impacted by droughts and wildfires and flooding. And grateful that NASA has the capability to gather some of this data in real time. I don't see that going away ever.

Senator Klobuchar (01:29:19):

Thank you. Other end of our state, Mayo Clinic, I'm sure you're aware of. They've been involved in space medicine since 1960 when research related to the force of gravity during acceleration influenced the position of seats for the Mercury space flight program. And most recently, they've identified some important research project in the field of aging, regenerative medicine, that can be conducted in space.

(01:29:48)
How will you continue to support NASA and institutions like Mayo's efforts to advance science that helps here on earth?

Jared Isaacman (01:29:55):

Senator, I couldn't agree with this area of study more. We are actually quickly reaching a point where it's no longer a technological limitation for deep space type missions, but human physiology and psychology. So in that respect, I obviously fully support all the studies that can be done so that when the day comes that we actually send NASA astronauts to Mars, that they can come home healthy enough to tell us about it. This is probably the single greatest accomplishment we've had on the International Space Station over the last quarter of a century, is keeping humans alive in an environment that is quite challenging.

Senator Klobuchar (01:30:33):

Mm-hmm. And then just on the research side, a lot of academic institutions like the University of Minnesota rely on publicly-funded data from NASA's missions. And as NASA continues to partner with private firms, the commercial data is not as easily accessible to researchers. And I think it's a balance. Obviously the partnering with private has brought with its some success, but then you want to have the public institutions be able to access that data for the public portion of this, which has helped us. I'm not going to go through all the inventions and things that have come out of this type of space mission.

(01:31:12)
So what steps will you take to ensure that data from NASA missions continues to remain available for researchers across the country?

Jared Isaacman (01:31:21):

Senator, I actually, I fully support it. And I think this actually goes to some of the questions from Senator Markey before. I absolutely think that NASA should be making available all of its data, especially its earth observation data freely to academia so they can draw their own conclusions from it. I don't think it's the most helpful every four or eight years when administrations change that certain scientific positions become overly political. I think that we should be making that data available to academic institutions and let their scientists and research draw their own conclusions.

Senator Klobuchar (01:31:55):

Thank you very much.

(01:31:56)
Mr. Haines, congratulations on your nomination. We have a lot of manufacturers in my state, a lot of them high-end robotics manufacturers. We do a huge amount of trade, not just in the ag area where we're fourth in the country for ag exports, but throughout our industries. Could you talk about data that the Department of Industry and Analysis can provide Congress and the public transparency data with the price impacts of things? We're obviously concerned about tariffs.

Steven Haines (01:32:29):

Thank you, Senator. I would say a few things. We usually provide data as it compares to bilateral trade flows and sectoral competitiveness, not provide broad economic data in terms of labor statistics or GDP growth or anything like that. Any data that we do have on specific sectors, especially as they are in your state, happy to discuss those with you and your staff. And by the way, thank you to your staff for meeting with you yesterday and understanding a little bit more about your priorities on the committee. So absolutely have confirmed commitment to you to provide the data that we do have.

Senator Klobuchar (01:33:11):

Very good. And I think my time's running out. I'll put this in writing, but I do a lot with Brand USA. And Senator Sullivan and I just introduced major reauthorization of this. And Senator Rosen over here cares a little bit about this, representing Las Vegas. And so just anything you can do to strengthen programs like Brand USA that don't use taxpayer dollars to ensure we continue to remain competitive with US tourism, and especially with World Cup, the 2028 Olympics, and other major, major events that are coming up.

Steven Haines (01:33:51):

Yes, Ma'am Senator, you absolutely have my commitment to do that. I have met with Fred Dixon and Brand USA multiple times. The secretaries met with them multiple times. And we look forward to working with them in a collaborative effort to make sure that travel and tourism remains competitive.

Senator Klobuchar (01:34:07):

Okay. Thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:34:09):

Thank you. Senator Young.

Senator Young (01:34:12):

Well, thank you, Chair. I thank our nominees so much for your interest in serving. Mr. Isaacman enjoyed our breakfast some days ago, and I expect to support your nomination and very much appreciate your presence here.

(01:34:31)
Mr. Haines, congratulations. The global economy is increasingly driven by cross-border data flows, digital services, and online platforms. And US firms are facing more foreign barriers such as data localization rules and discriminatory digital taxes. Within ITA, industry and analysis is already involved in tracking these digital barriers and advising on market access for US providers. If confirmed, Mr. Haines, how do you see I&A's role in digital trade evolving and what would be your top priorities for ITA's work on open digital markets and cross-border data flows?

