[Senate Hearing 107-1030]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1030
NOMINATION OF SEAN O'KEEFE TO BE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 7, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
87-606 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska
Virginia CONRAD BURNS, Montana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
RON WYDEN, Oregon SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MAX CLELAND, Georgia GORDON SMITH, Oregon
BARBARA BOXER, California PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
Mark Buse, Republican Staff Director
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 7, 2001................................. 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 14
Statement of Senator Burns....................................... 13
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 6
Statement of Senator Hutchison................................... 6
Statement of Senator Lott........................................ 8
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 11
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Wyden....................................... 1
Witnesses
Boehlert, Hon. Sherwood L., U.S. Representative from New York.... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
O'Keefe, Sean, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, nominee to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration....................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Biographical information..................................... 20
Appendix
Brownback, Hon. Sam, U.S. Senator from Kansas, prepared statement 59
Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina,
prepared statement............................................. 59
Response to written questions submitted to Sean O'Keefe by:
Hon. Trent Lott.............................................. 60
Hon. John McCain............................................. 61
NOMINATION OF SEAN O'KEEFE TO BE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
----------
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden,
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. The hearing will come to order. This is a
hearing of the Full Committee this morning. We will excuse our
Chairman, Senator Hollings, this morning. His prepared
statement will be made part of the record.
I will have an opening statement, but first I would like to
recognize our friend and colleague from Alaska.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
going to be opening the floor soon with my amendment, but I
come to welcome to the Committee once again a former Chief of
Staff of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, former
Secretary of Navy, currently at the OMB and other times
Professor at Syracuse University. Sean O'Keefe is a man of
great honor, great talent, great ability and he is the right
man for NASA at this time. I am delighted to have an
opportunity to be here and recommend him to the Committee for
quick confirmation. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Well, I thank my colleague and it is a plus
for this Committee that Senator Stevens and Mr. O'Keefe go way
back. Mr. O'Keefe, we welcome you. This morning, the Committee
is going to consider the nomination of Deputy Director Sean
O'Keefe of the Office of Management and Budget, to be the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. NASA is charged to undertake research regarding
flight activities in aeronautics and space. The Subcommittee on
Science, Technology, and Space, which I chair, has oversight
responsibility of NASA. NASA, with a budget of over $15
billion, is the largest program within the Subcommittee's
jurisdiction. I look forward to working with Mr. O'Keefe on
many of the issues facing the agency. Mr. O'Keefe will bring to
the job a reputation of a tough fiscal watchdog.
His skills are especially needed at NASA right now. Mr.
O'Keefe's watch will begin during the period of exceptionally
tough choices for our Nation's space program. Costs for the
horrendously mismanaged Space Station have shot out of control
while its capabilities have shrunk. Unless Mr. O'Keefe can get
the International Space Station program back in the box--and
quickly--the Space Station will use not only allotted
resources, but will devour the dollars needed for NASA's other
high-priority missions.
The fiscal bottom line is clear. There will not be a
massive infusion of new funds for NASA during Mr. O'Keefe's
tenure. Mr. O'Keefe's principal challenge will be to refocus
the agency and existing Federal funds for carrying out NASA's
original goals--research, development, and scientific
exploration of space. Specifically, I want Mr. O'Keefe to
return NASA to a science and research driven agenda so that our
dedicated scientists and engineers can find the breakthrough
technologies that have been NASA at its best.
I want to be clear. I am not interested in Mr. O'Keefe
coming in and being a fiscal watchdog to narrow NASA's scope,
but so NASA can enlarge its scientific visions. The chief value
of sound financial management is to ensure the agency has the
resources to fulfill its mission. I want Mr. O'Keefe to cut the
massive overhead that keeps us from the stars.
There will be opposition to this approach. As chair of this
subcommittee, I intend to work closely with my colleagues from
Congress, those in the Administration with the country's
science leadership and find a way to make this crucial
transition. It is absolutely central to the bright future we
all want for NASA.
As Mr. O'Keefe begins to return NASA's resources to its
origins, I believe that safety must continue to be the No. 1
priority. I also believe that ensuring safety, shortening
timelines, and introducing new technologies do not have to be
mutually exclusive. You cannot convince me that NASA doesn't
have the talent to come up with new ways of doing things that
are also smarter ways of doing things.
Cutting fat doesn't mean cutting corners on safety. Where
there are dollars spent on layers of bureaucracy or other
areas, the fat is not protective padding. The fat is what's
keeping NASA's missions from reaching their full potential. For
example, with respect to the International Space Station, in
1993 when the current design was adopted, NASA said the Space
Station would cost $17.4 billion for construction, no more than
$2.1 billion per year.
Earlier this year, NASA admitted the cost of completing the
Space Station had grown to roughly $30 billion, almost $5
billion above cost caps imposed by the Congress. Cost overruns
for the Space Station reduced a number of astronauts able to
work there. The station is being redesigned and dubbed U.S.
core complete, but it is far from the complete scientific
platform originally envisioned.
NASA scrapped plans for the crew return vehicle,
application module and the propulsion module. Even with those
cutbacks, NASA will still have to find ways to make management
more efficient and do a better job of estimating costs before
an even scaled-back version of the program. NASA charged a task
force to conduct an independent external review for the
program. It recently published a recommendation. We are going
to discuss them this morning with Mr. O'Keefe.
The challenge of the Space Station is not enough. NASA also
faces the difficult challenge of funding necessary upgrades to
the fleet of Space Shuttles. The subcommittee already held a
hearing on this topic. These upgrades have become increasingly
important as the life expectancy of the Space Shuttle has been
stunted. Mr. O'Keefe is going to be faced with tough choices
that are certainly not going to always be possible, but it is
essential that he choose well.
It is not simply that NASA produces the technology to drive
our Nation's economy from aerospace and electronics. The future
of the human race in space rests on a renewing of NASA's
purpose. The alternative is dire. Continuing on the current
path will surely bind NASA to Earth and its mission along with
it.
Mr. O'Keefe needs this Committee's support. I look forward
to his testimony and I want to make it clear that we anticipate
swift confirmation. For those who are keeping track, this would
be his second confirmation in less than a year, fourth overall.
We are going to have some introductions in a moment, Mr.
O'Keefe, but first I want to recognize my colleague, the
distinguished Senator from Arizona.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you and Chairman Hollings for calling this hearing today. Mr.
O'Keefe's nomination comes at an important juncture for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I appreciate
your willingness to work with myself and others on the
Committee to give consideration to this important nomination in
a very timely fashion. I welcome you, Mr. O'Keefe, and your
family who are with you here today.
As we all know, Mr. O'Keefe is currently the Deputy
Director of OMB and he has a history of taking on major
challenges. He took over as Secretary of the Navy at a very
demanding and stressful time for that branch of our services.
The challenge of leading NASA appears to be equally
demanding. The agency is currently at a major point in its
history. When I was the Chairman of this Committee, I was
amazed as much as anyone by the many reports on management
problems at the agency.
At times it appeared as if the agency was ``bleeding
billions'' on major cost overruns. There are many who say that
NASA has come to stand for ``Never A Straight Answer.'' Based
upon its interface with the Commerce Committee, I say there is,
unfortunately, some truth to it.
I have written to the agency about incomplete and
inaccurate information provided to the Committee. The important
point to be realized today is for NASA to understand that
accurate and complete information is critical for the Congress
to be able to develop effective legislation. They, of any
agency, should understand the virtues of sound decisionmaking
processes.
The recent Young Report, which I hope all Members of the
Committee will read, has highlighted several management issues
on the most visible program at NASA, the International Space
Station. I'd like to mention just a few of the findings from
the Report. The program's technical achievements to date are
extraordinary. The existing program plan is not credible,
according to the Young Commission.
Existing deficiencies in management structure,
institutional culture, cost estimating, and program control
must be acknowledged and corrected in order for the program to
move forward. Cost estimates for the U.S.-funded enhancements
are not sufficiently developed to assess credibility, and there
are opportunities to maximize research on the core station
program with modest cost impact.
I think these findings do a good job of describing the
current condition of the program. Based on this Committee's
work over the past years, I feel that many of these findings
would also be applicable to many other programs at NASA. The
Young Report cites the need for major decisions to be made.
Delaying these decisions will only cost the taxpayers more
money. I believe that we, the Congress, and the Administration,
need to make a conscientious decision on the future of the
Space Station. I am willing to work with you and other Members
of the Committee and the Administration to develop a plan
within the next 120 days for the future of the Station.
I propose that Mr. O'Keefe lead this effort. The choice is
whether we want to continue spending $100 billion of taxpayer
funds and receive 20 hours per week of research in return, or
do we want to invest additional funds and get a more functional
research facility in return. If the latter is the preference,
we will require additional program controls. Finding the
funding for additional work won't be easy. Priorities must be
established and followed.
Members of this Committee are concerned about the other
areas at NASA as well. Space science, earth science, space
transportation and aeronautics are all important to NASA, as
well as the Nation. After the events of September 11th, the
Nation is in need of immediate advancements in the aeronautical
science arena. This is an opportunity for NASA to really put
its research on display before the world. I know the Science,
Technology, and Space Subcommittee is considering additional
hearings in this area, and I applaud them for doing so.
A coherent vision for the agency is also important. I look
forward to working with this outstanding nominee to define and
refine the agency's vision, however, we also know that vision
without a strategy is just an illusion. Again, I look forward
to working with the nominee to develop the appropriate strategy
for this provision.
In light of the problems and concerns I have just mentioned
and many others, I feel that Mr. O'Keefe makes an excellent
nominee as an excellent Administrator of NASA. I think he has
the right skills and capabilities at the right time to fully
restore the meaning of NASA. I fully support this nomination.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I look
forward to quick action on this nominee.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator John McCain
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Chairman Hollings for calling
this hearing today. Mr. O'Keefe's nomination comes at an important
juncture for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
I appreciate your willingness to work with myself and others on the
Committee to give consideration to this important nomination in such a
timely manner.
Mr. O'Keefe, currently the Deputy Director of OMB, has a history of
taking on major challenges. He took over as Secretary of the Navy at a
very demanding and stressful time for that branch of our services. The
challenge of leading NASA appears to be equally demanding. The agency
is currently at a major point in its history.
When I was Chairman of this Committee, I was amazed as much as
anyone by the many reports on the management problems at the agency. At
times, it appeared as if the agency was ``bleeding billions'' on major
cost overruns.
There are many who say that NASA has come to stand for ``Never A
Straight Answer.'' Based upon on its interface with the Commerce
Committee, I say there is, unfortunately, some truth to it. I have
written to the agency about incomplete and inaccurate information
provided to the Committee. I think the important point to be realized
here today is for NASA to understand that accurate and complete
information is critical for the Congress to be able to develop
effective legislation. They, of any agency, should understand the
virtues of good and sound information in the decisionmaking process.
The recent Young Report has highlighted several management issues
on the most visible program at NASA, the International Space Station. I
would like to mention just a few of the findings from the report:
The program's technical achievements to date are
extraordinary;
The existing program plan is not credible;
Existing deficiencies in management structure,
institutional culture, cost estimating, and program control must be
acknowledged and corrected for the program to move forward;
Cost estimates for the U.S.-funded enhancements are not
sufficiently developed to assess credibility; and
There are opportunities to maximize research on the core
station program with modest cost impact.
These findings do a good job of describing the current condition of
the program. Mr. Chairman, based on this Committee's work over the past
years, I feel that many of these findings would also be applicable to
many other programs at NASA.
The Young Report cites the need for major decisions to be made.
Delaying these decisions will only cost the taxpayers more money. Mr.
Chairman, I believe that we, the Congress, and the Administration need
to make a conscientious decision on the future of the Space Station. I
am willing to work with you and the other Members of this Committee and
the Administration to develop a plan within the next 120 days for the
future of the Station.
I propose that Mr. O'Keefe, if confirmed, lead this effort. The
choice is whether we want to continue spending $100 billion of
taxpayers funds and receive 20 hours per week of research in return or
do we want to invest additional funds and a get more functional
research facility in return.
If the latter is the preference, we will require additional program
controls. Finding the funding for this additional work will not be
easy. Priorities must be established and followed.
Members of this Committee are concerned about the other areas at
NASA as well. Space science, earth science, space transportation, and
aeronautics are all important to NASA, as well as the Nation.
After the events of September 11, the Nation is in immediate need
of advancements in the aeronautical science arena. This is an
opportunity for NASA to really put its research on display before the
world. I know the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee is
considering additional hearings in this area and I applaud them for
doing so.
A coherent vision for the agency is also important. I look forward
to working with this outstanding nominee to define and refine the
agency's vision. However, we also know that vision without a strategy
is just an illusion. Again, I look forward to working with the nominee
to develop the appropriate strategy for that new vision.
Mr. Chairman, in light of the problems and concerns that I have
just mentioned and many others, I feel that Mr. O'Keefe makes an
excellent nominee as the next Administrator of NASA. I think that he
has the right skills and capabilities at the right time to fully
restore the meaning of NASA as the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. I fully support this nomination.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing and I look
forward to working you and Chairman Hollings in moving this nomination.
Senator Wyden. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am
pleased to support Mr. O'Keefe. I think the President has
chosen well. I think, as some have suggested, NASA faces some
very unique challenges at this moment, and Mr. O'Keefe's
particular talent fits well with the opportunity to meet those
challenges. But let me say despite all of these issues that
have been raised, and I think they are appropriately raised, I
deeply admire the men and women of NASA who are America's
finest explorers of our universe. I have long believed that a
society that stops exploring is a society that stops
progressing.
All of us very much want NASA to succeed. This is an
important and exciting set of missions on behalf of our
country, and I believe all of us want success for NASA, so Mr.
O'Keefe is offered to us by President Bush as his nominee.
Mr. O'Keefe and I met yesterday, and I am very pleased to
support this nomination. I think the President has chosen well.
Senator Wyden. Senator Hutchison.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you
and Chairman Hollings and Senator McCain for having this
hearing early. I think it is so important that we have firm
leadership at NASA for the long-term future. I am supporting
Mr. O'Keefe. He came to see me right after his nomination,
which I appreciate.
I have to say, I have reservations, not because of anything
particular with you, but because I am concerned about the OMB
actions toward NASA, since the first of this year. I think OMB
has focused on budget cutting and I don't think the leader of
NASA can be just a budget cutter. I think the leader of NASA
must look at the big picture. I think the leader of NASA must
change the problems at NASA which are budget related, but they
are leadership related as well, and we have been in limbo for
too long, and I want to have a firm leader. For that reason, I
am going to ask for confirmation before we leave in December so
that you can take firm control and hopefully prove that you
have a vision for NASA that will be a long-term vision.
Most particularly, Mr. O'Keefe and I discussed the Young
Report, and Mr. O'Keefe suggested that this would be the
backbone of his beginning to grapple with the problems at NASA.
In the Young Report, I thought the most important red flag was
the issue of the core complete 3-person crew that would be in
the Space Station, and whether that would be a permanent
situation or whether the goal would be to achieve core complete
3-person crew and then move beyond that to the 7-person crew.
It is said in the Young Report, and confirmed by others
that I consulted, that it takes about 2\1/2\ crew members just
to operate the Space Station, thus leaving only half a person
worth of man hours to conduct research. If we expend all of the
station efforts on operating the station, I think we will lose
the forest among the trees. We will lose the big picture and we
will lose what is uniquely NASA's mission, which is to go
beyond operating and have the capability to do the innovative
research that only the Space Station can do, such as with the
microgravity conditions. So I would like to ask Mr. O'Keefe if
he is committed to moving beyond core complete into the
capability to have more scientists be able to conduct the
research.
I think this also has an impact on our international
relations. Our international partners are not interested in
just operating a station. They are interested in the research
that they are going to get for their investment. I think it
would otherwise be an abrogation of our agreements. In spirit
with our international partners, we should seek to learn enough
that is new and creative in the medical field, as well as the
scientific field, that we will all be able to then create the
industries and the improvements in quality of life that that
research will bring.
I don't think you can precisely budget a war, and I don't
think you can precisely budget innovative research. By its
nature, when you are pushing the envelope, you are going to
have mistakes. You are going to have miscalculations, you are
going to learn from those and create your final product. So I
am going to hope that there is more than a budget cutting
mentality and a vision along with a common sense budget
mentality.
I have great faith in the President of the United States'
commitment to NASA. I believe that he believes, along with Vice
President Cheney, that NASA is one of the economic engines of
America. It is what has given us the leadership in the world
for creative and very valuable satellite information and
quality of life improvements, and I think we can do more if you
have the capability to produce the vision that will assure we
stay in the forefront.
So I will be your biggest booster if I see that in you. You
have said that the Young Report will be your basic guideline. I
think the Young Report is quite sound, and if you can create
the infrastructure that will allow us to go forward with that
vision, then NASA will get its feet back on the ground and we
will have the same kind of creativity and spirit at NASA that
has inspired the American people to be supportive and has
created a basis for new scientists and an inspiration to the
young people of our country that science is a very important
component of entrepreneurship and creativity in our country.
I do support the nomination. I will be working with you
hand and glove. I want you to produce, and I want you to show
more than an OMB mentality. I thank you. I hope that we can
give him the opportunity to be the leader at a very early
chance, and I think before we leave, we should confirm this
nominee so that he can take the next 2 months when we are not
in session to put his team together and begin to offer us the
plans that would show that there is a new day and a new vision
and a new spirit for NASA.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague.
Here's how we are going to proceed at this point, because
we have a vote on the floor of the Senate. We have the
distinguished Minority leader here with us, Senator Lott and
his schedule is very tight. At this point, I want to recognize
Senator Lott. We will then break for the vote. When we return,
we will recognize Senator Nelson, who was here next, and then
Senator Allen and Senator Burns.
Senator Lott, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Lott. Thank you. I thank my colleagues for giving
me this courtesy. I just wanted to be here and congratulate
Sean O'Keefe on being nominated for NASA Administrator. I think
NASA has an important role for our country, but I think NASA
has been wandering around for the last several years without a
real vision for the future without the type of leadership
really needed and frankly, in many instances, in certain
programs without sufficient money to do the job properly. Then
in other areas, Congress has forced money on NASA for programs
that probably are not of sufficient value. So I hope that your
experience at the Department of Management and Budget, and your
knowledge of Congress will help you in trying to get NASA
headed in the right direction.
I have felt like in recent years that commitments were made
by NASA that weren't kept, and that particularly unnerves me
when I have the feel that the leadership of an agency is not
being square with you or honest with you. And I hope that as
certain people have said why you need budget responsibility and
your strengths, that you are not going there to just phase it
out or phase it down. If it is a core agency, focus on getting
the work done where it needs to be done.
If you are going to NASA just for a BRACC type arrangement,
you are going to meet a lot of resistance from a lot of us here
in this room. I personally have been supportive of NASA over
the years and disappointed at various times, but it is doing a
lot of innovative things. Vehicle manufacturing has a lot of
potential that will be useful for NASA, but also in the
commercial area.
One area that I am particularly interested in is the
Landsat data continuity mission, which I think will yield a lot
of that, and it will be useful in the private sector. Once
again, it looks to me like NASA is moving toward NASA owning a
single satellite and minimizing the value of this program, as
opposed to using the commercial, the private area to get the
maximum bang for the buck and to make sure that there is
competition and that this is not just a government-run program.
You have a lot of private issues to get involved in. Let me
just ask you that in particular. For years, I have urged NASA,
by the way, to get the information you have, the technology you
get, the science that you benefit from into the private sector,
and that has not been easy.
We made a little progress in this Landsat area. Are you
committed to that type approach, as opposed to just a
government-run and operated program?
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Senator Lott. Well, I could ask a whole lot of questions.
Senator Wyden. We are going to invite you right after the
break to join us if you can. As you can see, Mr. O'Keefe, our
colleagues have strong minds on these issues. I am going to
break for 10 minutes and as you can see, we are going to have a
vigorous debate this morning and we will start with Mr.
Boehlert when we return.
[Recess.]
Senator Wyden. The hearing will come to order. We are very
pleased to have Sherry Boehlert here. Please proceed to
introduce the nominee.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK
Representative Boehlert. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak in support of the nomination of Mr. Sean O'Keefe to serve
as Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. I hope that the Senate will follow your example
by moving quickly to confirm this nomination. Sean O'Keefe is a
dedicated public servant who has never shirked difficult
challenges.
He served as Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the
Department of Defense, later as Secretary of the Navy and
earlier this year was confirmed by the Senate to serve as
Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. By
their nature, these are not jobs that earn you many friends,
but Sean has earned a reputation for being a talented manager,
fair and open-minded while being absolutely committed to
ensuring that the agencies he manages are adaptable, efficient
and mission focused. That is exactly what NASA needs today.
I have not been impressed by the criticism of Sean
sometimes offered that Sean is ``a budgeteer, not a
rocketeer.'' Well, guess what, Sean is not going to NASA to
personally design rockets. But he knows enough about rockets to
know that they burn cash, just as assuredly as they burn fuel,
and that both propellers are finite. It won't hurt NASA to have
someone who can husband the agency's resources. But the
criticism is not only less damning than intended, it is also
unfair.
Sean is indeed a skilled manager who wants to make sure
that taxpayer dollars are spent effectively, but that doesn't
make him any less of a thinker. Like any good manager, Mr.
O'Keefe is not just interested in how many dollars are spent,
but on what they are spent for. And I know from our
conversations that he is excited intellectually by the
challenge of working to design the space program that will
increase our understanding of both Earth and outer space, hone
our Nation's technological edge, and add to our economic
strength.
NASA has accomplished that in the past, and it should in
the future. That is why I, like most Americans, am a strong
supporter of NASA and the manned and unmanned space programs.
