Opening Statement (As Prepared) Rep. Seth Moulton

Click here to stream the hearing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Chairman DesJarlais, and welcome to our panel of witnesses. I would like to take this opportunity as I understand Dr. Scolese, this will be your last hearing in front of this subcommittee. Thank you for your dedicated service to our nation, and your steadfast commitment to transforming the NRO into an organization prepared to face the threats we face in space today, and into the future.

Our National Security Space architecture is undergoing a significant transformation, and it must transform, because life as we know it relies on satellites. The Global Positioning System – developed, launched, and operated by the Space Force – is the most obvious. Most people don’t realize all the things that depend on GPS; for example, it provides the timing information that makes our entire financial system function. Without it, you wouldn’t be able to use your credit card, withdraw money from your bank account, and Wall Street would cease all trading.

It is also no secret that almost every weapon system in our inventory depends on space, whether for communications, navigation, or intelligence. Over the past 30 years of US operations in the Middle East, Russia and China have watched our reliance on space, and have developed, deployed, and demonstrated capabilities to hold our satellites, and therefore our way of war, at risk. The People’s Republic of China has now launched over 1,000 satellites into orbit, 70% of those in the last five years, and they include systems that could be used as weapons in space. And as we all now know, Russia is developing a space-based nuclear weapon. If launched, it would be in direct violation of the Outer Space Treaty and, if detonated, it would degrade or destroy nearly every satellite in its path. As I’ve noted before, that includes any space-based interceptor constellation that might be part of the President’s Golden Dome. One push of a button could destroy trillions of dollars of investment and make low earth orbit unusable for years. Obviously, any nation willing to launch a massive nuclear attack on us would not hesitate to quickly take out our defenses.

Understanding how urgent this race for space superiority has become, the last Administration continued diversifying DoD space systems by leveraging a massive US advantage – our rapidly expanding commercial space industry. Across the board, there are companies outpacing DoD innovation in satellite communications, remote sensing, space domain awareness, and defending our satellites on-orbit. Yet despite consistent pressure from this subcommittee, the culture shift to maximize the benefit of commercial space continues to meet considerable resistance. I am especially concerned about the rumor that the National Reconnaissance Office, at the direction of OMB, has slashed commercial imagery funding lines in the FY26 budget.

More broadly, DoD’s flat top-line for FY26 undoubtedly means that the Space Force will be taking a cut. I was willing to criticize the previous Administration for failing to invest more in space, and I will criticize this one for the same failure. This mistake is especially stark when considering the billions thrown after Golden Dome with no plan or forethought. I know the White House is putting all their hopes and dreams into the “one beautiful bill” for reconciliation – but, as my Republican colleagues can attest, this bill faces serious hurdles, and there is immense risk in assuming that money will be there. Cuts to the Space Force would be catastrophic.

I’m also seriously concerned about the health of the workforce carrying out these vital missions. Civilians perform critical roles in areas like contracting and engineering, and the Space Force has been hit disproportionally hard by this Administration’s goal to demonize federal employees. As I said before, America has a robust commercial space sector. Most of these people could work fewer hours for a lot more money at those companies – but they work for DoD because they care about the mission. Space Force has already lost over 14% of its civilian acquisition workforce at Space Systems Command thanks to Elon Musk, and the most talented people, with the most other options, generally make up the voluntary departures under DOGE. I am sure Mr. Musk has no problem with having more talented people to hire while having lower oversight of his SpaceX contracts, but this careless decimation of the Space Force civilian workforce is unacceptable, and we must stop the bleed.
 
These losses are compounded by concerns regarding the future for early-career acquisition Guardians. As the Space Force builds out its new officer pipelines, I am concerned that prioritizing operations over acquisition will negatively impact the Department’s ability to smartly and flexibly acquire the space capabilities we need and lower the expertise within the Service to do so. If Guardians continue to hear from their leadership that operations is the only way to contribute to the Space Force, they have options to go work for any number of space companies who heavily recruit them today. I recall that the committee stood up the Service in part because of a desire to change the historically poor track record of space acquisition.

Space is a fascinating and infinite domain. Until recently, we only really experienced it through the lens of science fiction. But in reality, space has been a part of our daily lives as Americans since the dawn of the space race, and our adversaries are keenly aware of that. Our warfighters everywhere, on the ground, under the sea, and in the air, depend on space.  I look forward to today’s discussion with our witnesses on how best to maintain U.S. superiority in space, and how we can address the many concerns that challenge it.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.