Steven Haines (01:35:18):

Thank you for that question, Senator Young. And appreciate also speaking to your staff yesterday.

Senator Young (01:35:24):

Yes, sir.

Steven Haines (01:35:24):

It's good to hear your priorities. I would say two things. Within the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Services, which is under the Assistant Secretary for Industry Analysis, we run two specific programs that focus on data privacy. One is the cross-border privacy rules or CBPR. It's a voluntary certification where US companies can opt in to essentially adhere to robust data protections. And we then request that various countries recognize those rules and adhere

Steven Haines (01:36:00):

… here to those standards. As we've been going through the agreements on reciprocal tariffs or any of the bilateral trade agreements, we've been making sure that CBPR is front and center in terms of the standard that we want to hold our bilateral trading partners to in the digital space. The second program and its sister programs would be the USEU data privacy framework. We've also started a program with the UK and the Swiss. I think it provides a very firm foundation in terms of allowing free flow of personal data from Europe to the United States. I think those are two good foundations that we could expand upon, especially as we're getting into the USEU trade agreements as Secretary Lutnick is heavily involved in and we'll be supporting him and his efforts knowing that that's going to be a cornerstone of the agreement.

Senator Young (01:36:54):

Thank you, Mr. Haines. Mr. Haines, on another matter, China's predatory practices in sectors like steel, critical minerals, and advanced manufacturing have continuously put sustained pressure on US companies. Inside ITA, industry and analysis brings together industry engagement and trade policy analysis. So it sees both what companies are experiencing and how the rules of the system are working in practice. If confirmed, Mr. Haines, what are a few concrete things you would build or change inside INA to sharpen ITA's China work? For example, specific analytic products, priority sectors, or support for trade agreement enforcement.

Steven Haines (01:37:45):

Thank you, Senator. The most current concrete example I can provide you again is our current work on mapping critical mineral supply chains. I mean, this is the main trade issue in the US-China trading relationship, and one that the President and Secretary Lutnick are laser focused on solving. Currently, we are providing mapping information for all 54 minerals. We're really focusing on the processing and refining side of the equation, given that in that sense, China dominates the supply chains there. And we're going to continue to work with the White House led investment committee to ensure that we not only understand those supply chains, but are able to secure them and thus secure a number of different sectors that are downstream that require these critical components. So if confirmed, that would be one of my main focuses is to continue that work and help to secure those supply chains.

Senator Young (01:38:45):

Well, since your point of emphasis is on critical minerals, maybe you could speak to this. I've advocated for a number of years running that our country developed a national economic security strategy. This would be an analog to our national defense strategy. A subset of an economic security strategy would be a strategy for critical mineral resilience and sourcing on an ongoing basis. Might INA play a role in development of a written strategy subject to scrutiny, but ultimately some measure of consensus around what the policy is so that we could develop a policy that would endure beyond this administration, just as we do through a national defense strategy.

Steven Haines (01:39:39):

Yes, sir, Senator. I would imagine that any strategy like that would probably be White House led, like a national security strategy, national defense strategy. And if something like that were to come into existence, I would imagine that we would absolutely be asked to provide support in developing that. And if it does come proficient and I'm confirmed, would be delighted to do so.

Senator Young (01:40:03):

Well, great. Well, I hope we'll have an opportunity to work together on that broader matter, which I agree would have to come from the White House. I know they're listening, so I thought I'd bring it up, but I expect that I will be supporting your nomination and thank you for answering my questions. Chairman?

Steven Haines (01:40:26):

Thank you, Senator.

Hickenlooper (01:40:26):

Senator Rosen.

Rosen (01:40:26):

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the witnesses here for taking us to space and a little bit more, I'll say Nevada specific because we have a proud graduate of University of Nevada Arena here who knows lots about critical minerals in our state and tourism in our state. And I fully support working on a national strategy because Nevada, of course, has some of the largest critical mineral deposits in the country. And so we are very mineral rich, as you know, and thank you for being here. But I'm going to focus a little bit on tourism. I'm going to bring us down to earth and ask about my travel and tourism work and some of the bills that we've had. Because in 2023, I had a bipartisan bill, the Omnibus Travel and Tourism Act was signed into law. And that bill created a position of assistant secretary travel and tourism at the Department of Commerce.

(01:41:21)
The new position is a first tourism dedicated assistant secretary in the United States, and among other matters, is responsible for setting annual visitation goals, creating whole of government strategies to ensure that visitation goals are met, establishing interagency coordinations to support US tourism, which I would argue is in the top economic driver of every state in our great nation. This new office will also play an essential role to reducing barriers to travel and leveraging new technologies to make travel safer and more efficient. However, despite the critical importance of this role, especially as the tourism industry continues to face significant challenges amid global uncertainty, the position remains vacant. Moreover, there's currently no deputy assistant secretary for travel and tourism in place either. As a result, the National Travel and Tourism office is led today by an acting deputy assistant secretary further underscoring the leadership gap in the space.