I remember the thrill of watching the first landing on the
Moon. My fear and the faith of the crew of Apollo 13 and the
unforgettable horror of Challenger. I have marvelled at
unmanned probes to the outer reaches of our solar system and at
the technological achievement that is represented by the
International Space Station. Nonetheless, NASA is an agency
that has lost its way.
The cost trajectory of its marquee program, the Space
Station, is unsustainable. This is truer today than ever in
this time of vanishing surpluses and pressing national security
and redevelopment needs. We can no longer afford to manage
large technical programs without any real regard for costs.
The question, of course, is how we proceed from here.
At the current rate, we will have pumped more than $30
billion more into the station, enough money to fund the
National Science Foundation for almost a decade and we need to
salvage that investment. We need to complete the core elements
of the station within the existing budget. We need to ensure
that the cost of building the Space Station does not eat into
other programs and prevent NASA from pursuing its other
scientific missions, and as we do this, we need to look at
options to ensure that the station is capable of fulfilling its
primary mission, science.
The Young Task Force stated that NASA must undergo radical
reforms if it is to restore credibility to the Space Station
program. That was a biting critique of the way this program has
been managed. But it also marked the path, albeit painful, that
NASA must travel if it is to restore its credibility and
generate broad public support for future missions. I believe
that Sean O'Keefe is prepared for this challenge and that he is
dedicated to restoring NASA to its place as the crown jewel of
American technology and ingenuity.
This will require established a new vision of the future of
the agency and restoring the sense of mission that NASA has
lacked since the race to put a man on the Moon. It will also
require management reforms and changes to the way NASA conducts
its business.
I am confident that Sean O'Keefe has the toughness, the
intellect and the dedication to meet this challenge. I urge you
to favorably report his nomination out and hope that he will be
confirmed before we leave for the holidays, and may I also
submit, Mr. Chairman, for the record, a strong letter of
endorsement from Chairman Dana Rohrabacher of the House
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Sherwood Boehlert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Sherwood Boehlert
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity speak in support of the nomination of Mr. Sean O'Keefe to
serve as Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. I hope that the Senate will follow your example by
moving quickly to confirm his nomination.
Sean O'Keefe is a dedicated public servant who has never shirked
difficult challenges. He served as Comptroller and Chief Financial
Officer of the Department of Defense, later as Secretary of the Navy,
and earlier this year was confirmed by the Senate to serve as Deputy
Director of the Office of Management and Budget. By their nature, these
are not jobs that win you many friends. But Sean has earned a
reputation for being a talented manager--fair and open minded--while
being absolutely committed to ensuring that the agencies he manages are
adaptable, efficient and mission focused.
That is exactly what NASA needs today.
I have not been impressed by the criticism of Sean--sometimes
offered sotto voce--that Sean is quote: ``a budgeteer, not a
rocketeer.'' Well, guess what? Sean is not going to NASA to personally
design rockets. But he knows enough about rockets to know that they
burn cash just as assuredly as they burn fuel, and that both
propellants are finite. It won't hurt NASA to have someone who can
husband the agency's resources.
But the criticism is not only less damning than intended; it's also
unfair. Sean is indeed a skilled manager who wants to make sure that
taxpayer dollars are spent effectively, but that doesn't make him any
less of a thinker. Like any good manager, Sean is not just interested
in how many dollars are spent, but in what they are spent for. And I
know from our conversations that he is excited intellectually by the
challenge of working to design a space program that will increase our
understanding of both Earth and outer space, hone our Nation's
technological edge, and add to our economic strength.
NASA has accomplished that in the past, and should in the future.
That's why I, like most Americans, am a strong supporter of NASA and
the manned and unmanned space programs. I remember the thrill of
watching the first landing on the Moon, my fear for the fate of the
crew of Apollo 13, and the unforgettable horror of Challenger. I have
marveled at unmanned probes to the outer reaches of our solar system
and at the technological achievement that is represented by the
International Space Station.
Nonetheless, NASA is an agency that has lost its way. The cost
trajectory of its marquee program--the Space Station--is unsustainable.
This is truer today than ever in this time of vanishing surpluses and
pressing national security and redevelopment needs. We can no longer
afford to manage large technical programs without any real regard for
cost.
The question, of course, is how we proceed from here.
At the current rate, we will have pumped more than $30 billion into
the station--enough money to fund the National Science Foundation for
almost a decade--and we need to salvage that investment. We need to
complete the core elements of the station within the existing budget.
We need to ensure that the costs of building the Space Station do not
eat into other programs and prevent NASA from pursuing its other
scientific missions. And, as we do this, we need to look at options to
ensure that the station is capable of fulfilling its primary mission--
science.
The Young Task Force stated that NASA must undergo radical reforms
if it is to restore credibility to the Space Station program. This was
a biting critique of the way this program has been managed. But it is
also marks the path, albeit painful, that NASA must travel if it is to
restore its credibility and generate broad public support for future
missions.
I believe that Sean O'Keefe is prepared for this challenge and that
he is dedicated to restoring NASA to its place as the crown jewel of
American technology and ingenuity. This will require establishing a new
vision of the future of the agency and restoring the sense of mission
that NASA has lacked since the race to put a man on the Moon. It will
also require management reforms and changes to the way NASA conducts
its business.
I am confident that Sean has the toughness, the intellect, and the
dedication to meet this challenge. I urge you to favorably report his
nomination out and hope that he will be confirmed before we leave for
the holidays.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Without objection. Chairman Boehlert we very
much appreciate you coming over here to offer a statement. You
are always welcome here. Thank you for an excellent statement.
The nominee is lucky to have you in his corner, and we will
excuse you at this time.
Next in the order of appearance, our colleague from
Florida, Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Congressman Boehlert, it is getting to be a
regular occasion that you are coming, as you were here
yesterday and your testimony was eloquent then. Under--I might
say--withering questioning and you were excellent and you are
again today.
Representative Boehlert. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Nelson. A pleasure to have you as a friend and a
colleague.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted, I had the privilege of
talking with Mr. O'Keefe for a couple of hours yesterday, and I
want to follow up in detail. I would just say by way of
introductory comments that some of the concerns that Senator
Hutchison of Texas has expressed, I would echo some of those
concerns.
Here we have a little agency that is the symbol of
America's technological prowess. And so much of the hopes and
the dreams of America, particularly our youth, are summed up in
the success of this little agency. And this little agency needs
a leader, and a strong leader. It needs a leader in the mold of
Jim Webb, the leader that in the glory days of NASA, took us to
the Moon and safely to return.
That is a tall order for Mr. O'Keefe to handle. One of the
questions that I asked him yesterday that I would like for him
to expand on today is his vision for NASA. This morning's
Orlando Sentinel has a story that says that America's European
partners in the International Space Station Thursday threatened
to pull out of the deal because of a U.S. proposal to scale
back the orbiting lab. That just adds another complication to
the enormous complexity that we have.
The political component of this is a very important
component. That is our relationship with other nations because
we have a common ground, upon which adversaries and former
enemies can come together as was so aptly demonstrated in the
Cold War when an American and Soviet spacecraft wound up in
space and for 9 days those cosmonauts and astronauts did it
together. Commander Tom Stafford is one of the people that I
have reached out to in preparation for this hearing today.
I tell you that story simply to say that there is so much
riding on the success of this little agency called NASA. And I
believe that through 3 Administrations, including the present
one, that they have targeted it for cuts that you just cannot
keep cutting without paying the price. And when you and I sat
here at this table in the first week of September for that day-
long hearing on Space Shuttle safety. Of course that is one of
the concerns that I have, that the cuts are ultimately going to
end up where the Space Shuttle safety upgrades are not made,
that they are stretched out, and will cause us to have another
accident. And if that occurs, and it is always possible. There
are 1,500 critical parts on Space Shuttle. Any one of which
fails, that is it.
And if that happens, then the entire manned space program
is in jeopardy. Now, there is a lot more at stake here. Because
after you and I had the hearing, the very next Tuesday, the
great tragedy occurred, and now we know as we go after these
terrorists all over the world that we have got to have the
assets up there for the signal intelligence as well as the
extremely important human intelligence.
And Lord forbid that, thank goodness we have got the
Florida National Guard flying F-15s right now over the Cape,
and they did so on heightened alert at the time of the launch 2
days ago. But there are a lot of other pads out there, and were
we to be denied access to space with expendable booster
rockets, the only thing left to have assured access to space is
the Space Shuttle, so that is another reason we have got to
have this as a functioning reliable system, and all of this is
going to come in on NASA. NASA's success, in large part, Mr.
O'Keefe, is going to be on whether or not the leader of NASA
gives it the leadership in order for its entrepreneurial
creativity to blossom. And so I am really looking forward to
this hearing.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague.
The Senator from Montana.
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. Senator Nelson, I am in
awe of your passion for this, but I also know from which it
comes. We were talking about those years of attempted cuts.
There was some of us who sort of stood our ground and made sure
that the money was there. I have a higher opinion of the tenure
of Dan Goldin, because he has done some things that allowed us
to build a very positive support base in every community across
this country.
We talk about the value of the Space Station. We talk about
the value of pushing the envelope, and doing those things that
we can do now. But we also, we tend to forget about the work
that was done to broaden the support of NASA, because no other
single entity that this government does so stimulates the
curiosity of young people, and edges them toward the sciences
and the mathematics and the physics that it is going to take to
survive in this world in the days ahead.
Take into account the financial constraints and other
limitations, I am very pleased with Mr. Goldin, although the
public was quick to criticize NASA for failed missions, it was
the successes and the advancements in the work with students
that occurred with little fanfare that the media did not pick
up. Space exploration is risky at best. And it is also an
unknown business.
But I would say to a Nation today that once we are lulled
or numbed into a society that shrinks and does not push the
envelope and continues to reach out and to explore the unknown,
then we will be a shrinking society that will fade from the
face of the earth. 150 NASA launches since 1952, and only 10 on
record that I have said they were failed missions.
That is pretty good when you are dealing in the unknown.
And developing new technologies in order to accomplish the
mission that is ahead.
Furthermore, the successes of NASA goes way beyond
exploration. In my little State of Montana, 950,000 people,
many of our State University researchers are working on NASA
with several initiatives so far with very satisfactory results.
The University of Montana is a NASA partner on Earth
observations systems or the OES program. The university has
promoted interests in science, engineering and technologies to
all ages from the young to the elderly.
Montana State University and NASA officials recently
participated in a conference on astrobiology. How did we get
here and evolve and what is the destiny of life on Earth and
what it means to us were some of the questions they asked. MSU
scientists are playing a role in searching for life in extreme
environments. The Institute of Thermal Biology hosted a meeting
with key researchers and NASA top management in an overview to
finding the search for life in those environments.
Previously unknown life forms have been discovered in
Yellowstone National Park under very, very difficult
environments, and also in the gold mines of South Africa desert
that has never received a drop of water. So NASA's Earth
sciences program is dedicated to transferring the knowledge
that we know by looking down on Earth to the resources that can
be utilized to our Nation's agriculture and food and fiber
production, to our people who utilize our national renewable
resources, our land planners, and our health organizations.
During the meeting I had with Mr. O'Keefe, and I will say
speaking as a Scottsman, turning this over to an Irishman makes
me a bit uncomfortable there, but I was very encouraged by his
desire to reach out to students in educational institutions,
and that is the key to the NASA success.
I also want to draw one parallel here. There was a time we
lagged behind Russia in space technology. And to compare the
two societies is almost like comparing day and night. The
Russians took their technology and they would not share it with
anybody. They stuck it in a safe away from the rest of the
world and especially to their own people. Where NASA took the
technology that we developed and set up technology transfer
centers and got it out into the public sector where every one
of us in this room, we drive automobiles, our new composites,
our computer systems was a result of that technology transfer.
And all of society, we are all benefactors of this program.
We continue to grow and to lead the world with not only
this agency, but also all of America in various ways. Our
friends in Russia are gone. That is a stark difference. But it
is like Senator Nelson said, this is a spirit of America, and
we are going to have failures, because we are dealing with
pushing the envelope, and like I said, nobody has to sell me on
the merits of this program, because I am a disciple. You see, I
do not have a college degree. I am not proud of that.
A lot of folks that work at NASA have a lot of letters
behind their names. Behind my name is NDBBA, ``No Degree, But
Boss Anyway.'' But I think that we have to have a vision to
dream and we have to make sure that this continues for my
children and grandchildren and generations to come that will
prosper in this great country and the spirit that it has. I
kind of got off on a little tangent here. But I really believe
this is one of the most important appointments that this
Administration will make and it is one of the most important
missions that this Committee has under its jurisdiction in its
support of the future. I thank the Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague.
The Senator from Virginia.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
holding this hearing and I want to associate myself with the
remarks that you made at the outset of this hearing, as well as
those of Senator McCain, Senator Hutchison, and I did not hear
Senator Nelson, but Senator Burns hit the nail right on the
head. I join my colleagues, Mr. O'Keefe, in welcoming you here
to this Committee. I look forward to listening to your vision,
your views as to where NASA needs to go and to the future and
also working with you in the future.
In my opinion, NASA is just a uniquely wonderful government
organization. It is one that is made up with brilliant people,
some of whom are dreamers. They are intellectuals, and just
some truly topnotch scientists as well. In terms of leadership
in the scientific community, NASA is just one of the very top
in the entire world, not just this country, but all over the
world. In its scientific research that has direct benefits
clearly to our national security and national defense, but also
to our economy, and tangibly over the years, has improved the
lives of Americans and people all over the world.
Americans, I think, should be and are proud of the historic
accomplishments of NASA. But we are not here to talk about the
past. We are here to talk about the future. And there is a lot
of talk about the way things have been in the last few years.
It is important to look at past record and where it can be
improved, but what I am most interested in is really what was
alluded to by Senator Hutchison and Senator Burns, and that is
the core guiding principles that will mark your leadership.
Leaders are to lead, to motivate, to inspire, and to get others
to join in that cause.
I think that the guiding principles here need to be held in
equal esteem. No. 1, it should be continued scientific
excellence for the competitive leadership of America in
aeronautics and space, and the second principle should be, of
course, fiscal responsibility with the taxpayers' dollars.
Those are two equally important principles and goals.
Now, from what I have read in the newspapers and discern
through answers that you have had, Mr. O'Keefe, to the
Committee questionnaires, I see that these objectives seem to
be your objectives.
Now, folks have talked about the Space Station at length. I
want to focus on the first A of NASA, which is aeronautics.
That is scientific excellence that we need to focus on,
because it is an important responsibility of NASA. Back when I
was Chairman of the subcommittee, before Senator Wyden was
Chairman of the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee,
back in April, we held a hearing on aeronautics in our country.
We heard about Europe's serious plan to dominate the skies in
the future. At the same time, we heard about a lack of
attention given to the U.S. programs for advancements in this
vital area of aeronautics.
The question is for all of us and you as Administrator, Mr.
O'Keefe, what does the United States intend to do about this?
What do we intend to do and how are we going to respond to this
challenge? If we are going to respond to this challenge, which
I think Americans would want us to do, when, and how? And in
that hearing, it was made abundantly clear that aviation-
related manufacturing as far as jobs in this country is the
next exporter in our economy and so if we lose this
preeminence, that means a loss of some outstanding jobs and
capabilities here in our country. A study by the National
Research Council stated that the continued reductions in
funding for aeronautics research and development may have
irreversible consequences.
Back in the 1970s and 1980s, where our main competition may
have been the Soviet Union, America was still alone at the top
in the field of aeronautics research. No other country in the
world could boast what we had then. But since early 1990s, the
U.S. position in this field has steadily declined and now the
very existence of our U.S. entry in this field is being
threatened by better funded European initiatives. Once the
United States loses this leadership position, it will be
extremely difficult to regain that leadership role given the
difficulty of reassembling the infrastructure, the scientists,
the engineers, the highly skilled people in the investment
capital that is needed. It is not as if you just find people
who have those capabilities or the facilities.
I think in addition to this international challenge, we
have a national challenge, Mr. O'Keefe, and that has to do with
better security. We have seen it since September 11th.
I think advancements in aeronautics can help with security
as well as better transportation system through the skies and
this is going to depend on new technologies, the need is both
short-term and long-term. We need to pursue both evolutionary
and revolutionary advances, but the key to it is clearly human
capital.
We need to make sure that more and more youngsters or
younger people are studying in our colleges and universities.
The age of those who are in the aeronautics field are older
people, more likely to retire. You'll find that within the NASA
organization. We have to reverse this trend by first increasing
our efforts at aeronautics research at NASA, as well as the
private sector.
I was very pleased to read in one of the answers to your
questionnaires that the use of colleges and universities in
that effort and partnership, it doesn't need all to be NASA.
Our colleges and universities can help whatever the mission
may be on that particular project, but also encourage
youngsters or people who are being educated to get an education
in aeronautics. There are many funding matters.
There are many important missions in NASA. Aeronautics
needs to be equally there at the top. We must inspire to
improve the lives of people in the future and innovate, as well
as make sure our economy is strong and make sure we have
security in our skies. I look forward to working alongside of
you in the future for America's future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague for an excellent
statement. I am sure, Mr. O'Keefe, you are excited that you can
begin now. We welcome you and I understand the O'Keefe starting
five is here, your family. Perhaps you could introduce them at
this point to all of us.
Mr. O'Keefe. My wife Laura is here, daughter Lindsay, son
Kevin and son Jonathan.
Senator Wyden. Welcome to all of you. It is an exciting day
for the O'Keefe family. Despite all the speeches, I want to
note for the record that everybody will vote for you. We will
enter your prepared remarks in their entirety into the record.
Please proceed with your opening statement as you choose.
STATEMENT OF HON. SEAN O'KEEFE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, NOMINEE TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. O'Keefe. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it
is a pleasure to be here this morning. I am most honored to be
the President's nominee to be Administrator of National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. It has been a particular
honor to enjoy the sponsorship of the distinguished House
Science Committee Chairman, Congressman Sherry Boehlert and my
long-time friend and mentor, Senator Ted Stevens. I am honored
by their support and deeply appreciate their kind
introductions.
Should the Senate confirm the President's nomination, I
expect that service as a NASA Administrator will be a daunting
challenge, but I have been overwhelmed by the willingness of
the Members of this Committee and counterparts in the House to
offer invaluable advice and counsel on how these challenges
should be addressed. It speaks volumes about the prospect of a
strong constructive working relationship with this panel and
with Mr. Boehlert's Committee colleagues if I am confirmed.
I am most excited by this opportunity and am privileged
that the President has entrusted his confidence by his
nomination. NASA is an unparalleled preeminent institution
dedicated to world class technology research and development
with a storied history known to all Americans. We all take
great pride in remarkable achievements and the dedication of
the amazing professionals our Nation has been fortunate to
attract to the agency's important mission.
The President and the Vice President have charged me with
the task of capitalizing on this impressive legacy, and
reinvigorating that entrepreneurial spirit that has
characterized this fabled institution since its beginning in
1958. Their expectation is that NASA will press the edge of the
technology envelope and develop science-driven enterprises and
applications in the finest traditions of this institution.
Now, to accomplish this task, I'd like to say that I bring
the full range of experience and capability that anyone would
hope to have as an Administrator. But I must be honest with
this Committee and with myself that I do not embody all the
characteristics I think would be desirable. For such
challenges, I would like to be a lot more like my dad--educated
at the United States Naval Academy, Notre Dame, Tulane, Naval
Postgraduate school, he is one of the original elite corps of
Rickover-trained engineers. He excelled in a range of industry
challenges in the power generation business and shipbuilding.
Now fully retired, and that is a euphemism, at the age of 75 he
is attending Bowdoin College pursuing studies in astrophysics
and German literature. He is the quintessential Renaissance man
with a penchant for exasperating my mother.
Instead, the President's nominee before you is a public
servant fortunate to have served in a range of Federal public
institutions, academia, think tanks and private corporate
pursuits. That has contributed to complexities of space-driven
research projects and most important is the responsibility to
support and continue developing the extraordinary professionals
engaged in NASA's diverse and complex endeavors. My
qualifications are that of a public administrator, and I have
developed a good sense not to attempt tasks which require the
expertise of the chief engineer, but the skills to attract
talent qualify to succeed technology.
The immediate challenge confronting NASA today are largely
not scientific, technical or engineering in origin. Indeed, the
history and achievement in these disciplines is legendary.
Rather, the challenges are more aptly described in management
terms. Problems aren't overwhelming, but they do require
attention to fundamental management principles less they are to
be assumed by process failures. The larger vision for NASA must
include the essential leadership of NASA to develop leading
technologies rather than success defined by linear
incrementalism. Indeed, the creativity is there at NASA in the
academic community, within the industry, and with our
international partners. And this creativity can be channelled
to achieve effective results and assure that the best ideas are
pursued to get the most out of this impressive research
enterprise. But, these are noble objectives. They can be
pursued and achieved within a firm management framework.
I wish I possessed all of the range of talents that my dad
embodies. But I regret the dominant genes he passed along
mapped a path to a premature gray, receding hairline, and a
persistent sinus condition. Those are the two most dominant
traits he passed along, but the good news is that he is a very
attentive and extremely available for solid advice and counsel.
In my upbringing, he and my exceedingly tolerant mother,
instilled in me a commitment to do my very best in everything I
do.
That is an element of character I promise to employ, with
my modest talents, my wife Laura and children can attest to the
fact that it takes me a lot of time to accomplish my best. They
have tolerated my penchant for the rigors of public service, a
malady that every Member of this Committee endures for love of
country. My unending gratitude and love for them can be not
adequately expressed. They know the depth of my appreciation
for their sacrifice.
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you again
for the consideration. I look forward to the prospect of
working with you on this exciting portfolio should you and your
colleagues find it appropriate to advise and consent on the
President's nomination. I am prepared to respond to any
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of
Hon. Sean O'Keefe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sean O'Keefe
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be
here this morning. I am most honored to be the President's nominee to
be the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and I am grateful for the Committee's expeditious
consideration. It is a particular honor to enjoy the sponsorship of the
distinguished House Science Committee Chairman, Congressman Sherwood
Boehlert, and my long time friend and mentor, Senator Ted Stevens. I am
honored by their support and deeply appreciate their kind
introductions.
Should the Senate confirm the President's nomination, I expect that
service as the NASA Administrator will be a daunting challenge. But, I
have been overwhelmed by the willingness of the Members of this
Committee and counterparts in the House to offer invaluable advice and
counsel on how these challenges should be addressed. It speaks volumes
about the prospect of a strong, constructive working relationship with
this panel and with Chairman Boehlert's Committee colleagues, if I am
confirmed. I am most excited about this opportunity and am privileged
that the President has entrusted his confidence by his nomination.
NASA is an unparalleled, preeminent institution dedicated to world
class technology research and development with a storied history known
to all Americans. We all take great pride in the remarkable
achievements and dedication of the amazing professionals our Nation has
been fortunate to attract to the agency's important mission. The
President and the Vice President have charged me with the task of
capitalizing on this impressive legacy and reinvigorating the
entrepreneurial spirit that has characterized this fabled institution
since its beginning in 1958. Their expectation is that NASA will press
the edge of the technology envelope and develop science driven
enterprises and applications in the finest tradition of the
institution.
To accomplish this task, I'd like to say that I bring the full
range of experience and capability any one could hope to have in an
Administrator. I must be honest with the Committee and with myself,
that I do not embody all the characteristics I think would be
desirable. For such challenges I'd like to be more like my Dad--
educated at the Naval Academy, Notre Dame, Tulane and the Naval
Postgraduate School, he is one of the original, elite corps of
Rickover-trained nuclear engineers. After a distinguished naval service
career, he excelled at a range of industry challenges in the power
generation business and ship construction. Now fully retired at age 75,
he's attending Bowdoin College pursuing studies in astrophysics and
German literature--conducted in the language. My father is the
quintessential renaissance man with a persistent quest for knowledge--
and a penchant for exasperating my mother.
Instead, the President's nominee before you is a public servant
fortunate to have served in a range of Federal public management
opportunities, academia, think tanks and private corporate pursuits.
These experiences contribute to a working understanding of the
complexities of managing a technology-driven enterprise with program
responsibilities as varied as large scale systems integration to
dynamic aerospace operations to science-driven research projects. Most
important is the responsibility to support and continue developing the
extraordinary professionals engaged in NASA's diverse and complex
endeavors. My qualifications are that of a public administrator, and
I've developed the good sense not to attempt tasks which require the
expertise of the chief engineer, and the skills to attract talent
qualified to succeed at harnessing technology.
The immediate challenges confronting NASA today are, largely, not
scientific, technical or engineering in origin. Indeed the history of
achievement in these disciplines is legendary. Rather, the challenges
are more aptly described in management terms--financial, contractual
and personnel focused. The problems are not overwhelming, but do
require attention to fundamental management principles lest the
important science and technology-driven enterprises be subsumed by
process failures. The larger vision for NASA must include the essential
element of leadership to establish strategic goals for developing leap
ahead technologies rather than successes defined by linear
incrementalism. Indeed, the creativity is there at NASA, in the
academic community, within the industry, and with our international
partners. And this creativity can be channeled to achieve effective
results and assure that the best ideas are being pursued to get the
most out of this impressive research enterprise. These are noble
objectives. They can be pursued and achieved within a firm management
framework.
I wish I possessed the full range of talents my Dad embodies, but
regret the dominant genes he passed along mapped a path to a premature
grey, receding hairline and a persistent sinus condition. The good news
is that he is very attentive and available for solid advice and
counsel. And in my upbringing, he and my unceasingly tolerant mother,
instilled in me a commitment to do my best in everything I do. That's
an element of character that I promise to employ--and with my modest
talents, my wife Laura and children, Lindsey, Jonathan and Kevin can
attest to the fact that it takes me a lot of time to accomplish my
best. They have tolerated my penchant for the rigors of public
service--a malady that every Member of this Committee endures for love
of country. My unending gratitude and love for them can not be
adequately expressed, but they know the depth of my appreciation for
their sacrifice.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for your
consideration and I look forward to the prospect of working with you on
this exciting portfolio should you and your colleagues find it
appropriate to advise and consent on the President's nomination. I am
prepared to respond to any questions the Committee may have.
______
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name: Sean O'Keefe (middle name, Charles).
2. Position to which nominated: Administrator, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.
3. Date of nomination: November 27, 2001.
4. Address: Home: Information not released to the public; Office:
1252 Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
5. Date and place of birth: January 27,1956; Monterey, California.
6. Marital status: Married to Laura O'Keefe (formerly Laura
McCarthy).
7. Names and ages of children: Lindsey SeYeon O'Keefe, Age: 15;
Jonathan JungSoo O'Keefe, Age: 12; Kevin Sean O'Keefe, Age: 10.
8. Education: Master of Public: Administration, The Maxwell School
of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, 1978;
Bachelor of Arts, Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1977;
Program in National Security and International Affairs, Kennedy School
of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985.
9. Employment record: Deputy Director, Office of Management and
Budget, March 2001-Present; Louis A. Bantle Professor of Business &
Government Policy, and Director, Maxwell-SAIS National Security
Studies, Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs; Syracuse
University, Syracuse, New York, 1996-March 2001; Professor of Business
Administration and Special Assistant to the Senior Vice President for
Research and Dean of the Graduate School, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1993-1996; Adjunct
Professor, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, 1993-March
2001; Secretary of the Navy, 1992-1993; Comptroller and Chief Financial
Officer; Department of Defense, 1989-1992; Staff Director, U.S. Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Defense Subcommittee, 1986-1989;
Professional Staff Member, 1981-1989; Budget Analyst, Naval Sea Systems
Command, Department of the Navy, 1980-1981; Presidential Management
Intern, inaugural class of 1978-1980.
10. Government experience: Advisor to the Director, Congressional
Budget Office, 1999-March 2001; Chair of the Secretary of the Navy's
Personnel Task Force, 1999-2000; Counselor to the Secretary Defense
Quality of Life Commission, 1995; Vice Chair of Pennsylvania Governor
Tom Ridge's Base Closure and Realignment Advisory Committee, 1995-1996;
Staff Member to the Louisiana State Senate Committee on Highways,
Transportation and Public Works, 1977.
11. Business relationships: Member of the Board of Trustees, The
CNA Corporation, 1995-March 2, 2001; Member of the Board of Directors,
Tesoro Petroleum Corporation, 2000-March 2, 2001; Applied Research
Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, 1994-March 2, 2001;
Chairman, 1999-March 2, 2001; Member of the Raytheon Company Strategy
Advisory Board, 1999-March 2, 2001; Member of the Northrop Grumman
Corporation Advisory Board for the Integrated Systems and
Aerostructures Sector, 2000-March 2, 2001; Member of the Sensis
Corporation Board of Directors, 2000-March 2, 2001; Member of the Board
of Directors, J. Ray McDermott, S.A. 1997-1999; Consultant, Textron
Corporation 1993-1995; Member, Advisory Board, DSR Corporation 1995-
1997; Member of the Board of Directors, GKI, Inc. 1993-1994.
12. Memberships: Member of the Information Technology Commission,
Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2000-March 2, 2001;
Member of the Naval Postgraduate School Advisory Board, 1993-1995;
Honorary Chairman, Marine Corps League Toys for Tots Campaign, Nittany
Leathernecks Detachment, 1995; Member of the Defense Acquisition
University Board of Visitors, 1996-2000; Chair, Military Investigative
Practices Study, National Academy of Public Administration, 1999-2000;
National Academy of Public Administration Fellow, 1996-present; Member
of the Bohemian Club of San Francisco, 1996-present.
13. Political affiliations and activities: (a) List all offices
with a political party which you have held or any public office for
which you have been a candidate. Registered Republican, RNC.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 10
years. Member of the Central Pennsylvania Republican Party 1993-1996;
Member of the Eastern New York Republican Party, Onondaga County 1996-
present; National Policy Forum, 1994-1995; Republican National
Committee 1981-present.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years. Senator Chafee Committee
(PAC) 1994, $100; George W. Bush for Governor Committee 1994, $500;
Republican National Committee, 1994, $250; Alliance for American
Leadership (Dick Cheney PAC) 1994, $2,000; Santorum 1994 (Senator
Santorum campaign) $250; Ted Stevens for Senate (campaign) 1996, $2,000
*; Joe McDade Legal Defense Fund 1995, $250; Peggy Wilson for City
Council (campaign) 1997, $500; Bob Livingston for Congress (campaign)
1994, $1,000; George W. Bush Exploratory Committee, 1999, $2,000 *;
George W. Bush for President, 2000, $2,000 *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contributions by myself and my wife, Laura O'Keefe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Honors and awards: Distinguished Public Service Award presented
by President George Bush and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, January
1993; Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration, elected
1996; Visiting Scholar, Wolfson College, University of Cambridge, UK,
1994; Visiting Lecture, Strategic Studies Program, Pembroke College,
Oxford University, UK, July 1994; Honorary PhD, Wheeling Jesuit
University (to be conferred May 2002).
15. Published writings: Keeping the Edge: Managing Defense for the
Future, contributing author, edited by Ashton B. Carter and John P.
White. MIT Press, October 2000; The Defense Industry in the Post-Cold
War Era; Corporate Strategies and Public Policy Perspectives, with Dr.
Gerald Susman, Elsevier Science. Oxford, UK, January 1999; Breaking the
Market or Preventing Market Breakdown: The Technology Reinvestment
Program, with Dr. Volker Franke. Maxwell-SAIS National Security Studies
Case number 1197-05, November 1997; An Analysis of the Technology
Reinvestment Program as a Method of Defense Conversion and Industrial
Policy and its Affect on Shareholder Wealth, Smeah College of Business
Administration, Pennsylvania State University, April 1996; The Orange
County Financial Crisis: The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public
Affairs, Syracuse University, case file, October 1997; A World Lit by
Lightning, Proceedings, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland,
January 1995; Planning Without a Plan: A Review of the Fiscal Year 1994
Clinton Defense Budget, American Defense Annual, Mershon Center Ohio
State University, Lexington, Books, New York, New York, February 1994;
Clinton's Stealth Weapon: The Federal Budget, The Los Angeles Times,
Los Angeles, California, February 21, 1994; The Alpha and the Omega,
Vital Speeches of the Day, Volume LIX, No. 11, Random House Publishing,
New York, New York, March 15, 1993; On Tailhook, Drop the Other Shoe,
The Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California, March 1, 1993; Despite
Tailhook, Navy on Path to Gender-Neutrality, The Times Picayune, New
Orleans, Louisiana, April 27, 1993; The Port of Heaven, Vital Speeches
of the Day, Volume LIX, No. 2, Random House Publishing, New York, NY,
November 1, 1992; From the Sea: Preparing the Naval Service for the
21st Century, Proceedings, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland,
November 1992.
16. Speeches: Testimony before the House Appropriations Committee,
April 2001, on the fiscal year 2002 NASA Budget request and before the
House Science Committee, November 2001, on the report of the
International Space Station Independence Cost and Management Task
Force.
17. Selection: (a) Do you know why you were chosen for this
nomination by the President? Yes. Based on my previous Federal
experience and understanding of the President's and Vice President's
policy agenda, I am Honored by the President's confidence to be
entrusted with this important management portfolio should the Senate
advise and consent affirmatively in the President's nomination.
(b) What do you believe in your background or employment experience
affirmatively qualifies you for this particular appointment? While NASA
is a preeminent technical, engineering and scientific exploration
agency, the challenges to be confronted are management oriented--
management of large scale systems integration projects, high-tech
infrastructure and complex research and development projects, and
leadership of high technology professionals are the primary areas which
should demand the NASA Administrator's attention. My prior experience
at the Defense Department, particularly as Secretary of the Navy, and
practical as well as academic research into the challenges of
teclulology management are most preparatory for the NASA post. My
current capacity at the Office of Management and Budget provides a
close familiarity with the President's Management Agenda which can and
should be implemented at NASA at the earliest opportunity.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers,
business firms, business associations or business organizations if you
are confirmed by the Senate? Yes, all business relationships have been
severed. However, I have been granted a leave of absence from the
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University
as the Louis A. Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy
which I may resume at the conclusion of my public service.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, explain. No.
3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after
completing government service to resume employment, affiliation or
practice with your previous employer, business firm, association or
organization? Yes. I have been granted a leave of absence from the
Syracuse University Maxwell School to resume a faculty appointment as
the Louis A. Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy upon
conclusion of public service.
4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave government service? No, aside from the
aforementioned leave of absence from Syracuse University.
5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until
the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? Presidential
appointment orders specifically qualify service at the pleasure of the
President ``for the time being.'' As such, the President's preference
will determine the duration of my service should I be confirmed.
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients or customers. None.
2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated. None that I am aware of.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated. In my official public
service capacity as Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the
Departinent of Defense, Secretary of the Navy, and currently OMB Deputy
Director, I have been routinely involved in the disposition of
legislation affecting the administration and execution of public
policy.
Since departing the public service in 1993, I had no material
involvement in the disposition of legislation. In the part-time public
service capacity as Counselor to the Secretary of Defense Commission on
Quality of Life and as Vice Chair of the Base Closure and Realignment-
Pennsylvania Action Committee (previously listed) my involvement in
such matters has been peripheral and indirect.
In my capacity as the Chairman of the National Academy of Public
Administration study of Military Investigative Practices, the panel
recommended, among other things, a change of law to permit arrest
authority to officers of the military criminal investigative
organizations. I had several discussions with members of the House
Armed Services Committee who requested further information on the
panel's findings in this regard. The fiscal year 2001 Defense
Authorization Act included the expanded arrest authority provision. To
the best of my knowledge, this is not likely to pose a conflict of
interest.
In my capacity as a member of the Board of Directors or consultant
to corporations, I did not represent their interests before any Federal
agency or department officials and know of now conflict of interest.
To my knowledge, there have been no issues which have posed a
conflict of interest during my tenure as Deputy Director of the Office
of Management and Budget.
4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
engaged for the purpose of directly or, indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy. None, other than
in previously aforementioned public service capacities.
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.) I do
not anticipate the requirement to resolve conflicts of interest, but to
the extent that any matter were to emerge which may call into question
my objectivity, I would recuse myself from consideration and decision
of any alternatives or options which could affect the outcome of the
issue and delegate the matter to the next level of management
responsibility. This was routinely my practice in each public service
capacity I was privileged to hold previously. The Department of Defense
General Counsel has retained all previous correspondence to this effect
in my prior capacities, and the General Counsel at OMB has current
recusal correspondence.
6. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee
by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning; potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position? Yes.
D. LEGAL MATTERS
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a compliant to
any court, administrative agency, professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, provide
details. I have never been disciplined or cited and have not been the
subject of a complaint to the best of my knowledge.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details. Yes. In
July 1977, I was arrested in New Orleans, Louisiana outside a
neighborhood tavern, along with a dozen others, for violating a local
ordinance against ``obstructing a sidewalk.'' I was released within
hours, the charge was dropped a few days later, the case never raised
before the municipal judicial authorities, and no fine levied or
rendered. This incident has been detailed in every security clearance,
personal background investigation, and appointment background review l
have ever completed over the past 24 years!
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in interest in an administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details. As an outside,
non-management Director of J. Ray McDermott, S.A., I was named in a
class action suit of investors/shareholders of the company attendant to
a proposal to merge J. Ray McDermott, S.A. with another company. The
merger was completed in August 1999 and the civil action was dropped
with no further action or settlement required.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination. None.
E. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines set by congressional committees for information? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistleblowers from reprisal for
their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the committee with requested
witnesses, to include technical experts and career employees with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the committee? Yes.
4. Please explain how you will review regulations issued by your
department/agency, and work closely with Congress, to ensure that such
regulations comply with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress.
Regulations are the means to implement the administrative expression of
statutory objectives. As such, regulations should capture the
legislative intent in the ideal circumstances. It is with this
philosophy that I would endeavor to promulgate applicable regulations,
if confirmed by the Senate.
5. Describe your department/agency's current mission, major
programs, and major operational objectives. Preparation of advice and
options attendant to the development of the annual President's budget;
promulgation of general management policy and procedures; and review of
administrative regulations on behalf of the Executive Office of the
President.
6. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
F. GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS AND VIEWS
1. How have your previous professional experience and education
qualifies you for the position for which you have been nominated. My
previous service as Secretary of the Navy and prior to that, as the
Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Defense
provided experience in managing larger organizations with strong
internal cultures, as well as dealing with complex budgetary and
financial management systems.
My current capacity as OMB Deputy Director provides a government-
wide perspective and understanding of the President's Management Agenda
which will be implemented at NASA as well as other agencies and
departments.
Previous academic postings, most recently as a Professor of
Business and Government Policy at Syracuse University provided
opportunities to reflect on managing innovation and professionals in
high-technology enterprises.
2. Why do you wish to serve in the position, for which you have
been nominated? The challenge of leading NASA at this point in its
extraordinary history is one of instilling management excellence worthy
of its technical excellence and of helping NASA regain a reputation for
credible cost control and risk management to enable it to take on
future challenges as well as complete its current tasks. This is an
opportunity of a lifetime.
3. What goals have you established for your first 2 years in this
position, if confirmed? As an overall vision for NASA, two elements are
dominant: program operations at NASA must be science-driven; and
programs should enable human exploration beyond Earth orbit and the
Solar System.
But first, we must reform and strengthen NASA to be able to take on
new challenges after the International Space Station and the Shuttle.
We must also: Ensure a sound financial management system and
supporting culture for the International Space Station program that
enables it to be a world-class research facility with strong
international participation; Ensure that NASA enterprises are truly
science-driven and that science requirements are established and used
as the basis for making sometimes difficult budgetary choices; Move
toward reducing the magnitude of fixed costs, such as institutional
overhead, in the NASA budget and increase the amount of discretionary
funds available for pursuing scientific opportunity; Seek to establish
closer cooperation with the Department of Defense and civil agencies to
enhance the public benefits of NASA research programs.
4. What skills do you believe you may be lacking which may be
necessary to successfully carry out this position? What steps can be
taken to obtain those skills? It is most important to reinforce a
strong teclulical and aerospace engineering staff to assist in the day-
to-day operations. NASA has a strong internal culture and persons of
integrity to help reform and strengthen NASA will be required.
In my past professional experience, I have often had to draw on
wide sources of expertise to deal with complex technical and management
problems. I am comfortable working in new, rapidly changing
environments and believe I will be able to find and attract persons
with the skills needed to be effective.
5. Who are the stakeholders in the work of this agency? The
ultimate stakeholders in NASA are the American people, and we, as
citizens deserve the very best effort to explore the reaches of cutting
edge aeronautical engineering and the reaches of space.
As an agency of the Executive Branch, NASA's principal stakeholders
are the President and the Vice President who have the responsibility
and authority to provide NASA's guidance and direction, and to whom the
Agency must be ultimately accountable. The Congressional
representatives of the people serve to reflect and focus their
interests in the course of authorizations, oversight and appropriations
of NASA's programs and budget, as requested by the President. Members
of Congress--especially those on the committee jurisdiction, have a
particular oversight responsibility for NASA programs and activities on
behalf of the American people.
Additional important stakeholders are the communities in which NASA
Centers are located and their Federal, State and local elected and
community leadership who have interests and concerns in local
viability.
Equally important stakeholders are the employees of NASA and their
families, who have a direct stake in the success of NASA, its mission
and programs. NASA conducts the bulk of its programmatic work through
contractors who also have a stake in NASA programs. There are numerous
private organizations that have a particular focus on aspects of space
exploration, and express their views through a variety of venues,
including conferences and member communications directed to the
President and Vice President, Members of Congress, and NASA officials
as well as others in the Administration.
6. What is the proper relationship between your position, if
confirmed, and the stakeholders identified in question No. 10? The NASA
Administrator must first be accountable to the President and responsive
to his guidance and direction. The Administrator must be able to
provide input to the President on NASA's needs and programmatic
alternatives, through consultation and through the budget submission
process. The Congress should also expect accountability from the NASA
Administrator. The Senate, of course, must advise and consent to the
nomination of the Administrator, and the Congress as a whole has the
ultimate responsibility to determine NASA's budget and to oversee how
that budget is put to use by the Agency. It is essential that the
appropriate information about NASA programs and activities be given to
both the President and the Congress in the most complete and accurate
manner to inform their respective decisionmaking processes.
The Administrator must be accessible to hear the concerns and views
of all of the Agency's stakeholders, and to take them into account in
making decisions that impact their interests, whether they be
individual Members of Congress, State and local officials and community
leaders, Agency employees, contractor representatives or interested
organizations. Having received inputs from interested parties, the
Administrator must then be responsible for making those decisions
within the purview of the office and, when appropriate, forwarding
recommendations to the President. for consideration and decision or, as
necessary, as proposals by the Administration to the Congress.
7. The Chief Financial Officers Act requires all government
departments and agencies to develop sound financial management
practices similar to those practiced in the private sector. (a) What do
you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to ensure that
your agency has proper management and accounting controls? Financial
management controls that link budgets and expenditures to results are
fundamental to the ability of the Administrator to manage. It is
essential that the financial system improvements currently underway are
brought on line at the earliest possible opportunity. Since the
Administrator is, quite rightly, held accountable for the performance
of the agency, he is directly responsible for ensuring the agency has
proper management and accounting controls to support decisionmaking. In
particular, this responsibility includes ensuring the selection of an
outstanding Chief Financial Officer and a Comptroller. They, in turn,
are tasked with ensuring NASA enterprises are held financially
accountable, that major decisions are brought to the Administrator in a
timely manner, and that they all have reliable facts to work with.