(01:42:20)
And so it all means that tourism remains a suboffice, although critical to our national economy, remains a suboffice overseen by the Assistant Secretary for Industry and Analysis position for which you are nominated rather than by a new assistant secretary dedicated solely to focusing on the ecosystem. And it is an ecosystem. It's weather, it's infrastructure, it's workforce, it's broadband. We could go on and on, but someone who really focuses on this strategy for our economic growth. So Mr. Haines, fully implementing the Omnibus Travel and Tourism Act, filling these key leadership roles are essential to strengthening our travel and tourism sector, our business sector. So can you speak to the importance of prioritizing travel and tourism substantial benefits? The tourism industry provides the economic impact tourism business travel provides and how will you support that if confirmed and until such time we can get an Assistant Secretary for Travel and Tourism.

Steven Haines (01:43:21):

Thank you, Senator Rosen. I knew I could expect a good robust travel and tourism question from you in the great state of Nevada.

Rosen (01:43:27):

Like I said, you lived in Nevada along so you know how to even say Nevada. Thank you.

Steven Haines (01:43:32):

Yes, ma'am. So a lot to unpack there. Well, first we'll be happy to know that our Deputy Assistant Secretary for Travel and Tourism is going to start in January. Rob Leary, he's going to be absolutely excellent. We're excited to have him and he'll be spearheading a lot of the important work that you just highlighted.

Rosen (01:43:48):

Come bring him to our office to meet our team, please.

Steven Haines (01:43:50):

Yes, ma'am. I would love to have the same invitation as well, if possible.

Rosen (01:43:54):

Yes, absolutely.

Steven Haines (01:43:55):

I would say three things that I would be focused on to boost travel and tourism. Number one would be to modernize the survey for International Air Travelers Program, which is housed within NTTO. It's currently done by hand. We have only been able to get about 100,000 surveys of international visitors a year well short of the 1% mandate by this committee. We just put out a competitive bid a few months ago to digitize and automate that, hopefully getting more robust insights into travel and tourism trends and be able to capture a larger data set. And through that, be able to come up with better strategies at a more granular level to attract visitors.

(01:44:41)
The second piece would be, we're rolling out a new tool this month, hopefully. And if confirmed, I would love to come talk to you about that. And it is going to be a 50 state travel and tourism competitiveness matrix to where we currently understand where the United States fits in terms of global travel and tourism competitiveness. This would be able to say the state of Nevada hypothetically makes number nine in attractiveness because they love the gaming, the food, the entertainment, but international visitors thought the weather was bad, the infrastructure, just you name it. And be able to come up with concrete recommendations for every 50 state of how to increase their competitiveness as a travel and tourism destination. This is a program that we're very excited about, would like to roll out far and-

Rosen (01:45:29):

I would look forward to collaborating with you on that because we've been doing a lot of work on it over the last six or seven years and I have some significant input that might be helpful to you. And I welcome you coming, working with our team to make it as robust as possible because there's a lot of pieces and parts that go into making places attractive. A lot of it's infrastructure. And so there's a lot to talk about there. So I appreciate that.

Steven Haines (01:45:56):

Yes, ma'am, Senator Rosen. And on the assistant secretary piece, obviously, only the President can nominate someone. I will say with the, let's say bureaucratic minutia, the authorization is well recognized. I know that Secretary Lutnick puts a high value on that. Still would need an appropriation to build it out. I think it's going to be about $3.5 million.

Rosen (01:46:22):

We have appropriated the money in prior budgets.

Steven Haines (01:46:27):

Currently, our NTTO budget is about $7 million, six million of that is SIAT, and at least within the $56 million or budget within INA. I don't want to say there's no money in the banana stand, but I think we'd be looking to a specific appropriation from CJS to build that out.

Rosen (01:46:44):

Thank you. I see my time is up. I see Senator Capito there. Thank you. Mr. Isaacman, I'll submit my questions on microgravity and other things in all great space for the record. Thank you.