(b) What experience do you have in managing a large organization? I
am currently Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget and
previously served as Secretary of the Navy after serving as the
Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Defense.
During my faculty tenure at Syracuse University's Maxwell School, I
also served on boards of directors of corporations which managed
complex programs. Collectively, these experiences have provided a
perspective on managing large, complex organizations which frequently
conduct large-scale systems integration work.
8. The Government Performance and Results Act requires all
government departments and agencies to identify measurable performance
goals and to report to Congress on their success in achieving these
goals. (a) Please discuss what you believe to be the benefits of
identifying performance goals and reporting on your progress in
achieving those goals. The President's Management Agenda seeks to
implement the tools of GPRA to establish performance goals and expected
outcomes for all Federal programs. NASA programs lend themselves to
measurement against such goal oriented management techniques.
In refining the NASA goals and expected outcomes in accord with the
President's management objectives, three points should be emphasized:
goals need to be quantified against a known baseline; goals need to be
subject to independent review; goals drive management decisionmaking at
all levels of the organization to improve accountability.
(b) What steps should Congress consider taking when an agency fails
to achieve its performance goals? Should these steps include the
elimination, privatization, downsizing or consolidation of departments
and/or programs? These management techniques should not be used as
``punishment''--rather each of these methods have merit depending on
the mission and goals of the agency. Such steps are means to achieve a
desired outcome; not ends in themselves. The NASA Administrator should
be able to use these tools to meet performance, cost, and risk goals
with the support of the Administration and Congress.
(c) What performance goals do you believe should be applicable to
your personal performance, if confirmed? I would judge myself against
this criteria: Safety is the No. 1 priority for all human spaceflight
activities; A financial management system and culture must be
established within NASA to produce reliable information for the
President and the Administrator to make informed decisions and to
permit necessary Congressional oversight; NASA enterprises should be
truly science-driven; The agency must have a balanced portfolio of
cutting-edge, peer-reviewed scientific research and technological
accomplishment; NASA must rationalize the institutional infrastructure
and endeavor to increase the research opportunities with a wider range
of university and industry communities; Other agencies should have such
high confidence that they often turn to NASA for technical leadership
in areas of core competencies.
9. Please describe your philosophy of supervisor/employee
relationships. Generally, what supervisory model do you follow? Have
any employee complaints been brought against you? In a high-technology
organization such as NASA, there needs to be a focus on its strategic
goals, and the organizational integrity and cohesion expected of a
Federal agency. At the same time, NASA's missions require adaptability
and flexibility.
To achieve these objectives, decisionmaking should be as close as
possible to sources of uncertainty and interdependence which therefore
augers in favor of a very collaborative management relationship. As
such, management should promote an atmosphere of creativity, specify
broad performance goals, and maintain a broad based portfolio strategy.
In my current and previous professional experiences, no employee
complaints have been brought against me that I am aware of.
10. Describe your working relationship, if any, with the Congress.
Does your professional experience include working with committees of
Congress? If yes, please describe. In my current capacity, I have
testified before the Congress on several occasions, and have maintained
frequent communications and dialog with Committees and Members of
Congress regarding budgetary and general Federal management matters. In
my previous positions within the Department of Defense, I maintained
extensive interaction with the Congress and testified on numerous
occasions before Committees of the Congress. In addition to my
experience in dealing with and appearing before the Congress, my
professional experience includes service for 8 years on the Senate
Committee on Appropriations staff.
11. Please explain what you believe to be the proper relationship
between yourself, if confirmed, and the Inspector General of your
department/agency. I believe it is important that the Inspector General
retain ultimate independence in examining NASA activities for waste,
fraud and abuse, as prescribed in the enabling legislation creating
Inspectors General. The identification of areas of needed reform and
improvement is a goal that both the Administrator and Inspector General
should share. I believe honest and open communications, except where
proscribed by investigative activities, should be the rule in the
relationship between these two statutory officials.
12. Please explain how you will work with this Committee and other
stakeholders to ensure that regulations issued by your department/
agency comply with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress.
Fundamental to the internal review of proposed regulations, or any
other policy-implementing instrument, should be a review of both
legislative language and legislative intent. I will ensure that such
reviews are thorough and exhaustive and when questions or uncertainties
arise, seek to determine the Congressional intent through
communications with the cognizant Committees, Members and staff.
13. In the areas under, the department/agency's jurisdiction, what
legislative action(s) should Congress consider as priorities? Please
state your personal views. There are a number of possible legislative
initiatives within the realm of NASA's activities that, in my view,
should be considered priorities. The first among those are the
President's ``Freedom to Manage'' legislative; proposals: These
initiatives address, across the Federal Government, a number of issues
that are of particular importance to NASA. Principal among them are the
personnel authorities the President seeks to export ``best practices''
across the Federal spectrum. NASA has spent most of the past 8 years
under a hiring freeze, and has undertaken several ``buy-out''
initiatives to reduce its workforce. Unfortunately, such measures have
an unpredictable impact on the agency's skill mix. NASA has serious
workforce-related issues that need to be addressed, and the legislative
authority, requested by the President will effectively address some of
these pressing challenges.
Another area of potential legislative action revolves around the
President's initiative to competitively select sources for commercial
activities. David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States,
has convened a panel charged by Congress to streamline government
performance and contracting for commercial activities. The results of
the panel effort is expected by spring 2002. These tools to improve
commercial practices could have substantial bearing on NASA programs.
Legislative proposals may emerge from this initiative.
14. Within your area of control, will you pledge to develop and
implement a system that allocates discretionary spending based on
national priorities determined in an open fashion on a set of
established criteria? If not, please state why. If yes, please state
what steps you intend to take and a timeframe for their implementation.
Yes. The President's budget development and Congress' consideration
thereof, is the primary system to allocate discretionary spending based
on national priorities determined in an open fashion on a set of
established criteria. If confirmed, I would plan to be an active
participant in this process.
Senator Wyden. Mr. O'Keefe, thank you. As you know, our
colleagues will have a number of questions.
Mr. O'Keefe, let me begin by saying that whether it is
misspent dollars or layers of bureaucracy fat at NASA, is not
protective padding. That waste takes precious resources away
from the scientific breakthroughs that the American people feel
so strongly about and that you have heard my colleagues speak
passionately about this morning. So my first question to you is
how long is it going to take to drain the financial and
managerial swamp at NASA, and what measures will you use to
determine when the job is done?
Mr. O'Keefe. Well sir, I think there are two factors that
have to be considered in trying to reach a conclusion about how
soon can we get the visibility that you are referring to. First
one is that there is, I am told, a financial system that has
been begun to be employed at NASA over the course of the last
year-and-a-half. This is a third attempt, as I gather, to
modernize the financial systems there and this one, by all
accounts by some of the best talent that I know in this town,
financial management arena have declared this to be the best
chance that the agency has of finally establishing a total cost
visibility. That is due to be online here within the next 6
months and phased in over the next several years.
My objective will be to achieve that at the earliest
possible opportunities. Until we know that, until we have some
confidence in what the total cost is of projects that have that
kind of cost visibility, I do not know how to answer your
questions in terms of what the long-term prospects are.
The earliest phase that we can have this particular effort
introduced and the financial systems overall employed and
online we will be able to respond to that I think more
accurately.
Second factor, though, that I mentioned is the development,
I think of a larger strategic set of objectives. As soon as we
can begin the process of following what some of the Young
Commission reports suggested of trying to line up what the
science-driven objectives and technology-driven enterprises
should be organizationally. I think they are referred to more
specifically as it pertained to the Space Station, but
certainly has applications across the entire agency. We will
soon begin to prioritize those enterprises and objectives. That
is going to be able to respond to the question more accurately,
because you can then scope what the size and magnitude of the
financial resources, as well as other assets, people,
capabilities may require in order to achieve those objectives.
Senator Wyden. Your reputation is one of being a strong
fiscal watchdog. I and others have said we are not looking for
sound financial management as an end in itself. It is really
the underpinning for NASA to use the existing Federal funds to
get back to its original goals: research and scientific
exploration of space. So we would very much like to see you lay
out your scientific vision for NASA, and particularly with
regard to the agency's science and exploration goals.
Mr. O'Keefe. I appreciate that. That is among the very
first orders of business should I be fortunate enough to be
confirmed and appointed to the position would be to organize
that particular effort. I talked to Tom Young very specifically
about reassembling elements of his Commission that were
representatives, or Nobel laureates and science advisors, that
were very helpful to him who has part of their recommendations
as pertained in the Space Station, but again to identify what
those priorities should be and get some advice from them, but
ask each of the 10 directors as well as the range of technical
and engineering professionals throughout the organization to
begin to line up what those priorities ought to be. It ought to
be, the agenda, overall strategic objectives of the
organization should be driven by science as well as technology
enterprise.
Senator Wyden. What would be your research priority?
Mr. O'Keefe. I guess in a larger context I would say that
which reaches back to the origins, the beginnings of the agency
itself, which is to be entrepreneurial, to focus on the far
edge of the technology, to press that envelope as far as we can
go, and to take the risks that would otherwise be not easy for
many other institutions to even contemplate now. Not because
there is not considered to be a potential payoff there, but
because there is not a capacity to take on those kinds of
challenges after all. This is really a unique institution, one
which really if it is not performed and aptly summarized by
Members of the Committee here, if NASA doesn't take on some of
these challenges, they won't be approached.
As a consequence of that, research agenda should be as far
leading edge as we can reach it and focus more on that
objective and focusing on the capability to perform those
tasks.
Senator Wyden. Your predecessor, Mr. Goldin, was at NASA
for nearly 10 years and led the call for what was known as the
faster, better, cheaper approach at NASA. How will the Sean
O'Keefe era differ from the Dan Goldin era at NASA?
Mr. O'Keefe. I guess first and foremost, I think, I hope it
will be characterized in the very near term is let us get back
to basics. Let us get back to fundamentals of what it takes to
manage an extraordinary research enterprise that has the
capacity to do things that simply would not be attainable
anywhere else were it not for the amazing capabilities at NASA.
Get back to those fundamentals.
Second is to reinvigorate again the entrepreneurial spirit
that motivated the greatness of the organization from its very
beginning days, to think very specifically about what those
technology-driven enterprises ought to be and to be focused
about how we go about those tasks. And that we infuse, as far
as that first objective as well, prudent management in order to
take on selectively those tasks with the hopes of success, but
at the same time recognizing the risks are going to be
significant. So that is what I would hope would be at least the
early characterization.
Senator Wyden. We are going to have several rounds of
questioning given the interest of Senators.
I want to recognize next Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Mr. O'Keefe, I would very much like the
final answer that you were giving to the Chairman here. The
efforts of NASA, in particular in aeronautics, has always been
for NASA to be involved in some of these high-risk research
ventures. Some of those that the private sector could never do,
but in collaboration with the government, it is very important.
And let me first ask you, do you consider aeronautics research
still a core function of NASA?
Mr. O'Keefe. Sure. Absolutely.
Senator Allen. Do you believe that investment in
aeronautics in the future, you are talking about
entrepreneurial spirit, do you think that investments in that
research will produce positive results for our country and
aeronautics generally? In commercial aviation as well as
military sectors?
Mr. O'Keefe. It has certainly been the history of the
technology within the aerospace technology so far and I have no
reason to expect it will be limited in the future.
Senator Allen. Now, during this period of declining funding
for NASA, and I have mentioned this in my opening statement,
our European competitors, as well as the Japanese, have been
increasing their aeronautics research and development funding,
and the European Commissions announced a new plan to
significantly further increase their government funding for
aeronautical research. They have estimated funding, public and
private that could exceed $100 billion U.S. dollars over the
next 2 decades.
In spite of this, there have been proposed significant
reductions in NASA's aeronautical research budget in fiscal
year 2002. Now, I know this is argumentative question, but I
want to hear what your principles are, but do you believe that
it is in our best interests as a Nation to allow our
aeronautical and aviation capabilities to wither in the face of
this competition, or if you say that we can have a huge
positive impact in the future, how do we turn that around and
face that competition?
Mr. O'Keefe. Senator, I appreciate the spirit of the
question, and intend to look at the technology overall and
again to expand on the risk that should be assumed in these
kinds of circumstances given this capability in large measure
wouldn't be faced otherwise. Having said that, I guess my bias
is that there is a mindset in every Federal program that if
there is more money the year later, then that is definitionally
good. If there is less, it is definitionally bad. It becomes an
incremental argument.
Success is driven by single digits as in less than the
number on one hand of an increase, and that has been
celebrated. Reductions of the same magnitude is a collossal
disaster of the time. I think what the President's commitment
has been, what I find most challenging about the opportunity
and I am looking forward to is the opportunity to implement the
President's management agenda at an organization like NASA,
which is frankly not a little agency. This is an organization
that is 4 times the size of the EPA, and the largest single
independent agency of the Federal Government, and so as a
consequence the opportunity to do some things that focus on
President's management agenda, emphasizing performance, looking
at outcomes, and determining not necessarily percentages of
increase or decrease, but what's the best solution set of an
option to pursue that gain the maximum return.
That is what we are going to be about, I hope, at NASA, and
that is going to be the focus that I think could be emphasized
in a way that would respond to your question, intent, and the
spirit of it as a reinvigoration of our involvement and that of
partnering with industry to expand the edges of what we could
do in the aeronautics business in a way that has not so far
been achieved as well, because we have been focused on
increments, not only objectives of performance.
In the end, that is not a specific answer that says yes,
there will be an increase or decrease, but one that I hope is
an expression of commitment to you that I'd like to be able to
demonstrate after some period of time in tenure--if I am
fortunate enough to be confirmed--that demonstrates indeed
there is a quantum performance improvement that we can lend in
this particular enterprise.
Senator Allen. Let me follow up on specifics. I thank you
for the intent expressed in that answer. The NASA aeronautical
research centers work closely with FAA and policies affecting
flight safety or the airline system capacity which everyone on
this Committee knows has to be done and it is a wonderment that
everyone knows it needs to be done. But we are not going to do
it now and we are going to wait a few years. NASA works in
partnership with the Department of Defense as far as military
aviation. Do you see NASA expanding in these particular
collaborative partnerships with other government agencies. Have
you had a chance to review those particular ones?
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, sir. I think we all come to capacities in
whatever it is we endeavor. We simply cannot afford to maintain
a chance for severability between the civil and national
security related operations that have centered upon them. I
hope to emphasize, to seek out those opportunities of greater
collaboration with capacity and the Defense Department arena,
to have resident and in NASA could partner.
Senator Wyden. The time of my colleague has expired.
The Senator from Florida.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. O'Keefe, I enjoyed our in-depth discussion yesterday.
Mr. O'Keefe. As did I, Senator.
Senator Nelson. Thank you for your time. What I would like
to do today is to expand that discussion, and there will be
some repetition, because I would like to get it as part of the
record, but I would like to give you an opportunity for
expanding and expounding your ideas.
First of all, let us talk about the Young Report. It is my
understanding from your comment yesterday that you support the
Young Report.
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. Are there any particular parts of the Young
Report that you disagree with?
Mr. O'Keefe. Again, as we discussed, I view as a good
strategic framework that an extraordinary group of very diverse
professionals that I am still stunned that Tom Young is able to
get to concur in any single set of objectives yet did it in a
way that was concise and I think very straightforward, that as
we approach those strategic frameworks, there are going to be
implementation issues, as we discussed and the very specifics
of each of those implementation issues I would like to defer
the opportunity to be more elaborative on at this stage until
such time we can figure out what's going to take these
particular elements. I think he is right on the mark, focused
on the problems. The Commission focused on the problems that
are most essential.
As a template and a blueprint, that is the first start, and
between that and the President's management, those are the two
documents that will be, I hope, viewed as required reading
throughout the organization.
Senator Nelson. I too think that one of the great public
servants, particularly in the aerospace field, has been Tom
Young. There are troubling parts to me of Young, one of which
we discussed yesterday, that because of NASA's financial
situation that you would possibly lower the number of annual
launches of the Space Shuttle to four. That has some enormous
consequences, because if we suddenly then had to robustly
increase and a lot of all of this expertise had been laid off
in the process, then in having to rehire, you lose a lot of
that corporate memory that has been so valuable to NASA, why do
not you comment on that?
Mr. O'Keefe. I do not know what the exact number of flights
should be. I think it first and foremost--and I am sure I am
very hopeful, Senator, that you would concur on this view--that
it ought to be driven largely by payload requirements, the
science driven objectives, the technology enterprises that we
seek to launch that will be conducted in that unique atmosphere
literally or environment that the Space Shuttle provides and
its linkage with our International Space Station. That ought to
be a facing factor. I concur with you that in and of itself an
artificial limitation based on some notional view of what
numbers of dollars ought to be appropriate is not convincing
either, so I do not know what that number ought to be. I think
what the Young Commission did that was extremely helpful was
they stayed within a parameter.
They did not venture off and say let us assume that
resources are unlimited, which would be the propensity of many
Commissions faced with the same charge they were. Instead, they
were realistic and were of the mind that suggested no, let us
take the tougher task. What if we restricted to where we are,
because I think everyone has an idea how to build the Endeavor,
how to expand the skill of a project or program.
I have never found anybody with difficulty trying to find
difficulty how to add money to this town. That is very unique.
What is difficult, and I think Tom Young and his membership
took over, was the difficult challenge of trying to figure out
how to maintain within a limited parameter and therefore what
would be those tradeoffs, so I will have to take those as one
of the consequences that he would assess and one of the impacts
that we live with that underlying assumption and I am not sure
that that underlying assumption is going to absolutely come to
pass, so over time, we will determine what the right answer is
going to be driven by those other objectives that I like to
think that you and I agree to which are the science driven and
technology driven enterprise and to the extent that you have
the capability to achieve that, that is the point. That is the
larger objective.
Senator Nelson. This is just a beginning, so whenever you
want me to stop and pass it on, I am just going to continue as
you will permit. Let me, before we send it on to Senator Burns,
say that the Young Commission report in and of itself is a good
document. But when you put it into the context that NASA has
been a bad boy, and that NASA must be punished, and so that we
are going to find a way to redirect funds within NASA, that is
when I start to get concerned.
Now, no less a space giant than Chris Kraft has written a
letter, an open letter concerning the recent report of the task
force chaired by Tom Young. This is what Chris Kraft says. He
says: ``First it is difficult to perceive that such a
formidable group''--talking about the Young Commission--``would
present such a narrow view. You would think that many members
of the task force knew the past history of NASA Space Station
activity and given that premise had to realize that today's
financial status was almost preordained.
``The overruns--or more poignantly, the total cost of the
ISS--resulted from a continuous change in direction of the
program which was beyond the control of those who were required
to build the Space Station.'' He continues, ``if you take into
account the sordid history of the Space Station, you will find
that the people in NASA who were saddled with making a program
work which was almost unmanageable in the first place, have
done a miraculous job to bring the program to the point it is
at today for the money that they had to do it with.
``As usual, the working level people get blamed for the
horrible mess created by the people who did not have to do the
job.'' And he concludes, ``the Space Station has been through
at least five different phases since its inception. Each phase
caused increases in schedule, cost, and complexity.''
To then take that sordid history of which has produced some
remarkable technology that has been a symbol with remarkable
adaptability to make it work, and it is. It is an incredible
structure up there that is working. We have got to make it
better. I do not want us to focus just on what went wrong. I
want us to get that corrected, but I do not want to use that as
an excuse to punish NASA, to penalize the people, to knock the
Space Shuttle program down to almost nothing, and then not have
a talented capable workforce that when we need to surge in the
future, and thereby a time to surge in the future, then all of
that base is gone.
Senator Wyden. The time of my colleague on this round has
expired. I know my colleague has strong views on these matters.
We are going to have a number of rounds of questioning. We want
to make sure all our colleagues get a chance to respond.
Mr. O'Keefe, why do not you respond to the Senator from
Florida and we will recognize Mr. Burns.
Mr. O'Keefe. Thank you. Senator, since January 20th, the
President has directed us to view all matters as looking
forward. Do not look past. Look behind us. What was the origin.
And as a consequence, he was very correct about this.
This is no exception. Nothing since that time has been
punitive or intended to punish anything. My intent is not to
begin--if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed and have the
opportunity to take on this leadership challenge--my intent
will not be to try to unearth what led to the circumstance or
where we are today. It is where we are. As a consequence, one
of the points in responding to Senator Allen is get back to
basics.
Let us start there and move ahead on how we are going to
define the requirements for the overall objectives and mission
of NASA, how do we use this extraordinary capability that you
and I concur is a technological marvel. It rivals the most
elaborate, most difficult, most complex systems integration
endeavor I ever saw in my experience in the defense
establishment or any other corporate activity that I was
involved in thereafter. This is really quite amazing.
So as a consequence, I am going to build on what's there.
Put the baseline in place so that we can expand and utilize
that capability to its greatest extent possible driven by the
technology-driven enterprise and the science objectives that
should be the principal mission of this extraordinary research
institution that is NASA, and proceed from there. Do not look
behind. Let us move forward and figure out how we can press on
that. I think on that point we are in agreement.
Senator Wyden. The Senator from Montana.
Senator Burns. My staff informs me I have said since 1952--
1992. Or 1972, it should be.
Mr. O'Keefe. One of the three I am sure, Senator.
Senator Burns. Actually, at this point it is multiple
choice. You all are better at figures than I am.
Senator Wyden. I am not going to get into this.
Mr. O'Keefe. I am not really much of a numbers guy.
Senator Burns. I am going to leave that to you. Us
auctioneers, we can count money. And rather rapidly. Mr.
O'Keefe, there are two areas of which I am specifically
interested, probably three areas. The outreach on EPSCOR. It
has been a launchpad for many smaller universities and colleges
in their research and R&D work that has allowed them to
participate in the national agenda of NASA, and some good
things have come from that by the way that they weren't all
found at MITs and this type thing.
Also, the commercialization. I think it is one of those
ongoing things that we have to strive for a little imagination
for the entrepreneurial community and how they can participate
in this and derive benefits from it that benefit us all, and
then I think when we look at the infrastructure and our mission
ahead and into the vision of things and dealing with dollars to
complete those missions, I think we shouldn't shortchange the
work that has been done and the work yet to do on unmanned
reusables.
We are talking about the Shuttle and the orbiter that we
have now that is getting along in years, no doubt about it.
Going to have to be some thought for the future there, but some
of these trips could be made by unmanned reusables at a cost
savings. And I think we should continue to explore the
challenges that we have in developing a single launch, a
vehicle, in other words. It is just a vehicle that can get into
orbit and deliver the goods and then come back to earth without
a pilot, to move some of the material that we are going to have
to move in space.
I was interested in your comments of R&D as far as it is to
the aeronautics industry. If there is one thing that we have in
this government right now that we have 2 or 3 agencies that are
doing the same thing. Redundancy does not serve us well, and
when we start talking about a limited amount of funds that we
have to use.
Some of the work that is being done at NASA is also being
done in the FAA, and other areas, and I think it is time to
take a look on how we can bring those programs together and
maybe streamline that and not have the redundancy that seems
like it occurs. I am always struck by the work that goes on at
NIH, and I am also struck by the amount of money that we spend
in the Veterans Administration to do some of the things that
NIH does, and I do not know why everybody has to have their own
turf or whatever in R&D.
So those are the areas where I will generally be interested
and we will visit about that. I do not have any specific
questions this morning. I am really impressed with this
appointment. Not to diminish the job that the previous director
did, because I think he has done a lot of things in unseen
places that was of little notice, but had high impact as far as
the support of what we do in space. We know that it is going to
be a long time before everything that we do and all the
benefits is realized by the society that pays the bills, but
nonetheless, I think right now, NASA doesn't owe this society a
lot right now. I think we have profited in many, many ways that
are untold and they are not the sexy above-the-fold type
issues.
So those are the areas that I continue to be very much
interested in, and I think the reusables is just one of those
areas where we have to take a very serious look at that and how
we maneuver and how we will move materiel in space to complete
the infrastructure for the mission that is ahead.
I thank the Chairman for this hearing. I will support you
wholeheartedly and I am sure we will have discussions and
conversations in the future, and a very pleasant holiday to you
and your family.
Mr. O'Keefe. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your comments.
If I could just comment very briefly on a couple of points.
As we discussed, education is one of the areas that you and
Dan Goldin I think did an extraordinary job emphasizing what
kind of capacity and capability could be brought to bear in the
education field at NASA and had resident right in the
organization. I would view that as one of the primary areas we
need to look at harder, how we could effortlessly make that
available to members of institutions. I have three members of
my home board sitting behind me.
My strongest critics are my three kids looking at the
website saying why is not it more interesting than this. The
second one, I agree it is an objective you can reach back to
the founding of the organization and say that is one of the
real points that led to its development as early as the vision
that was created.
Having said that, what we need to do is develop a means
within the capacity within NASA I think to become as agile as
the industry is today. If you do not have a semiconductor chip
that is ready for introduction at the same time you were
introducing or beginning the development of another one, in 18
months, the company will be out of business. That is the cycle
we are on right now. Electronics, it is no more than a half-
life of 18 to 24 months. In the oil and gas business,
exploration is a tenth of what it used to be 15 years ago.
These are the kinds of trends we see in technology that we
are not of exactly the same agility, we are not adding to that
potential commercialization. If anything, we may be drawing it
behind, and so as a consequence, that is a real objective to
keep up with.
How do you stay in that cutting edge? How do you take the
risk of those opportunities that will in turn produce those
spinoff commercial activities? And the last point that you made
I agree with you entirely of looking at things like unmanned
vehicles, is an opportunity to really collaborate extensively
with the Defense Department in ways that could be very
constructive for civil aviation, as well as military use.
I think you have hit on three critical points and ones that
wholeheartedly agree with.
Senator Burns. There have been three inventions that have
completely changed our lives, and it changed the way we think
and the way we do business. And those three inventions were the
silicon chip, before that, think what the invention of the
transistor has done. It has been absolutely revolutionary as
far as electronics are concerned, and of course, the jet
engine. They all changed our lives, the way we look at things.
I got a big kick of sitting next to a guy on an airplane
and we were 5 minutes late getting into Minneapolis and the
only thing he could do is complain about being late and here we
are whipping through the air at 550 miles an hour and he is
worried about 5 minutes. My gosh. Unbelievable.
But those things have revolutionized the way we think and
how we do things. And it is very important, so again, thank you
very much and thank you for this hearing.
Senator Wyden. The gentleman's 5 minutes has expired.
I recognize the Senator from Texas.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
having to leave, but I wanted to return, because I wanted to
ask you to address the issue of the 3-member crew as a long-
term permanent goal, or is your long-term permanent goal to
increase the number in the crew so that we can do the research
and how you plan to make the changes that would allow that to
happen if it is your goal.
Mr. O'Keefe. As it pertains to, again this International
Space Station core complete objective now is to achieve that 3-
person astronaut capacity. Over time, I think with the Young
Report, what it laid out was a path that suggests as a
strategic objective to get that right, get the fundamentals
correct, make sure that we understand what that is going to
take in order to do that properly day in-and day-out, and then
in turn, look at what the expansion opportunities may be, and
at the end, that will dictate what the number will be, whether
6, 7, 5, whatever the number is that is going to be driven by
what the science agenda, the science priorities as well as the
technology driven enterprise will demonstrate as being the
necessity for that case then we will have to sort through it.
As soon as we get the basics of what we have right now in
place and being able to cover it responsibly in terms of all
resources, people, assets, as well as dollars, that is going to
be the first objective and then let us look at the expansion
opportunities. We are going to do that. The strategic
objectives or at least the larger glide path of the Young
Commission laid out was something that really requires that we
make that assessment within the next 12 to 24 months.
It is going to be an ambitious agenda. I hope to come back
to you to say yes, that expansion is feasible, because we have
gotten that house in order and there is the following
opportunities that would support that goal.
Senator Hutchison. Is it your goal to have something beyond
core complete for the long-term future?
Mr. O'Keefe. I think to maintain what we have right now is
an absolute bare minimum and calls to question what the point
is. So as a consequence, it would be my fondest hope that we
would expand beyond that, but only after such time as we
demonstrate that we can do what we have in place right now.
And I am not satisfied that is the case yet based on the
data and the information we have all received from that
Commission and also the forecast in estimating the costs we do
not know. We just do not know.
Senator Hutchison. I am reminded of an old series called
``Yes, Minister,'' that was on BBC, and one of the series was
about a wonderful new hospital and the Prime Minister visited
the hospital and he was shown around and this new hospital had
all of the state-of-the-art equipment and it was a fabulous
hospital. And the Prime Minister said, ``this is wonderful. But
where are the patients?'' And the answer was, ``Patients? Well,
we do not have patients. That would just mess everything up.''
Now, when I am talking to you about NASA, and all the money
in the Shuttle program and 3-member crew at the station, 2\1/2\
of whom are necessary to do the running of the station, I am
left with the feeling that we are going to have an operation
that is there to service the operation. And that we could lose
sight of the purpose of all of this, which is science and the
research.
So tell me that you are committed to making sure that we do
not get into a situation where patients are just an extraneous
luxury.
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, Senator.
Absolutely. You are absolutely right. It is a case, what
worries me more than anything else. I think just looking at the
numbers and the way this has all rolled out in the past year,
is if we are not careful, the capability costs, the
infrastructure costs of the institution that is NASA will
become the primary purpose. And that will be a tragedy.
That doesn't fulfill what I think the President and Vice
President's objectives are which is to really have a leading
edge research, technology-driven enterprise that will take the
risks necessary to carry out these extraordinary capabilities.
So my view is that that is unacceptable condition if what
we have at the end of the day is nothing more than the
capability to demonstrate that we continue to have the
capability. It becomes operations to support themselves as a
self-sustaining purpose. That is not the point.
If anything, looking at the overall, and this is just kind
of a rough order of magnitude, I would say roughly two-thirds
of everything, every dollar that is dedicated to NASA now is
designed to support infrastructure and capability.
The other third at most goes toward the science-driven
objectives, the technology-driven objectives. As a percentage,
that doesn't overwhelm me. It is not wildly off the mark,
because in the electronics business, in the aerospace business,
those direct, indirect ratios are not terribly off.
It costs the aerospace industry about half of their expense
to actually maintain capacity and capability to conduct
business, and the balance of it is the cost of actual
production of assets and things that are for sale.
In this context, it is a little more than that, but
uncomfortably so, because I can't look at those numbers and say
that is an exacting percentage of it, but it is at least that
two-thirds, at least, and that is something that grows beyond
that. We have got real problems. In my mind, I want to be able
to come back to you and say no, indeed, we are not going to be
in a situation in which the infrastructure ends up consuming
everything that is the resource.
Senator Hutchison. If I could just say, I think you have
gotten the message from everyone that I have heard speak this
morning that we are looking to you to be the person who has the
capability to implement a program that assures that the science
and technology and experimentation is preserved and enhanced
for NASA. I will look forward to working with you. I know all
of us are going to be vitally interested in this, because we
believe that NASA is a premiere success story for America, and
it is the place where our new scientists have a capability to
create. It is a huge task and if you are successful, you will
be my hero. And if not, I will be all over you.
Senator Wyden. You knew this job wouldn't be for the faint-
hearted.
Mr. O'Keefe. Aspiration at least for the former.
Senator Wyden. We are going to have a number of additional
rounds, because of the interest of my colleagues.
The Senator from Florida asked if he could ask a question
then we will go back to the regular order.
Senator Nelson. As a follow-up to the Senator from Texas,
and again my hat is off to you for offering yourself to public
service in this capacity, because it is a very tough
assignment. And the fact that you have a personal relationship
with the Vice President is considerably to your advantage, as
well as to the advantage of NASA. So that you would have a
direct pipeline to the White House. That is a strength that I
think is substantial.
But I want to follow up Senator Hutchison's question,
because the answer that you gave did not sound like the answer
that you gave on November 7th to the House Science Committee,
in which you said that you did not favor a 10 to 15 percent
increase in ISS funding to enable a 7 person crew until the
cost considered as read credibility is regained. Yet you agree
that you want an increased level of scientific productivity
that could be accomplished later in the decade. I do not see
how if you keep a 3 person crew today, and that will stay with
us at least through 2006, how that is not going to severely
limit--as Senator Hutchison has suggested, for the immediate
future--that is another 4 years, the scientific activity on the
station. Then once you regain the cost credibility that you are
looking for, then it is going to take another 4-5 years to
develop a 7-person crew return vehicle, and so the concern that
I have as a follow-up is doesn't that push us off until about
2010 in order to get any significant science up there on the
Space Station?
Mr. O'Keefe. Senator, I do not have the transcript before
me of what was said on November 7th, but my recollection of the
debate and discussion of Mr. Boehlert's Committee that day was
that I do not, the fundamental premise, fundamental matter I
think immediately before or immediately after that commentary
was I do not have any reliability or confidence that 10 or 15
percent is it either. I do not know what that number is. Not a
clue. The mere factor over the course of the last 12 to 14
months that the estimates for the program, and again, I think
many Members have said this very aptly, this is a high-tech
program for which anyone who thinks or pretends that there is a
precision in cost estimating for something of this complex
nature is kidding themselves to begin with. This mirrors just
the very most high end systems integration program that I have
ever seen. You are absolutely right. There is just no question.
That is a fiction. But to be off by an order of magnitude of 20
to 25 percent over the last year after maintaining a consistent
position over the course of the last 5 years that was attested
to, this is going to be the cost for the program attempted to
speak some level of certainty that was never present.
Therefore, I do not know that number 10, working assumption of
the question that you extracted is that you would have
certainty to achieve an expanded capability for International
Space Station with a 10 to 15 percent increase. I do not know
that working assumption to be true.
Senator Nelson. What about the crew?
Senator Wyden. I think we want to have multiple rounds of
questions and have a chance to pursue this with each Senator
getting 5 minutes. If you want to ask one additional question
at this point, then we will go back to the regular order.
Senator Nelson. I will do it however you want, but I do not
want to break a train of thought, Mr. Chairman. So my question
was what do you think about the 3-man crew and how can you do
the science and when do you want to change that 3-man crew?
Mr. O'Keefe. I want to remain consistent with the
commentary, because I positively do not want to suggest there
is a different thought in looking at this a month ago to now.
Again, it is the same proposition which is let us get the
house in order, the basics in order, let us get the fundamental
baseline for International Space Station and we will submit
that is an unknown. I concur entirely with Senator Hutchison's
view, and the view you and I expressed separately when we were
meeting yesterday. In and of itself to maintain capacity as
core complete as we just discussed, you and I discussed
yesterday that in and of itself to maintain just the
operational capacity demonstrates that you have the operational
capacity is not the objective. It is not what we had in mind
when we started this program, and not what I think our
understandings are with international partners involved.
As a consequence, my fondest hope would be we could
establish the fundamentals here, get this rebaseline, get the
basics down and then start talking ambitiously about what the
larger capabilities are going to have to be in order to make
this the useful objectives we had when we started down this
road years ago.
Senator Wyden. Let me tell my colleagues again, there will
be plenty of rounds of questions.
Mr. O'Keefe, I want to note for the record, I think Senator
Hutchison wasn't here, you basically said in 6 months, you are
going to be in a position to have your arms around some of the
tough financial issue. We do not have the 10-year kind of
period. Mr. Goldin was there a long time, and this is going to
be important that you get your arms around these financial
issues to be able to respond to the questions that my
colleagues are asking and that is why I asked it at the outset
and I appreciate your candor.
Let me ask you a question that has been central to this
debate about how you strike a balance between pruning the fat
and waste and at the same time, having scientific
breakthroughs. If you look at the histories of the agency, it
is often asserted when somebody comes in and goes after the
financial and managerial mismanagement, it is asserted that you
are threatening safety. That this is going to put at risk lives
and that people will be hurt. Nobody wants that. That is why I
said in my opening statement that I do not happen to believe
that ensuring safety and shortening the timelines and having
the breakthrough research that the country wants, I don't
believe those things are mutually exclusive. I would be
interested in your reaction to that comment that I have made,
and how you would go about putting a focus at the agency on
ensuring the research and maintaining safety.
Mr. O'Keefe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that very
thoughtful question. I concur entirely with your assessment
that they are not mutually exclusive objectives indeed. They
can become very compatible. My bias, we are all a victim of
whatever our institutional upbringing or backgrounds are.
Mine is in having been raised by a nuclear engineer, I have
been hearing about these issues since sitting around the dinner
table to the point I have been wrestling with these questions
as Secretary of the Navy with nuclear Navy concerns, that is a
record of achievement that is flawless. In the course of 50
years, a remarkable capacity to not only maintain perfect
safety standards, but also to stretch the technology from the
earliest Nautilus days in which a reactor half-life was 18
months to the point now where every single reactor that goes to
sea on a brand new ship is the size of a trash can and never
needs to be refueled. That is a remarkable technological
achievement in the power generation business. Absolutely
stunning.
As a result, in the same time, it maintained zealots,
absolute complete zealots over the proposition of maintaining a
perfect safety record and had done so. This can be a mutually
compatible reinforcing set of objectives and it is one I think
we could take some lessons not only from the experiences NASA
has learned so painfully since 1986, but also to develop that
cooperative kind of partnering arrangement, Defense Department
in this deal as well. That is a bias I hoped you would bring to
it.
Senator Wyden. For this round I am going to ask one
question about the Space Station, core complete design
eliminates habitation model and crew rescue vehicle making our
astronauts dependent on Russian partners for critical needs.
How can NASA effectively manage its work on the Space Station
given dependence on international partners?
Mr. O'Keefe. Again, I think in the dialog with Senator
Hutchison we have to move from just simply capacity or to
demonstrate our operational capacity or to continue the
operational capacity. Where we are at this point and I think
our international allies expect, that there will be some
understanding of what the original capability is going to be.
We need to assure them, though, that we need to continue
this program in a way that is responsible from a safety
standpoint, from management standpoint, from fiscal standpoint
and indeed we can establish the larger operational capacity and
capabilities that were envisioned when these programs came down
the road.
Until then, the international alliance partnership will be
looking for answers to those. I expect we have to provide them
those solutions. In the meantime, my understanding from Dan
Goldin is the relationships have never been better in terms of
understanding precisely what the risks are.
Senator Wyden. You believe we will comply with our
international agreements?
Mr. O'Keefe. My intention will be to work very closely with
Secretary Powell, and to work with them to assure that we very
carefully respond to those international alliance agreements
and that we work together mutually between NASA and the State
Department to assure we reach the complete alliance that we
have had all along.
Senator Wyden. When you are confirmed, and I am going to
assure there is a rapid confirmation, when will you go to NASA
and assume your administrative duties? I will tell you why.
There is a great deal of speculation that when you are
confirmed, you go through another budget round, people
concerned about cuts will say ``he is going to slash us then go
on down.'' When you are confirmed, will you head over there
immediately?
Mr. O'Keefe. Again, I can't foresee what the action of the
Senate will be. My commitment to the President is at the
earliest opportunity to assume whatever responsibilities he
appoints me to upon the advise and consent of the Senate, so my
hope would be as soon or as close to the beginning of the next
year, the new year that I can be there within a month, but that
entirely turns on the willingness of the U.S. Senate and your
colleagues to consider the matter expeditiously and I will
refer you jointly on that matter.
Senator Wyden. I asked it that way for a reason. I am very
impressed with your credentials. When you assume your duties,
that in a sense may send a message.
Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. O'Keefe, NASA is currently working on a number of
technologies, and some of the things we are talking about are
important. You were talking about the commercial application of
some of these technologies and this research and development.
And some of these technologies certainly could help improve
either the safety or the efficiency of aviation, including, for
example, an economically viable and environmentally friendly
supersonic airliner which would be used in transoceanic
flights.
They are working on advanced flight cockpits with synthetic
vision which would enable pilots to fly in fog conditions or
for safety in the darkness. They have improvements in air
traffic management systems. All of these things are being
developed, being researched. How would you see us working with
you and those who have been formulating and actually getting
these ideas into place that could actually have some commercial
application? It is wonderful to have all these ideas and have
these wonderful aircraft or these cockpits or these better
systems for safety or efficiency. How would you envision us,
let us say a Senator in the house, working with you so that we
can benefit from them?
Mr. O'Keefe. Again, my sense of the challenges of
technology transfer which is really what this is about, because
in the end of the day, if there is any opportunity for
commercial enterprise, to develop any asset, any capability,
anything that they think can be sold for profit, then we
certainly should do everything we possibly can to encourage the
industry to do that, and not just simply to perform it.
In this context, it is a technology transfer policy that I
think ought to dominate by the notion we talked about a little
bit earlier, which is that the sooner we adopt the same view in
the public sector, and within research institutions, again, an
asset elsewhere, defense, research, projects, as an absolute
core that we are at least going to parallel, if not exceed, the
technology advances that have characterized the aerospace and
electronics industry in recent decades, last 10 years. Until
that time where we consider that as an absolute, we are not
going to have much to transfer, or to the extent we had a
transfer, we looked at it saying it is mighty fine previous
generation assets or capabilities. I think that is essentially
one of the problems that your point raised is we have had such
a recent technology regime or framework as a policy that
typically what's occurred is about time we are prepared to
release it, the industry has moved past it and it no longer has
the ability to have drawn that much from it.
The philosophy where we can work together most in the area
of technology transfer is try to break down those barriers that
would otherwise be in place that would impede the transfer of
technology at the earliest possible opportunity to the extent
it is cutting edge and desirable on the part of the aerospace
electronics industry.
Senator Allen. These ones that I specifically mentioned are
far ahead of where they are at this moment and we are going to
have to find ways for them to upgrade. Obviously some of those
decisions by the commercial sector will be determined by their
own bottom lines and what they can do to upgrade their own
systems and how it makes a difference in their bottom line as
far as more passengers or greater safety for their planes.
I just wanted to conclude, Mr. O'Keefe by saying I have
enjoyed listening to you and hearing your ideas. I think the
best thing that I have learned from this hearing which you
cannot read from answering questionnaires or reading articles,
is that you have a sense of humor. I always think it is
important for people to have common sense and that they keep
their promises, but it is also important in addition to having
thick skin and a sense of humor. You are going to be needing
that sense of humor. I hope, Mr. Chairman, we act on this
nomination as soon as possible. This is an agency that has been
led by Mr. Goldin for many years. I think an agency like this
needs leadership. Lapses in leadership do not help.
All that does is create uncertainty amongst this dedicated
group we have across the country. I look forward to working
with you in the years to come.
Mr. O'Keefe. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. The Senator from Florida.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly yield
to the Senator from Texas. Please. You go ahead.
Senator Wyden. The gentleman is completing his second
round, then we will go to you.
Senator Nelson. If you are in a time constraint, please
feel free.
Senator Hutchison. If I could, I appreciate that so much.
Senator Nelson. Absolutely.
Senator Hutchison. I wanted to follow up on a couple of
questions that the Chairman asked. First, on the Russian
vehicle as a lifeboat. The Chairman pointed out that that is
our lifeboat and we are relying on the Russian Soyuz today.
NASA has had plans for its own rescue vehicle which would
require us going beyond core complete, and I want to ask you
how important a priority it is for you to determine how safe it
is and, to rely on the Russian Soyuz and to determine if we
need to move forward on our own crew rescue vehicle as a top
priority?
Mr. O'Keefe. I appreciate that, Senator. I think that is
going to be among the first order of magnitude questions that
really have to be wrestled to the ground. Once again,
International Space Station program fundamentals are restored
or re-baselined. I think that is a real tough one. I do not
know the answer to that question. I am not sure exactly.