Maria Cantwell (01:46:56):

Thank you. Thank you both for being here. And Mr. Haines, thank you for your willingness to serve. I think most of my questions are going to go to Mr. Isaacman, so I didn't want you to take that as a slight in any form or fashion. So I have been a strong supporter of the growing West Virginia. We talked about this. West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio space economy for many years, and believe that this region, perhaps best known for its energy and infrastructure prowess, has a unique opportunity to emerge as a leader in space energy and infrastructure. So Mr. Isaacman is someone who's built successful businesses in Pennsylvania, what role do you see for states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio working regionally that can share the space and technology attributes that are not in Texas, Alabama, Florida, California, I'm glad Senator Cruz is not here, in shaping the future of America's space ambitions?

Jared Isaacman (01:47:52):

Senator, I really appreciate the question. Certainly as a resident of Pennsylvania, I'd love nothing more than to see more of our students who graduate go in fields that are in relevant to aerospace. But I've said many times, I mean, in order to deliver on NASA's world changing mission, it's going to require contributions from the best and brightest around the nation. So all those states you mentioned before are certainly incredibly important. They have centers that are located in them that contribute greatly to NASA's mission, but we are going to need an incredibly growing workforce over the years that's going to come from across the nation.

Maria Cantwell (01:48:28):

I like the answer, the Keystone Space Collaborative, which is what I was talking about. I think also when you have centers of excellence around and participating in the manufacturing or the technology or innovation, it inspires the next generation. You can have cooperative agreements, internships, and other things to get that next generation. I would note yesterday I was sent a letter that was sent to the Chairman and Ranking Member where numerous former astronauts spoke in favor of your nomination. I think when you and I spoke before, I spoke about one in particular that I have great admiration for, and I saw her name on the list, Peggy Whitson. So that's good enough for me.

(01:49:10)
She is a remarkable astronaut woman and inspiration to the generations. And she came to West Virginia with me and our young girls were just awestruck by her. So congratulations on securing that letter. I think that goes a long way. I want to talk about IVNV that is located in the Katherine Johnson Parkers… It's not in Parkersburg and Bridgeport, Katherine Johnson IVNV facility. As you know, this does the independent verification and validation. There's always this sort of looming threat that all of this is going to get privatized. I would certainly argue for that facility being very cost-effective, efficient, and the capabilities are tremendous there. I would like to talk to you about this in greater depth when your nomination is positively affirmed by this Senate and by looking to not outsource what they do, but to maybe grow that presence. And so would you be willing to work with me on this?

Jared Isaacman (01:50:12):

Absolutely, Senator. And also very, very grateful that astronaut hall of famer like Peggy signed the letter of support. It means so much, along with all the other 35 astronauts who signed it. I'm very interested in taking that visit, ma'am, because I think in a world that we all envision someday in the future with lots of space stations and deep space missions, the reliance traditionally on mission control and hardware will diminish as we need to have more onboard decision making and perhaps even the inclusion of AI onto some of our vehicles and even satellites, which will only increase the importance in terms of the integrity of the software. So I think it will obviously have a continuing role to support NASA, but perhaps many other agencies with And the government as well.

Maria Cantwell (01:51:01):

Good. Yeah, we've been trying to expand that. I would just very quickly, and this is not a short answer kind of question, but as we see the pursuit of our space program and others around the world, the Chinese in particular, to try to get back to the moon, there's a lot of discussion on power generation on the moon. And I don't know what your thoughts are here. I don't know if lunar surface power programs, I know it's talked about nuclear, but also solar. I mean, what are your ideas here and how far along are we on this?

Jared Isaacman (01:51:42):

Senator, so I love this topic, so I could far exceed our time here. So I want to offer up, I would welcome any opportunity to discuss further, but I'm very big in nuclear and space. I mean, there are numerous applications for it. There's propulsion applications with nuclear electric, nuclear thermal propulsion. There's surface power requirements. We're going to need surface power for applications that don't have direct sun exposure. We're going to need surface power to likely manufacture propellant for missions to and from Mars and certainly deeper space exploration missions where just there's less solar effectiveness. So it's an area that I think is squarely within NASA's mission to be working on the near impossible to do what no one else can do and attract the talent that will want to work on exciting mini Manhattan Project-like programs.

Maria Cantwell (01:52:33):

Thank you. Thank you both. And thank you both for your willingness to serve.

Hickenlooper (01:52:43):

Thank you, Senator Capito. Let me start with Mr. Haines. I appreciate your… We followed the discussions around critical minerals. I want to make sure we emphasize that's a bipartisan effort. I think the coordination and continuity of programs, there's not a pendulum going back and forth between administrations. Focusing on the access to capital, workforce training. We are woefully behind not just China, but many of our allies in terms of how we find that workforce.