Senator Hutchison. But it will be a priority for you to get
right to it, because if you determined that it needs to be a
priority moved up, then you can put that in your budget
submissions and, because it is important to me to know that you
have looked at that and made the determination here to go
forward with our own crew rescue vehicle or that Soyuz is safe
for the time being.
I just wanted to follow up again on the Chairman's point
and then I will let Senator Nelson go forward, because I
appreciate his deference. I wanted to clarify your answer to
the Chairman on when you would take control of NASA once the
Senate has confirmed you. Did you say that it would be no
longer than 1 month after confirmation that you would expect to
be at the helm of NASA?
Mr. O'Keefe. No. It would be my fondest hope that I would
be there as soon after the new year as conceivably possible.
The board of directors sitting behind me, I have an expectation
of leaving town between Christmas and New Year's and
anticipating the Senate action.
Senator Hutchison. If the Senate acted before we leave next
week and you have a well-deserved family vacation, then would
it be your intention to immediately go to NASA and take
control?
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. I want to follow up Senator Hutchison's
questions about the lifeboat of the Soyuz, and there is some
talk that in doing the delays on an American lifeboat that you
might employ the Soyuz. What's your thinking on that?
Mr. O'Keefe. I don't know, sir. It again, has to be among
the top things we have to consider in the applications after we
get back to basics and the fundamentals of the International
Space Station already established.
Senator Nelson. What about this report in the Orlando
Sentinel that they are threatening to pull out, because of the
propensity to scale back the lab. They are obviously being put
in a very difficult situation, so what is your thinking at this
point about how we go about assuring our international partners
that they will have the full utilization and at the same time
to handle all in your management of cost?
Mr. O'Keefe. My first order of business on this very
question is to consult with Secretary Powell, and my good
friend, Deputy Secretary Armitage and to determine what our
appropriate alliance response to be to them in working through
this. But beyond that, just running aground this latest
development, which I am not familiar with the details of, other
than having read the press reports or heard them as well, and
find out what the nuance of them are all about. I would not
want to do this in isolation from the very sound judgment that
I am certain my friend Secretary Powell and the Deputy
Secretary use.
Senator Nelson. This report is the latest reflection of
considerable agitation among our international partners, of
which there has been circulated in the NASA community a letter
from the Canadian government, which is at least a month old,
stating that the United States has breached its agreement. How
do you, other than conferring with Secretary Powell and
Secretary Armitage, how do you go about solving a problem if
you have not got room for them to get up there on the station
unless, in fact, you move to develop the technology to allow to
you have more than 3 on a station?
Mr. O'Keefe. Thank you for that very thoughtful question,
Senator. Beyond the opportunity to consult with those seasoned
diplomats which you have just now dismissed as an opportunity I
have got to start with, but I do intend to agree with that. I
have got to be careful how we work our way through this.
Because my understanding of the international agreement says
that we sought to establish a set of objectives to be achieved
by the year, I believe, 2006.
Now, if that is the essence of it, and that is a challenge,
and I think we need to take it on, that over the next 5 years
to achieve those results that we signed up to as I understand
it, and that is a limited understanding of those complex
international agreements, I have really got to be guided by
diplomatic counsel from those two folks I trust a lot in these
matters, and I think they understand those in a way that I do
not. I do not want to give you a misleading response to that. I
have given you the barest fundamentals of my appreciate and
would not want to be construed as committing beyond anything I
am just not aware of at this point. Thank you for the question,
Senator.
Senator Nelson. Since our role constitutionally is to
advise before we consent, may I respectfully advise you that
the two gentlemen that you mention happen to be two of the
finest appointments in the Administration. I have had the
capacity as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee to get
to know them. I have enormous respect for them, but they are
not going to answer your question.
The question is going to have to be answered as a
management decision by NASA. Of whether or not you are going to
move to a position of whether you can have more than 3 and set
a goal of when it is going to be and then work it out with your
international partners. That is going to be the solution to the
international partners' agitation. And that is why I asked you
the question about whether or not as an interim solution do you
buy a second Soyuz and try to fix it some way up there where it
is docked if you cannot spend the money to do the 7-man
lifeboat. So those are hard choices you are going to have to
make.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague. A few additional areas
that I want to focus on. One that I think we just need to be a
bit clearer on is the research agenda and how it is going to be
determined. What are the processes, the structure that you are
going to follow for making decisions about the research agenda,
for example, who are you going to seek input from with respect
to research. We have touched on it throughout the morning, but
I would like to come back to that and have you set out clearly
how you are going to pursue this.
Mr. O'Keefe. In the very near term, the two primary
sources, I think, of advice or what that research initiative
should look like or what its priorities should be proposed of
will first and foremost come from a review that is ongoing and
is about to be completed here in the early part of the next
calendar year. That is going to summarize, I think, the
objectives and understandings of the 10 centers of excellence
that have focused their research priorities in ways that are
being accomplished today, as well as future aspiration.
Second one again is, I really want to take advantage--to be
blunt about it--the opportunity to avail ourselves to the
public of the expertise of the Nobel laureates that Tom Young
amazingly managed to attract to his Commission. And they have
been willing and volunteered to make themselves available to
opine and offer thoughts about what the priorities and the
feasibility, as well as the practical capacity of the research
agenda and what those priorities are going to look like to us
in that context. I am hopeful to take both of those
institutional and more formal arrangement as well as a more
informal one.
I am confident there are going to be more foreign intrigues
that will be offered as well. Those are the two I can think of,
though.
Senator Wyden. Human space flight is certainly the most
visible of the programs. Obviously, there are other programs in
science and technology and aeronautics. How would you go about
striking the balance between human space flight and the other
responsibilities at NASA?
Mr. O'Keefe. I think the difficulty that I see right now is
that decision may be preordained if we are not careful in the
management of the current programs, because as the continued
efforts on International Space Station and the increases
unfold, to the extent that there is not a commensurate resource
adjustment either by adding resources which are scarce, or
within the capabilities of the overall scientific agenda that
the national agenda pursues, we can end up with a preordained
conclusion of what that is and that won't be all that valuable
to what would occur if the increases per system as we regard
continues to consume a larger and larger percentage than what's
involved. So we will end up with a mathematical result that is
not guided by any management choice, but more by consequence.
That is the area I fear most.
On my fondest hope, Mr. Chairman, is the opportunity to
come back to you at some stage in the very near future and be
able to say yes, we think we have got some fix on what the
overall resource demands are of all dimensions of the NASA
portfolio, and now let us talk about what that priority
distribution ought to be. Until then I kind of feel like we are
getting driven or riding the crest of this wave that we have no
control over at this point.
Senator Wyden. I am not completely clear, either where you
believe human biological science fits as part of the Space
Station project either. Could you set out clearly where you
stand on that?
Mr. O'Keefe. Again it is a hunch. It is not informed
judgment or decision. Let me just offer again personal bias of
what I think is capability here. The limited amount that I know
and have read and understand to be some of the remarkable
discoveries as a consequence of conduct of experiments of a
medical nature and health focus, on Space Station and in that
atmosphere, that unique environment that we could not feasibly
do under any other circumstances were it not for the capacity
we have, have been remarkable, astounding to those who are
informed within that scientific community. And that is enough
to impress the likes of people like me to say yes, indeed, that
has to be then viewed as a focus or priority that if we can
achieve those kinds of outcomes that can advance and provide
the leap ahead breakthroughs in that field, that that is
something you want to advance on, and it meets the criteria I
talked about in the opening statement. You refer to it in your
covenants, I think there has been a general consensus on that
says that is where we are going to be focusing our attention as
this leap ahead rather than linear incremental kind of advances
that are in the corporate process.
Senator Wyden. Let me ask you about one other area. I want
to recognize my colleague. As you can see, he and I have a
number of areas we want to explore, and I pledged that we
wouldn't bring in the corn flakes for breakfast. We have a few
more areas we want to look at.
One additional that is been important to me is
understanding how the Bush Administration is going to approach
overall space policy from the military, civil and commercial
side of this discussion. The Administration has stated how
important it views a space-based national missile defense, for
example. President Eisenhower's desire to separate military and
civilian space activities led to the creation of the agency,
but the Defense Department retaining control over military
space programs.
Tell us, if you would, what is the Administration's overall
space policy for military, civil, and commercial space and who
in the Administration is going to go about coordinating these
various areas?
Mr. O'Keefe. First of all, this is not going to be a news
flash. I am not going to create new Administration policy. What
I can tell you, though, and what I am committed to as a
personal bias is a much closer collaboration of partnership
with the Defense Department on the larger national security
agendas in places in which we can utilize infrastructure that
neither department would have to duplicate. I don't see that as
terribly efficient to have redundant capacity for this really
unique set of capabilities, and there are ways I think we can
capitalize on those advantages without breaching the spirit of
the divisions that were fought in the Eisenhower era.
As far as how we are going to refine this, I have had the
opportunity to talk with a good friend on the National Security
Council staff where we lamented that, prior to September 11, we
were heading toward a series of definitions of what the
Administration space policy in this regard would be, commerce
and military applications, it was completely short circuited as
a consequence of 9/11 and held in abeyance. I have tremendous
enthusiasm and great familiarity with the NSC staff, as well as
principles involved in that to regenerate that, reinvigorate
that debate, bring it to the floor, put it on the front burner
as soon as we can as soon as we start working the day-in and
day-out challenges.
Senator Wyden. You said it is going to be a closer
relationship. What do you think are the proper relationships
between aerospace and defense?
Mr. O'Keefe. In development it is essential in terms of
working out requirements for capability and need that lift
capacity. I think you and I talked a little bit privately the
other day about the history that I think I find really
unsettling, of conflict between the Air Force and NASA that
existed on the order of about 15 years ago, at the time the
Shuttle was developing in a large way and viewed at that time
as being a potentially commercially cost-efficient effort that
would also be confounded and cost competitive with heavy lift
as well as expendable launch vehicle capacity the Air Force
maintained. It created an enormous rift between those two
institutions as a consequence of modest design changes in order
to avoid accommodating the other institution.
I found that to be really objectionable and something we
ended up as taxpayers, I think, paying a lot more for redundant
capacity that had there been a closer cooperation would not
have been as attractable as it was. That is an area where we
can avoid problems and do those things together, especially
with the strategic launch initiative at NASA as well as
comparable efforts at Defense in its formative phases right
now.
Senator Wyden. Do you foresee the Administration, Mr.
O'Keefe, formally issuing a new space policy, and if the answer
is yes, I would be interested, for example, on how that would
differ from the Clinton Administration?
Mr. O'Keefe. Again, I do not want to preordain that answer,
because as I mentioned just very recently talking to very good
long-time friend of mine from the National Security Council
staff, as we mutually lamented the fact that prior to 9/11 we
were heading toward resolution or at least debate of what would
be the composition of such a policy. I think there is
enthusiasm for putting that back on the front burner at the
earliest opportunity, likely behind certain early summer or
spring would be the period which the NSC, particularly through
the deputy's committee which I have been privileged to be a
part of for the past year or so to vet through these issues to
determine what the essence of the space policy is. I do not
want to forecast what that outcome would be, because I frankly
do not know how that is going to change in the aftermath of the
events.
Senator Wyden. I will have a few additional questions.
The Senator from Florida, you have been very patient.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, please continue on. It is
just the two of us.
Mr. O'Keefe. Senator Nelson, I am still here.
Senator Nelson. Please interrupt any time, and I welcome
you to interrupt any time. Earlier, you said that you would
consider as a result of the Young Report, the reduction of 4
flights a year. This is a considerable concern, because it was
at this very table that in September we had a hearing on Space
Shuttle safety and unanimously all of the participants in the
hearing, which included both inside and outside NASA, said if
you are going to fly the Space Shuttle, we are going to fly it
safely and that was the No. 1 priority.
What I'd like to know is before you would make such a
decision, will you come and report specifically to Congress and
seek our advice?
Mr. O'Keefe. Positively, Senator. Any opportunity to
consult and discuss with you, your colleagues those that are
interested in this program is always to the advantage of the
program, the Administration, to you, and to me. I pledge to do
that. That will be an objective on the regular basis to the
point you will tolerate those inquiries.
Senator Nelson. And in making such a decision, will
external independent groups or NASA conduct an analysis on the
impact?
Mr. O'Keefe. I think it certainly would be a likely
condition. I do not know what barriers there would be to doing
that, because every time I turn around, I am constantly
astounded by the problems that it takes in bringing in external
point of view in a variety of decisions like this, because what
really is distinctive and I think you'll appreciate this about
the Young Commission is they are looking in a larger strategic
framework. Once you start getting into business case issues and
the requirements for dealing with a business plan on how you
would conduct something, the Competition Contracting Act, all
kinds of neat things suddenly come into play, so I would not
want to give you or mislead you unknowingly to what I think are
real rigid administrative barriers for the use of external
capabilities when you then start getting down to real
implementation decisions that have contract implications. So
that would be my intent, but be guided by what the legal
limitations would be that typically guide such questions.
Senator Nelson. I just want to express as part of our
constitutional role of advising, if you look at this decision
and the Young Report through the prism of a mindset of OMB,
there is going to be considerable risk to the space program,
because such a decision, for example, on reducing to four
flights per year means that there would be a considerable
layoff of the workforce, particularly at the Cape, at the
Kennedy Space Center, the finest launch team in the world.
There was a period within 12 months that they launched 8
Shuttles. That is nothing short of miraculous and heroic. And
such a financial decision to reduce the launches to 4 would
mean a considerable layoff of that expertise and then when the
time comes and it surely will, that we start to ramp up, you
lose a lot of that ability, and you have seen that kind of
hurky-jerky kind of approach in the past has not served us
well.
So as Senator Hutchison says, if you start moving in that
direction, not only will she be all over you, but I will too.
Because the bottom line is going to affect safety, and that is
one of the most dangerous points of the whole Shuttle mission--
the launch. There is no room for error, and when there was, we
got caught. And we found out that the risk factor was 1-in-25.
They say it is about 1-in-450 now. And if you will do Shuttle
upgrades, they can move it up to 1-in-1,000, significantly
increasing the safety factor, but you cannot do that if you
start reducing your flight rate to 4.
One of the things that I think you ought to consider also
in view of the war on terrorists is that you have to have this
vehicle as reliable assured access to space to back up your
expendables. An Atlas sits out there on the pad. Its weight is
supported by its fuel. It is an easy target. And you could go
on through a number of the other expendables and their launch
pads that have to be operable, and so if you are looking at
assured access to space, there cannot be any mistakes with
regard to the Space Shuttle.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague. Let me ask one other
question with respect to the Space Shuttle, Mr. O'Keefe. What
role do you see the Shuttle playing for future NASA space
transportation needs? We have begun to look at balancing the
need for safety upgrades versus the various other needs. I
think it would be helpful to know what role you see Shuttle
playing for future space transportation needs.
Mr. O'Keefe. Again, I think the original objectives as
Senator Nelson says, he is steeped and understands very clearly
what the greatest aspirations at what point the Shuttle was
conceived and developed and ultimately deployed was to provide
a viable commercial alternative, an opportunity in a way that
would provide the launch capacity for satellites and electronic
systems and a lot of experimentation in a range of technology-
driven enterprise and science-driven agendas, but again, it was
envisioned to be a real serious alternative.
It hasn't achieved that objective for a variety of reasons.
I think there is all kinds of logic that got us there, as well
as the difficulties of operations that have motivated that, but
I think anything you can do to maximize the utility of the
Shuttle operation in its capacity which is really quite
remarkable in and of itself is to be desired and to be pursued.
So in that respect again, that is what augers in favor of the
closer cooperation with Defense Department, with a range of
different agency interests that would be involved there, and to
look at some of the other potential commercial attributes that
we could establish on a more cost efficient basis. As soon as
we could get that on footing, the closer we are and the closer
we will be to answering in a more affirmative way the question
we posed.
Senator Wyden. Let me turn now to the question of
privatization, and particularly, privatizing the Shuttle. You,
as I understand it, are on record as supporting the further
privatization of the Shuttle and other programs.
Privatization means different things to different people.
And it can mean contract consolidation. It can mean giving the
Shuttle away to one or two companies. What are the limits in
your view of privatization?
Mr. O'Keefe. First of all, there are, in fact, wide ranging
definitions, and my endorsement and enthusiasm for this is very
much in the context of the President's management agenda, the 5
essential elements, competitive sourcing is one of those 5. And
so the opportunity, any opportunity to achieve competitive
sourcing alternative for government operations is an essential
element of what he expects every department and agency to be
pursuing.
Limitations I think you point to with BRACC are the
industry configuration, how it is conducted, what you currently
have is a series of important contractual commitments that are
conducted through a partnering arrangement between
corporations, how that all sorts out and what those limitations
may portend, that is something I really have got to get greater
or more in-depth legal advice in terms of what those
applications may portend.
Similarly, there are capacities and capabilities that
Senator Nelson very appropriately points to that are resonant
within the science and technical community within the
government as part of our public management team need to
attain, so in that regard, try to sort out those two really
important questions and a myriad of other secondary points or
would lead to a more informed answer to what are the limits to
privatization or more to competitive sourcing, but as a generic
proposition, I am there and I think it needs to be pursued and
it is not just a case of saying well, we will eventually get
something that says it involves answers to those points, but I
intend to be committed to pursuing that immediately.
Senator Wyden. If the Shuttle is turned over to the private
sector, how do you go about ensuring that NASA gets the things
it needs at those prices?
Mr. O'Keefe. The answers to the first questions will flow
once you know the answers to the second part.
Senator Wyden. What is your sense in the next few years
with the Shuttle? What is likely to happen in the next few
years on privatization in the Shuttle?
Mr. O'Keefe. Again, I think we have to start this due
diligence in the way that first looks at the legal implications
of current contractual commitments between the partnering
companies that would evolve specifically in current operations.
The second is to look very specifically at what the
implications are to the resonant in-house public scientific and
technical community would retain. What alarms me very much in
the spirit of Senator Nelson's observation, better than half of
the science, engineering and technical staff at NASA throughout
the organization will be eligible to retire within the next 3
to 5 years, better than that.
That tells me that we really need to be focused on the
essential elements of the presence, management, agenda of those
5 is strategic management of human capital.
We need to do it here. It is a case where that whole
generation, Apollo era, entrepreneurial, innovation and
creativity is about to retire, or it is going to be eligible to
fairly soon. As a consequence, trying to find out how you
reinvigorate that spirit through the personnel management and
resources objectives, is going to be that second order of
magnitude. Once you get through those two issues, it gets to
the larger points.
Senator Wyden. One other international issue that is
important to me. As you know, China successfully launched
unmanned space ships in 1999 and 2001. It is our Subcommittee's
understanding that China is going to send a manned craft in
space before 2005, and preparation for a mission to the Moon is
underway. Should Americans be concerned about our continued
access to space? What is your opinion with respect to these
developments in China and the space area?
Mr. O'Keefe. I am not sure what the impact or the
consequences are to the intelligence community, to the larger
security. And so therefore to opine or offer any thought on
what those implications would be would be either uninformed or
misinformed at best.
Senator Wyden. I have just a couple of additional
questions.
Does the Senator from Florida have any others?
Senator Nelson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to follow up on
your questions about privatization. As part of our advice to
you, the Shuttle is not an operational vehicle. It is still a
research vehicle. Now, you say that you are in favor of
privatization. I understand your general philosophy. Does that
mean, for example, that the Shuttle would start launching
commercial payloads?
Mr. O'Keefe. Again, I really have to be consistent here,
Senator, because you clearly demonstrated an interest in seeing
that consistency, and failure to have transcripts in front of
me, previous testimony, I am going to make absolutely certain I
stay consistent, at least in this game. I have a clear
understanding of what the President expects in his present
management agenda as it pertains to competitive sourcing. I
intend to pursue that in every degree of enthusiasm I have.
This falls into that category as an example of how it may be
pursued.
There is application across every Federal department and
agency and this lends itself very neatly to those larger
objectives. The specifics of your question is something I would
need to sort out to understand the implications of the 2 facets
I explained previously, which are what the contractual
implications are for the partnering arrangements that exist
under current Shuttle operations contracts, and they are not
research vehicle operations. They are Shuttle operations
contracts with independent companies that I do not know the
legal implications of and I need to be better informed of.
Second, we need to be positively absolutely committed as
part of the President's larger objectives to be sure we are
focused on the strategic management of human capital and we
know what the implications will be if we choose to remove or
defer capabilities that are currently resonant within the
technical and scientific engineering. Those two, I think, need
to be consulted first before I could ever get to the stage of
responding. But as a general philosophical matter, those are
driving principles.
Senator Nelson. Well, so that as you would be trying to
conclude that, let me put your initial consideration of this
question of privatization in the context of what has happened
in history. The Space Shuttle was developed to be the space
transportation system. And when Challenger exploded, we
realized that the mistake was that we were trying to make it be
too many things to too many people.
And thus the policy decision, and this was during the time
of the Reagan Administration, was that the commercial payloads
could best be launched on expendable booster rockets, and that
you would save the Space Shuttle primarily where you did the
human in the loop, thus the scientific experiments, space
telescope, and therefore, on the manifest, any of those
commercial payloads, they finished those, but they did not redo
them. Likewise, on the DoD payloads, although there was still
that capability as a back-up.
What I am afraid of is that there is this preference for
privatization that does not apply to a scientific vehicle, and
so I raise again the question that you will have to consider in
the future, which you say you cannot address now, does
privatization mean a return to commercial vehicles? If so, that
is a tremendous change in policy for NASA. Does it mean just
commercialized research payloads?
And if you move to the so-called privatization, well, what
about all the ground infrastructure? Does it all get
privatized?