(01:53:16)
So I won't rebuild that or re-litigate that discussion. Just only want to emphasize it is bipartisan. This is something that should be a high priority. I do want to talk a little bit about some of the things, telecommunications, cyberspace, AI, quantum technologies. Colorado has a dense ecosystem there. And I think especially along with AI, quantum has… It's a field of intense competition between the United States and our rivals, our adversaries. So as our capabilities mature in quantum, in quantum sensing, quantum communication, computing, obviously, how can you help ensure that our quantum technologies are only exported to trusted markets?

Steven Haines (01:54:10):

Thank you for that question, Senator. I would say the Assistant Secretary for Industry Analysis does not play an active role in export licensing policy. That's our colleagues at the Bureau of Industry and Security or BIS. I will say that we have and will continue to gauge actively with industry to see where those markets exist and also understand the national security implications of those technologies, where they rack and stack in terms of competitiveness with international competitors. And we could provide that information with to the Bureau of Industry Security as they're making their licensing decisions, but we are not actively involved in any export licensing policies or decisions.

Hickenlooper (01:55:04):

Great. I appreciate that. And I think we've got a lot of work to do on there. Mr. Isaacman, we share the same bipartisan goal that the United States should be laser focused on returning American astronauts to moon, reaching the next frontiers in space exploration. I think I'm still the only scientist in the Senate who's actually provided peer reviewed papers. Back in May, you answered some of our written questions. I thought this was very well stated. And so I repeated that you want NASA to be a force multiplier for science, which I think is essential. Launching more emissions, more telescopes, more probes, more rovers.

(01:55:48)
You also said that you can be expected to be a passionate advocate for science. All of NASA's science and exploration missions, including both planetary and earth sciences. Prioritizing these efforts is not about choosing one over the other, but rather identifying where the greatest breakthroughs are possible. Certainly now you've dealing with a budget issue that's fairly dramatic. So I wanted to see how you balance that. Can you confirm where you believe NASA's scientific and exploration missions… I mean, are they complimentary or do they end up becoming, because of budget issues, mutually exclusive?

Jared Isaacman (01:56:30):

Well, Senator, first, I think the scientific side of NASA is just as important as human exploration as is our work in aeronautics and technology development. I think that, as I mentioned to some of the other senators before, I understand earlier this year we had a presidential budget request. Of course, I do absolutely support the President in the goal of reducing the deficit and ensuring the nations on good footing. But that said, a lot has changed since then.

(01:56:58)
I mean, and this is something that if I am confirmed, I'd love to get my arms around because we have been on a continuing resolution. I mean, earlier this year, I understood that perhaps even the Nancy Grace Roman telescope might not launch under initial budget requests. I've since been informed that that is no longer the case. So simply put, Senator, I'd love to know where we stand today, but as I've told other senators, in terms of dollars allocated from Congress, we will absolutely maximize the scientific value of every one of them.

Hickenlooper (01:57:32):

Sure. I appreciate that. And the Nancy Grace Roman telescope is a good example. Is Goddard Space Flight Center in a similar position in terms, I know that there's looking at certain potentially draconian changes to their budget.

Jared Isaacman (01:57:47):

I mean, Senator, I'm nothing more than I would… I mean, I would read the same things that other people do. If you ask me, I think Goddard is very important to spearheading the scientific efforts of NASA.

Hickenlooper (01:57:59):

Right. Great. We agree. I appreciate that. And I do recognize the difficult choices that tight budgets create for all of you and appreciate that. I'm out of time, even though now I'm left to be the Chair. I think the compulsion is that I must not… I have to curtail my questions, but I have a couple more questions I'm going to submit in writing to you guys. And again, I appreciate both of your willingness to serve the country in these roles. So Mr. Isaacman and Mr. Haines, my last question, which I am not just allowed, but required to ask of all nominees, if confirmed, do you pledge to work collaboratively with this committee to provide thorough and timely responses to this committee's requests and to appear before the committee when requested.

Steven Haines (01:58:55):

Yes, Senator.

Jared Isaacman (01:58:56):

Yes, Senator. I don't think NASA can accomplish its world-changing mission without the support of Congress.

Hickenlooper (01:59:03):

Right. Well, I think it has to be a close partnership, especially all the more so in these days of tight budgets. So thank you. I have literally dozens of letters of support from various organizations for both of your nominations, and we ask unanimous consent these letters be inserted into the hearing record without objections, so ordered. It's hard to have any objections when you control the room.

(01:59:33)
Senators will have until the close of business on December 4th to submit additional questions for the record. The nominees will have until 11:00 AM on December 7th to respond to those questions. That's a pretty quick turnaround, but hopefully that doesn't put you in too difficult position. That will conclude today's hearing. The committee stands adjourned.