There is a substantial amount of expense of all of that
stuff that goes along the space program, some of which by the
way we have been trying to address and some of these
appropriations bills, you know, the VAB has panels peeling off
of it, Lord help us if a hurricane comes through there. We have
gotten a lot of that corrosion that is going on down there in
the Cape from years of salt spray and so forth. How is a
private company that is going to be incentivized to redo all of
that under a contract that they have to operate under specific
cost, so I want you to arch your eyebrow as you approach what
the President has given you as marching orders when you are
dealing with a research vehicle and a research program like
this, you may not have gotten this through your lens at OMB.
I suspect that you would have gotten some of this from your
experience as controller of DoD, and as Secretary of the Navy.
And I think you are going to have to put on some different
glasses.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague. A recent press report,
Mr. O'Keefe said, and I will just quote here: ``NASA also hopes
to land two unmanned spacecraft on Mars, launch a number of
Earth observing satellites and a new space telescope in the
next couple of years.'' Sounds awfully good. Awful lot of us
science fans and Americans. Pick each one of them?
Mr. O'Keefe. First of all, as a method of fundamental
management, hope is not a method. Planning on this as
expectations is just I think we have got to demonstrate to
ourselves, satisfy ourselves indeed these are achievable
objectives and given the circumstances right now, I think
everything has to get back to basics. We really have to look at
the fundamentals. Again, this is not an overwhelming challenge.
This is not something beyond the scope or without parallel in
any other circumstance.
There are models here. There are a variety of approaches
that can be followed. There are management methods and
approaches that can yield results we are looking for, but they
have to be attended to and so as a consequence, they would
achieve the kind of forecast that you are talking about, that I
know is part of the fondest expectation is something I think
once we look at fundamentals, get back to the basics, and
determine whether or not we can do all of this, that will then
inform what approaches we will take for this portfolio.
My fondest hope is that we get there.
Senator Wyden. I have one last question. I am struck that
as we look at the scientific possibilities, the excitement
always come back to showing that you can liberate funds from
areas that are either low priority or administratively
inefficient, and that debate certainly starts with the Space
Station, but there are a lot of other parts to it. Perhaps what
symbolizes it for me is when you came as Deputy Director of
OMB, you told the House Appropriations Committee that there
would be a cost overrun of $4 billion on the Space Station and
then a few days after the hearing, NASA came back and said the
figure was more than $800 million or more than that, and I
assume actually would like to have you comment on, I assume
that one of your top priorities is going to try to restore the
credibility of NASA with respect to estimating these future
cost questions.
Mr. O'Keefe. Lest there be a view that there is group think
that exists at OMB, I regret to advise that shortly after that
increase, after having just testified to what was the scope of
the increase a matter of weeks before, it was referred to in
rather indirect terms as the ``O'Keefe bump,'' which was not
the most amusing element of my career experience.
That is for sure. But it was, in the context of saying and
reminding us that we shouldn't have any more confidence in this
set of rules than the ones that preceded them.
That is the part that really concerns me most, because it
is, I think, all of our fondest hope that this is it. Having
said that, there is nothing that raises my confidence now that
suggests that is something we can take to the bank. As a
consequence, I do not want to rely on that as a management
informed decision until we can really assert to that with any
confidence that we can suggest we should. So that is it.
I think what that translates to in parallel we talked about
a little earlier of again just kind of a thumbnail sketch of
what constitutes roughly two-thirds of the current resource
configuration dedicated to indirect costs, maintenance of
capable infrastructure capacity and the other third, at most,
is dedicated toward the pursuit of projects of excellence of
technology-driven enterprise.
If those numbers change, those percentages become more and
more consumptive on the indirect side as a consequence of newer
discoveries of what may be the latest estimate on overruns for
the station. That consumes the other part of this equation,
because last I checked, there is not an awful lot of enthusiasm
here, any element of Congress saying here's the blank check,
spend it like you think you need it. That would be
irresponsible on the part of Congress. The President certainly
doesn't endorse that. That is not a position we have adopted or
would we encourage be adopted.
Senator Wyden. Well, and clearly to make the case of
additional funds, you are going to have to show that you are
making better use of current dollars, given they are citing one
inefficiency after another.
Mr. O'Keefe. I consider that an enormous challenge.
Senator Wyden. I know Chairman Hollings feels very
strongly. We are going to get you confirmed as quickly as we
can. I think you have the potential to really be a man for the
times and to show that by cutting some of the massive overhead
and the inefficiency that you can help the agency reach the
stars. I am excited about the possibilities on your watch. As
you can see from my colleagues today, we had a spirited debate
this morning. It is not close to what you are going to have
when----
Mr. O'Keefe. Once I get there.
Senator Wyden. It is not close to what you are going to
have as you try to make what I call the transition back to the
agency's original mission. I think that is what this is all
about is to take out the original charter for a science and
research-driven kind of mission and then as you have described
it, go out to the Senators and scientists and various
communities that are directly affected by this, and then bring
to Congress an agenda that we can rally and promoting a kind of
development to breakthrough technologies and historical
scientific developments that are so important.
Mr. O'Keefe. I take this very much as a preview of coming
attractions. There is no doubt about it. The expectations are
very high. I think that is a great challenge, one that I look
forward to. But I take solace in Senator Nelson's opening
statement, as a matter of fact, a few hours ago that there was
one of the greatest administrators of our history, storied
fabled historic place was James Webb and I concur entirely. I
think he was just a remarkable fellow who wrestled with exactly
the kind of issues we are dealing with here and I hope that the
parallel that has greatest resonance is that he served as
Truman's Director of the Bureau of the Budget, predecessor at
OMB from 1946 to 1949. I see his picture every single day. As a
consequence, that is a constant reminder to me that there are
messages and methods in management process that can be employed
here. If I do this a fraction as well as his incredible legacy,
that will be a notable achievement and it is one that I take as
a charge, Mr. Chairman, your commentary on how to go about
doing that. I am hopeful as well.
Senator Wyden. Before I turn this over to Senator Nelson,
let me also recognize that we have had a terrific fellow come
over from the NIST agency, Kevin Kimball. I hope his folks are
watching this from C-SPAN. He has just done a terrific job for
the Subcommittee, particularly on getting us ready for today's
hearing. I am going to turn this over to Senator Nelson and
also thank him for all his expertise. I think the Senator
knows, I am going to work very closely with them and we are
going to get on these issues and put the kind of focus on it
that allows us to promote the kind of science that the Senator
from Florida is advocating.
I thank you again, Mr. O'Keefe. We look forward to your
rapid confirmation.
Let me turn the hearing over to Senator Nelson.
The Senator from Florida.
Senator Nelson. We will wrap this up pretty quick, Mr.
Chairman.
Just to comment going back about the Young Report and 4
flights a year. Not only would it have the affects of what I
was talking about in all of the layoffs, but it would also have
the affect of very likely moth-balling at least 1 of the 4
orbiters, and that is going backwards. That is not going
forwards.
Let me talk to you briefly about the space launch
initiative. We discussed this last night in our conversation.
The Shuttle upgrades funding has been minimized, and under the
present plan will no longer be funded after 2005 based on
NASA's current plan to shelve the orbiter fleet by 2012,
because in NASA's budget plan we have about $5 billion for this
thing called space launch initiative, which is really a
development now of technology, so tell us what you believe
about this space launch initiative as it's currently planned
and funded. Do you think it is going to result in the
replacement of the Shuttle by 2012?
Mr. O'Keefe. First of all, they are going to get a lot more
informed of the mechanics of the Space Shuttle. In its earliest
stages of development, this is again a golden opportunity to
reach a very close collaborative and cooperative arrangement
with the Air Force specifically, with the Defense Department
over how we could look at what those objectives are. I think
your commentary as well, you recognize that the goals and
objectives we had in mind as Americans for Shuttle and pre-1986
and for all the reasons I concur were not realized that you
have assessed, this is a good time to go back and revisit some
of those things, to think seriously about the kinds of
important questions you have laid out of commercial
applications, as well as a range of other alternative uses.
They do not want to inform what it is we are really driving
toward and it ought to be the objectives.
So I think that is rather than articulating some bombastic
vision of what I would hope it would be born of nothing more
than fantasy, I need to give you a more informed view after
looking at what those questions are, as well as looking back
again to the period of time that kind of revisits what we had
in mind for the Shuttle that we thought was an informed view
and see if we can do better.
This is the kind of maturation process, again I am sure you
are experienced with as well, that typically goes on with any
large scale systems integration activity. It is complex.
Shuttling of itself is an amazing achievement of aerospace
capacity in to look at how do we look at something that is a
leap ahead from there ought to be part of our objective and it
is going to take as long as you suggest through 2012 to really
be thinking, and it would not be out of the ordinary with any
other aerospace maturation that I have ever seen or been
associated with in the Defense Department days.
So as a consequence how we define this ought to be informed
by the very important questions you have raised that asks
what's the objective you are really after and what technologies
can you employ that will leap ahead.
Senator Nelson. Let me give you a little of our advice.
Mr. O'Keefe. Always most appreciative, too, as I had all
morning for that opportunity. Yes.
Senator Nelson. I fully appreciate the fact that you cannot
come to the table knowledgeable about all of this. That is part
of getting on the job and starting to learn. But here is the
nub of the coconut. Basically we are going to have a system
that was going to replace the Space Shuttle. It did not happen.
But they still have $5 billion in the budget over the next
several years to develop a technology and, because of that,
they are still postponing a lot of the upgrades that will
directly affect the safety of the Space Shuttle, so if we are
not going to have a replacement vehicle by 2012, which we are
not, we got to keep the present horse in good condition to get
us where we need to get. So as I suggested to you last night,
one of the things that you may look at since this space launch
initiative is more toward the development of technology, see if
you can get the Department of Defense as a partner in sharing
the cost of that, because it would directly affect the
Department of Defense giving you a little more breathing room
in the NASA budget to go on and keep doing the Space Shuttle
safety upgrades, because we just cannot afford to lose that
vehicle as a reliable assured access to space.
And then I would ask for you to consider, because this is
much more technical stuff of RDT&E, research development
testing and evaluation in NASA's hardware procurements. You
probably had some experience with this over in your position as
controller in DoD. Do you have any particular DoD experience,
by the way, that might be applicable to your ideas about
procurement reform at NASA?
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes. Having served at the department during
the time that Don Atwood was the Deputy Secretary there, his
primary charge to me and the organization was to develop the
management review at that time and as a consequence, pursue the
series of procurement reform initiatives, as well as larger
management of infrastructure kinds of directives, logistics and
arrange personnel and other activities that have direct
applicability in this context.
Fast-forward in that timeframe you have looked at a range
of academic pursuit, a whole series of various performed
initiatives, which approach do you use in those areas, specific
areas of reform or more generically toward process innovations
and I have seen, I think, the application of a number of them
during the course of development of the presence management
agenda this year.
So having worked with as a direct context, as well as
having thought through what some of the implications are, I
think I would like to take the opportunity to employ best
practices that fit for this kind of agency and test drive them,
see how they work, see what we can come up with, but certainly
is not the lack of familiarity with the variations of which
approaches to use.
Senator Nelson. Before we conclude the hearing, I'd like to
give you an opportunity to lay out for the record what is your
vision?
Mr. O'Keefe. I think first and foremost is a
reinvigoration, reinstilling the entrepreneurial system and
spirit that is quintessential in definition of what has made
NASA what it is today and characterizes its extraordinary
successes, so how to go about establishing that to press the
edges of what the technology can do, if we are looking at
things that are again incremental improvements, we wonder why,
and I am going to think more in terms of how do we do things in
a leap ahead consideration, because if this institution doesn't
do it, it likely won't occur in any span of time is going to be
reasonable.
And that entrepreneurial spirit is essential, and in its
earliest phases, instills that sense of entrepreneurship over
time will be more process-focused, more infrastructure-focused,
more capability-focused and less about considering things like
the term sum cost, which in the public environment means we
have already got money invested, so we better use it until it
finally dies versus the term sum costs in a business context,
which means you invested it, it did not work, write it off, do
not let it be an anchor on the way you do business in the
future.
Sum term can be defined different ways. First and foremost
is vision to reinstill that entrepreneurial spirit so we can
stretch the envelope in a way that works well for information
and technology enterprise and science-driven agenda as opposed
to capability.
Second, there would be, I think, a focus on prudent
management principles that can inform and guide and motivate us
to be selective about what those areas are because you cannot
do it all, as much as we all would like to see lots of things
pursued.
The third element would be to establish and instill a close
cooperation with all other elements of this incredible Federal
expanse that we have available in the field of research and
development to be sure that we maximize that collaboration
synergy and not duplicate efforts in that regard.
The fourth element of the vision I think would be also to
pick up I guess on a very important theme that you have talked
about a lot in a very passionate and very thoughtful way, which
is to be mindful constantly of the safety considerations that
the risks involved in this endeavor, while they are important
and that it certainly is a noble mission objective, the risks
nonetheless are higher and have to be considered as paramounts
of objectives and to take a page from this history.
Navy nuclear experience that I have a familiarity with by
virtue of superior parental review, as well as management
opportunity that I have dealt with which is that you can
achieve remarkable improvements in the technology and employ
those improvements while at the same time sustaining enviable
and perfect safety record. There is a pattern there. There is a
process set of informed issues that are part of that history
that we would be extremely well served to take a page from that
I would like to have the opportunity to instill and I think
those basic points and elements of the vision would put us in a
position I think to take advantage of NASA at the crossroads at
this stage as it redefines and looks at the new mission and
strategy. I am very excited about this opportunity.
Senator Nelson. I am grateful that you are excited about
it, and I would only conclude the hearing by saying that as
part of that vision, that this one Senator's vision is that we
are a Nation of explorers and adventurers, and we always had a
frontier. That frontier used to be westward, now that frontier
is upward and inward. And if we ever abandon trying to
challenge that frontier, we will become a second-rate Nation.
But we won't, because of little agencies like NASA that keep
that vision alive to fulfill the character of the American
people as adventurers and explorers.
And that is my wish for you in saying Godspeed on a very
important leadership post for the United States of America.
The hearing is adjourned. We will keep the record open for
a week for any further comments to be entered by our
colleagues.
[The hearing adjourned at 12:50 p.m.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Brownback,
U.S. Senator from Kansas
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing for this very
important nominee. The constitutional role of advise and consent is one
of the most important duties we have as a body.
Today the Senate Commerce Committee reviews the President's
nomination of Mr. Sean O'Keefe as Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). While I have not had the
opportunity to meet Mr. O'Keefe, I am confident that his past
experience will serve him well as he embarks upon the important mission
of leading NASA into the 21st century. Mr. O'Keefe is clearly qualified
to fulfill the responsibilities of this position; and I look forward to
him taking office as soon as possible.
Mr. O'Keefe's experience clearly demonstrates his unique ability to
live up to the responsibility of his new office. His experience at the
Office of Management and Budget, as well as his extensive background in
public service will serve him well in the effort to bring
responsibility to NASA's budget. NASA has a history of space science
research aimed at benefiting life on Earth. However, the challenges
facing the agency today, are more terrestrial. In order to strengthen
the scientific research at NASA, the financial and budgetary issues
must be addressed. Not only must they continue with their scientific
research, but NASA must also do so in a fiscally responsible manner.
This will be a difficult balancing act which I am confident Mr.
O'Keefe, a former Deputy Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, can achieve.
I look forward to working with Mr. O'Keefe once he is confirmed. As
I am sure he is aware, NASA is currently in an interesting position to
engage foreign countries in space science research. As the United
States continues to pursue the war on terrorism, it is increasingly
important to foster strong working relationships with our allies.
Recently, I sent a letter to the President encouraging him to look into
the work that NASA is pursuing with India, specifically with regard to
projects that were set aside due to sanctions which have now been
lifted. I encourage Mr. O'Keefe to pursue new cooperation between NASA
and India.
Finally, I would like to point out to the nominee one of his
predecessor's most important accomplishments. During his tenure as NASA
Administrator, Dan Goldin joined me in a tour of Kansas. I take this
opportunity to invite Mr. O'Keefe to follow in the footsteps of his
predecessor and join me in Kansas.
Again, I am looking forward to the experience and perspective that
Mr. O'Keefe will bring to NASA. I congratulate Mr. O'Keefe on his
nomination and look forward to expeditiously getting him into office.
__________
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senator from South Carolina
We have before us Mr. Sean O'Keefe who is nominated to be the next
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The
President has sent us a fine nominee--Mr. O'Keefe currently serves as
Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget and has
previously been confirmed by the Senate three times.
Thank you, Mr. O'Keefe for being willing to take on the challenges
at NASA--and there are challenges, not the least of which is the
International Space Station. NASA started the Station in 1984,
redesigned it in 1993, and is on the verge of redesigning to ``core
complete'' now. We were promised that the station would cost only $17.4
billion to develop but now are told that the original design could cost
as much as $30 billion.
Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a
report on NASA's fiscal management of the Space Station. In its report,
GAO stated that NASA was unable to provide obligation-based cost
information on the Space Station nor was it able to provide support for
the actual cost of completed Space Station elements and subsystems. The
question I pose is: If NASA is unable to account for costs that have
already incurred, how are we to believe its estimates for future costs?
At the same time, we are being told that to fix the problems, we
need to eliminate crew and scientific research. So in the end, the
Station--that was sold to the Congress as a world class research
facility--will only be able to accomplish 20 hours of research a week.
So we were sold a bill of goods on which NASA failed to deliver.
Mr. O'Keefe, as Administrator, I urge you to get NASA back to
basics. The Space Shuttle itself is a world class research facility,
and I fully support that program. NASA also has opportunities in Space
Science and Earth Science to explore our universe and to help us more
fully understand the Earth.
I look forward to hearing from the nominee and expect his swift
confirmation.
__________
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Trent Lott
to Sean O'Keefe
Question 1. Based on the RFP, NASA's Landsat Data Continuity
Mission procurement seems headed toward yielding a satellite providing
minimally useful data for a single customer--the government. This
result would provide the least value for the most cost to the
government. As NASA Administrator, will you ensure that the Landsat
data procurement, as well as future remote sensing procurements,
maximize the benefits and minimize the cost by sharing the cost and
risk of the data acquisition with commercial users of remote sensing
data?
Answer: It is important to ensure that the Landsat data
procurement, as well as future remote sensing procurements, seek to
minimize costs and maximize benefits by partnering with commercial
providers and uses of remote sensing data and products wherever
possible. One of the key principles underlying the President's vision
of government reform is that it be market-based and actively promote
innovation through competition. Meeting government needs from
competitive, commercial sources is one of the most effective means of
accomplishing this. In order for the LDCM to be of greatest value,
private sector firms must have the full freedom to offer data and data
products, beyond those needed to fulfill the strict terms of Landsat
data continuity, to a broader global market.
Question 2. Do you agree that NASA's remote sensing data needs
should be fulfilled, to the greatest extent possible, through
commercial data buys, and not through the construction and operation of
Government-use only satellites? Wouldn't a FAR Part 12 procurement be
better suited for such data buys than a Part 15 procurement?
Answer: Purchase of commercial data can be competitive and
preferable to the construction and operation of government-only
satellites where there is a market for such data beyond the government.
NASA needs to continually engage in extensive dialog with the
scientific community and industry to determine whether there are
prospects for U.S.-based commercial data products. In some cases, e.g.,
planetary exploration, the prospects for commercial data products may
be negligible in the near term due to the capital costs and risks
involved. In other cases, such as land remote-sensing, there are
already some commercial data products that are used by NASA. The FAR
Part 12 and the portion of the Commercial Space Act dealing with remote
sensing assume the availability of commercial products. I would like to
ensure that NASA engages with industry in constructive ways to enable
more, rather than fewer, viable commercial procurements in the future.
Whether use of FAR Part 12 would be superior to the use of FAR Part 15
would depend on the specific facts of a particular case.
Question 3. Many of NASA's facilities associated with the human
space flight program, including the Stennis Space Center's rocket
engine test facilities, were established and built 30-40 years ago, and
are showing their age. While NASA's budget requests have focused on
direct mission expenditures, its investment in maintaining and updating
its facilities and equipment has lagged. As NASA Administrator, will
you ensure that NASA's budget requests include adequate investments in
maintaining and upgrading its facilities?
Answer: The high performance that we expect from the human space
flight programs requires great facilities as well as great people.
However, currently approximately two-thirds of NASA's annual budget is
spent on indirect and overhead activities, which include facilities and
equipment, while only one-third goes to the actual conduct of
scientific research and technology development. The President's
Management Agenda calls for greater use of competitive sourcing across
the Federal Government. As part of this agenda, NASA has undertaken a
Strategic Requirements Review to assess opportunities for outsourcing,
streamlining and consolidation. I have not personally gone over the
details of NASA's review yet, but I expect the review to identify
actions that can significantly reduce NASA's institutional and overhead
burden. If such actions are successful, more resources will be
available to direct toward science, technology and exploration
activities at NASA and to address NASA's high-priority institutional
needs like facility modernization. I would ask for your help in getting
NASA back to basics and rebalancing the ratio of research to
institution at NASA.
Question 4. You will need to take full advantage of a range of
available budgetary tools if you are going to move NASA forward.
Throughout this past year, you had the opportunity to reacquaint your
self with how many of these tools, such as advanced procurement,
forward funding, and advance appropriations, are, or are not, being
used by various agencies and departments. Do you believe that the use
of advance procurement, forward funding, or advance appropriations
would be appropriate for NASA?
Answer: The Administration supports careful and selective use of
advance appropriations, advance procurement, and forward funding in
high-priority areas where such funding mechanisms can provide
managerial benefits or cost savings. However, the Administration does
not support widespread use of these funding mechanisms across the
Federal Government, especially when they are used to circumvent normal
budgetary controls. For example, for a small number of large capital
development projects, advance appropriations may be appropriate to give
incentives to managers to better control costs. Similarly, for certain
projects, advance procurements may be appropriate if cost savings can
be achieved. I will need to review NASA's programs to see if any of
these funding mechanisms would benefit high-priority NASA programs.
Under any circumstances, great care must be exercised in using any of
these approaches lest we lose total cost visibility. The recent cost
overrun revelations on International Space Station serves as a stark
example of the hazards of incremental funding methods.
Question 5. We have talked at length about budgetary alternatives
for other issues of great importance to our Nation. The one in
particular that I view with the greatest concern is the continued
decline of our Navy's fleet. Since 1990, we have watched our Navy fleet
shrink from 550 ships to the 317 ships it has today, and we've been
told in numerous hearings that we haven't seen the bottom yet. The
significance of this decline is compounded when one considers how
critical a capable Navy is to our Nation's ability to respond to
threats such as those we are currently dealing with in Afghanistan. Can
budgetary tools such as those we have discussed be used to bolster our
shrinking Navy fleet? Do you support the use of advanced appropriations
for large capital projects, including shipbuilding, provided such
proposals include contractual provisions that yield cost savings for
such projects?
Answer: By letter of December 11, to Leader Lott, I described the
OMB position on the applicability of advance appropriation principles
for Navy shipbuilding. I'd be happy to elaborate on these comments
should Senator Lott desire.
__________
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain
to Sean O'Keefe
Question 1. One of the issues highlighted in the Young Report was
that the final Station cost estimate at completion has not been a
management criterion within NASA. The Station cap that the Congress
established was on the overall development costs for the Station along
with the use of the Space Shuttle. Can you elaborate on this finding
and comment as how you would propose to deal with the issue?
Answer: I believe the Independent Cost and Management Evaluation
(IMCE) task force assessment is accurate in its finding that the strong
focus of the ISS management on living within annual costs was a major
factor in the development of the total ISS cost problem revealed in
early 2001. There are a number of other contributing factors, however,
that must also be addressed. I understand that NASA is now preparing a
proposed set of management and accounting changes that address the IMCE
findings. If confirmed, I will, of course, examine those proposals and
the assumptions on which future cost estimates are based. In addition,
it would be my intention to initiate needed changes in fiscal
management for ISS--and all other NASA programs--to improve cost
estimation, tracking and oversight procedures based on a total cost
concept which will better account for both current and out-year
expenditures. (See also my response to question 2, below.)
Question 2. The Young Report stated that a technical baseline must
be developed that can be used as the basis for a formal cost estimate.
It recommended using the Department of Defense cost assessment approach
as model and develop a full Space Station cost estimate. Do you agree
with using the Department of Defense cost assessment approach?
Answer: I believe that NASA has a good deal more to learn from the
DOD cost assessment approach. That will be among several tools that I
intend to bring to bear in reforming NASA's cost estimating capability.
Question 3. The Young Report stated that financial and project
control functions needs to be strengthened significantly in the Space
Station program office and NASA Headquarters. What are your thoughts on
the current control systems and how would you propose to strengthen
them?
Answer: I believe the IMCE findings about financial and project
control functions are among the most important in the report.
Strengthening these systems is a very high priority, and I will
initiate a systematic review of NASA's current practices with a view to
identifying and implementing necessary changes.
Question 4. I recognize that the Strategic Resources Review is
still underway. However, that review may recommend some significant
changes to the NASA centers. Are you prepared to implement the
recommendations from the review process?
Answer: NASA's Strategic Resources Review is a key element of the
Administration's management reform agenda. By reducing NASA's
institutional burden and making greater use of capabilities in academia
and industry, NASA intends to: promote innovation; open Government
activities to competition; improve the depth and quality of
R&Dcapabilities that NASA can call on; and increase NASA's
responsiveness to future directions in science, technology and
exploration. The SRR process is a very positive and necessary exercise
for NASA, and I look forward to reviewing the recommendations of the
SRR. Implementing significant changes in the activities and programs at
NASA's Centers will be a difficult and challenging task, which will
require close coordination and cooperation with the Congress to
implement. It will be my intent to maintain a focus on the larger issue
of a strong and vibrant national space program rather than the
preservation of any specific localized status quo.
Question 5. Given all the discussion on research at NASA, I also
want to ensure that the results of this research reach those who need
it. NASA recently put together a draft commercialization plan for the
International Space Station. We expressed some reservations with that
plan.
(a) What are your thoughts on commercialization at NASA?
(b) Do you believe that NASA does a good job of working with
American companies to find opportunities for the commercialization of
space?
(c) The Department of Commerce has an Office of Space
Commercialization. How do you believe that NASA should work with this
office?
Answer: I am convinced that NASA's commercialization efforts can be
expanded, by ensuring that: key technologies developed using American
taxpayer dollars are made available to U.S. industry for commercial
application; and NASA buys commercially available products and services
whenever possible instead of replicating or maintaining industry
capabilities at its field centers. As I stated during the Committee's
hearing, one of my highest priority objectives is to regain a more
entrepreneurial spirit within NASA, to seek immediate opportunities for
transferring technology both into and out of NASA, as well as pursuing
less obvious opportunities for commercialization. I expect that NASA
will take advantage of all resources and knowledge throughout the
Federal Government, including the Department of Commerce. I am prepared
to work closely with you and the Committee to address your concerns and
establish a unified approach to moving forward in this critically
important area.
Question 6. International cooperation is the keystone of NASA's
most ambitious space projects. The International Space Station and Mars
exploration are but two examples. These and any future programs can
only succeed if all involved governments adhere to their commitments.
How do you plan to ensure that US obligations to these international
partners are fully honored?
Answer: The United States, of course, takes its international
commitments and obligations seriously and I believe they are an
important and necessary feature of our nation's space program. At the
same time, inherent in all international agreements is the
determination that adherence to its terms is also in the best interest
of each of the signatory nations. I agree that the ISS agreements,
which were initiated by the United States, continue to be important and
necessary to the success of the ISS. I view my task as implementing the
kinds of efficiencies and management changes at NASA that ensures that
the U.S. can meet both its international commitments and its
responsibility to the American taxpayer.
Question 7. In light of the high level of retirement eligibility
for NASA's civil service employees, what steps will you take to ensure
that the agency is properly staffed?
Answer: NASA and OMB have conducted a joint workforce review to
identify areas of concern in maintaining access to critical skills and
human resources. A number of steps have been identified to address
these concerns, which are currently being integrated as part of NASA's
Strategic Resources Review. I view this as a very high priority for my
attention as Administrator, if I am confirmed by the Senate. As these
proposals mature I will consult with the Committees of the Congress to
identify and chart a course which provides legislative authority where
needed. Additionally, I will seek the Congress's counsel and support
for administrative actions that are suggested to address the workforce
challenges. In this spirit, Congress could enact the President's
proposed ``Managerial Flexibilities Act'' which incorporates several
personnel management authorities of great value to NASA. Creative
application of these new authorities could help address the critical
human talent challenges.
Question 8. Many major management decisions at NASA appear to be
made without the benefit of establishing a program baseline, obtaining
good cost estimates, and accomplishing defensible cost-benefit
analyses. How would you change the way major program decisions are
analyzed and made at NASA (and enforcement of the changes)?
Answer: Your characterization of the situation is accurate, and
represents a clear statement of some of the major challenges facing
NASA at this time. It is essential to establish and implement an
integrated financial management plan and strong independent cost
analysis functions to address these deficiencies and provide the means
of oversight, verification, accountability and enforcement. I view the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer as critical to this process and
will work aggressively to fully establish and empower that function
within the NASA structure. I will require strict management
accountability at all levels and, where necessary, employ independent
assessments and validations of program budgets and plans.
Question 9. NASA's Independent Program Assessment Office (IPAO) is
currently located at NASA Langley. It was created to conduct
independent evaluations of NASA programs and projects in order to keep
senior management informed about whether programs are on schedule and
within budget. The NASA Inspector General, building on earlier GAO
reports and the 1990 Augustine Commission Report, has repeatedly
recommended that the IPAO be made part of NASA HQ, and that it be used
more proactively to provide senior NASA management with independent
estimates of program cost and risk. Would you consider enhancing the
IPAO's role and stature and locating it (at least organizationally) at
NASA HQ?
Answer: If confirmed, I will carefully review the recommendations
regarding the role and structure of the IPAO. As indicated previously,
I believe a strong independent assessment capability, both within NASA
and outside of NASA, is essential to identifying and resolving NASA's
cost and management challenges.
Question 10. The Young Report also recommended that NASA should
develop an independent cost estimate program for the International
Space Station that should be started immediately for FY03 and be
updated biennially by a group outside of the ISS program office.
(a) Do you intend to follow this recommendation?
(b) Do you believe that this independent cost estimate can be
completed by the FY03 budget submission?
Answer: As I stated during the hearing on my nomination, with
regard to the readiness of the independent cost estimate, it is
scheduled to be completed by September 2002, in time for the enactment
of the fiscal year 2003 appropriation and fiscal year 2004 budget
formulation.
Question 11. NASA's financial management system is an infamous
mess. As Deputy Director of OMB, you testified that NASA had you
testify about a $4 billion Space Station cost overrun based on a
``conservative'' estimate, and then you found out ``within days'' that
the actual overrun was in fact $4.8 billion. How do you intend to do
reform NASA's financial system to better track costs, obtain better and
timely cost information, and improve overall financial management?
Answer: I was deeply troubled by the pace at which the projected
cost increases grew early in the year, and the fact that such a serious
increase could have been identified so late. In my responses to
questions 1-3, 6, and 9-10, above, I have indicated some of the early
steps I intend to take, if confirmed, to address this most serious
issue.
Question 12. On November 23, the Chinese government announced that
it will start manned space flights missions in 2005, with the objective
of reaching the Moon.
(a) How should NASA react to an energized Chinese space program?
(b) What strategic implications might this announcement have for
U.S. national security?
Answer: NASA is continuing to work closely with the Administration
concerning U.S. policy with regard to potential civil, space-related
cooperation with China. The U.S. Government position remains that
adherence to the MTCR and export controls is a prerequisite to
increased civil space cooperation. Due to these continuing concerns, at
the present time, NASA has very limited cooperation with China. Should
enhanced cooperation become possible, NASA's primary interest would be
to cooperate with China in the field of Earth Science. Potential future
cooperation in Earth science would include low technology environmental
studies to examine the oceans, air quality and land cover and land use.
Successful implementation of such cooperation could potentially serve
as a basis for future cooperation in other areas of mutual interest.
With regard to national security implications, I would defer to the
National Security Council and the Department of Defense to evaluate,
monitor and address those issues.
Question 13. According to a November 18, 2001, article in Florida
Today, NASA's Consolidated Space Operations Contract has hit a $500
million shortfall. The contract with Lockheed Martin was supposed to
save NASA $1.4 billion over 10 years. Now there has been some
discussion of cutting NASA's Deep Space programs and even its mission
to Mars in order to make up for this shortfall.
(a) What can be done to resolve this problem?
(b) Do you intend to cut any Deep Space programs in order to make
up for this shortfall?
Answer: I am aware of the concerns with NASA's space operations
consolidation efforts and very concerned that it may not be meeting the
expectations for savings that were intended. If confirmed, I will
carefully examine this situation, both with regard to the specifics of
the contract performance and in the context of the broader issues of
management and cost control discussed in my previous responses.
Question 14. An editorial in the December 3 issue of Space News
chastised Congress for shirking its responsibilities ``by approving a
2002 budget for NASA loaded down with too many pet projects designed to
benefit the constituents of the Senators and Representatives most able
to influence the budget.'' The editorial calculates that the 2002 NASA
appropriations bill included 136 earmarks costing $533 million, an
increase of nearly 45 percent over last year. Could you please explain
how this type of Congressional earmarking affects NASA's scientific and
exploratory missions?
Answer: The Administration has expressed serious concerns about the
dramatic growth in recent years in the number and cost of earmarks in
NASA's budget. Unrequested projects have grown from six projects with a
total cost of $74 million in fiscal year 1997 to 136 projects with a
total cost of $533 million in fiscal year 2002. This practice has the
effect of exacerbating funding demands for other authorized activities,
as well as diminishing the NASA's ability to make resource decisions
and allocations across its programs. Especially troublesome are
earmarks that restore funding to projects that have been canceled due
to dramatic cost growth, which greatly hinders NASA's ability to
control costs and make sound management decisions. This also has an
inevitable chilling effect on agency initiative and is especially
detrimental to NASA, where innovation and initiative in exploration and
advanced research and technology have been hallmarks of its past
progress. This is a serious issue that I believe must be addressed in a
cooperative manner with the Congress.
Question 15. Background: NASA has experienced significant cost
growth problems in many of its major programs, including the Space
Station and the second-generation reusable launch vehicle
demonstration. Many of the problems could be attributed to poor
planning and program management. NASA has now initiated work on its
Space Launch Initiative, which aims to demonstrate technologies leading
to replacement of the Space Shuttle. The program is currently estimated
to cost about $4.9 billion through fiscal year 2006.
(a) What role do you see the private sector having in the Space
Launch Initiative?
(b) In light of NASA's problems in controlling costs on previous
programs, what will you do to ensure that the agency adequately defines
requirements, prepares accurate program cost estimates and manages the
program within established cost guidelines?
I believe the private sector can and should play the fundamental
role in pursuing the Space Launch Initiative (SLI). This program has
been designed with the lessons of past spacecraft and launch system
development activities in mind and with the goal of lowering cost,
improving reliability, and buying launch services from commercial
launch providers for all of NASA's launch needs, including human space
flight.
Although promising steps have been taken to ensure strong
requirements and cost analysis on SLI, the SLI program can also be the
beneficiary of the cost and management reforms growing out of the
current effort to address ISS and Space Shuttle cost and management
challenges, as discussed in previous responses.
Question 16. This summer the Committee was informed of a $218
million gap in funding for the Space Shuttle program. Under Director
Goldin, NASA had considered canceling and deferring safety upgrades to
the Space Shuttle fleet.
(a) Should NASA delay or cancel safety upgrades to the Space
Shuttle in order to mitigate this funding shortfall?
(b) What factors will you consider as you decide which upgrades to
cancel or defer?
Answer: I believe that Shuttle upgrades that provide worthwhile
safety improvements and can be implemented in a timely way should be
continued. Efforts to directly improve safety in Shuttle operations
should be continued, by addressing concerns in the ground
infrastructure supporting operations as well as process improvements,
investments in personnel and potential safety enhancements to flight
systems. In an era of constrained resources, our first priority must be
to sustain safe operations. The selection of, and funding allocated to,
upgrades must not result in accepting risks in operational safety or
foregoing other investments that yield greater safety gains.
Question 17. This Committee is concerned that not a great enough
priority is put on the maintenance of infrastructure at NASA Centers.
At a hearing before this Committee in September, witnesses testified
that improper infrastructure maintenance was adversely affecting safety
and performance of the Space Shuttle. Will infrastructure maintenance
be a major focus of NASA under your tenure?
Answer: As a general rule, if confirmed, I will seek to spend less
agency resources on infrastructure and more on science and technology.
That said, I believe it is vital to preserve the Nation's investment in
important national assets under NASA's stewardship, and doing so will
be an important priority for me, if confirmed. Additional support for
infrastructure maintenance is being considered in the fiscal year 2003
budget formulation. Any additional investments in infrastructure
maintenance will be made in the context of the ongoing Strategic
Resources Review, and will be consistent with future decisions on space
launch.
Question 18. One general public complaint about NASA is that its
``glory days'' of discovery are over. The Apollo landings of the late
1960s and 1970s are considered the apex of NASA's achievements in
exploration. Do you believe that NASA should develop a new bold
strategy for manned space exploration that will re-kindle the public's
interest?
Answer: I share the enthusiasm for exploration and discovery, and I
believe that NASA can, and should be in the forefront of this nation's
future space exploration. But NASA can only do so if it is able to
deliver on its current programs and commitments. The immediate and
sustained focus must be on demonstrating convincingly that NASA has the
ability to effectively and efficiently meets its current challenges.
From that success will emerge a coherent vision characterized by
science-driven strategic objectives rather than events.
Question 19. NASA currently has planned an ambitious schedule to
continue greater exploration of the planet Mars, including missions
every other year culminating in a mission that will return to the Earth
with Mars soil samples in 2011 or 2014.
(a) Do you believe that this program is an important asset to
NASA's science mission?
(b) What management changes should be pursued to prevent the
problems which occurred with the Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar
Lander missions?
Answer: Given recent important discoveries regarding the potential
for life at Mars and elsewhere in the solar system, NASA's Mars
Exploration Program is a clear priority. The success of the current
Mars Odyssey mission reflects well on changes that have already been
implemented following the failures of the Mars Climate Orbiter and
Polar Lander missions. If confirmed, I will ensure the continued
implementation of the management reforms in this area, as well as the
application of overall cost and management reforms to ensure continued
success and accountability in these important missions.
Question 20. Background: GAO has reported that NASA's contract
management is a continuing area of high risk, because the agency lacks
effective systems and processes for overseeing contractor activities.
For example, in a recently issued report on International Space Station
cost limits, GAO found that NASA was unable to provide auditors with
detailed, transaction-based data to support the dollars obligated for
the Space Station, and did not have support for the actual cost of
completed Space Station components--either in total or by subsystem or
elements. As a result NASA is not able to re-examine its cost estimates
for validity once costs have been realized. A key effort to address
these weaknesses is the implementation of a new integrated financial
management system. Implementation of the system and its integration
with full cost accounting have been delayed for several years, however,
because of significant development and implementation problems. NASA
has started its third attempt at developing such a system, after having
spent $180 million over 12 years on two failed efforts. Until the new
system is operational, performance assessments relying on cost data may
be incomplete.
(a) After two failed attempts, what is your expectation for fully
implementing the Integrated Financial Management System?
(b) What type of management attention would you provide to this
effort?
(c) Will NASA's new financial management system fundamentally
change the way in which NASA tracks and uses cost information for
activities such as estimating and controlling costs, performance
measurement and making economic tradeoff decisions?
(d) What other steps would you take to enhance oversight of
contract management activities?
Answer: I believe that NASA can enhance the probability of
successfully completing its missions and mandates on schedule and
within budget by establishing an effective integrated financial
management system. Such a system can and will be effectively
implemented. My previous experience and background has engendered in me
an unyielding commitment to meet cost and management challenges of the
kind described in the GAO report, and it will be my highest priority if
confirmed as NASA Administrator.
As indicated in previous responses, it would be my intention to
fully empower and utilize the office of the Chief Financial Officer to
improve NASA's oversight over contract cost and schedule management
that underpins budget formulation activities. In addition, I will, if
confirmed, employ enhanced independent assessment capabilities to
ensure compliance, accountability and accuracy in program estimation
and management.
Question 21. Background: In the early 1990s, NASA's Administrator
challenged the agency to design and implement projects faster, better,
and cheaper. The goal was to shorten program development times, reduce
costs, and increase scientific return by flying more and smaller
missions in less time. Although NASA maintained a high success rate
under this approach, a few significant mission failures occurred--
particularly the loss of the Mars Polar Lander and Climate Orbiter
spacecraft. NASA investigations of these failures as well as other
program reviews raised concern that lessons from past experiences were
not being applied to current projects and programs.
(a) Do you envision continuing the faster, better, cheaper approach
in light of past problems?
(b) What would you do differently to avoid failures like the two
Mars probes?
(c) What steps would you take to ensure that effective lessons
learning and knowledge sharing take place across the agency?
(d) Do you see a need for more integration of NASA's Centers as a
means to foster knowledge sharing?
(e) What initiatives do you think are needed to address cultural
barriers that may inhibit collaboration and knowledge sharing among
agency staff?
(f) What would you do to retain the institutional knowledge gained
from past mistakes, given that NASA anticipates significant retirements
in the next 3 to 5 years?
Answer: I believe ``Faster'' ``Better'' and ``Cheaper'' are
appropriate metrics in assessing the merits of NASA missions. However,
these metrics must also be balanced against mission risk. For example,
compressed schedules and reduced costs can increase risk to
unacceptable levels if not carefully measured and monitored.
Accountability for cost, schedule and performance commitments,
reliability and mission success--as ensured by having a clear picture
of risk--are goals I would focus on, if confirmed as NASA
Administrator. Among the early activities I would undertake as
Administrator would be an effort to become fully informed of the
lessons learned from recent mission successes and failures and examine
the means by which those lessons are communicated and applied to
programs across the Agency. I firmly believe that there should be one
NASA, with consistent principles and appropriate balance of risks
across the separate programs and Centers, and that lessons learned in
one area are applied wherever else in the Agency they may be
appropriate. It would be my intention to examine new methods of
ensuring the ``cross-fertilization'' of ideas and experience across the
agency and undertake such steps as staff-sharing and exchanging as a
means of enhancing cooperation and communications across Enterprises
and Centers. I further believe that an aggressive effort of successor
planning and mentoring can help ensure that knowledge and experience is
more institutionalized than personalized and available to succeeding
generations of leadership.
Question 22. It was recently announced that the Consolidation Space
Operations Contract (CSOC) was running about $500 million short of
expected savings. Can you comment on how you propose to deal with this
shortfall?
Answer: (See response to question 13, above.)
Question 23. If there will be less time for science on the ISS,
how do you plan to modify the occupancy plan with respect to the
international partners?
Answer: This is an area of obvious concern to our international
partners and one that I would expect to address early on if confirmed
as Administrator. I believe there is time to reach a mutually
acceptable and beneficial solution with our partners on this issue. The
current situation does not significantly change the previous occupancy
plan until 2006. It would be my intention to get acquainted with our
partners' representatives and begin the dialog necessary to reach an
accommodation of the interests and capabilities of all members of the
international ISS partnership.
Question 24. If access to the ISS will be more limited than set
forth in current international agreements, what plans are there for
modifying scheduled visits for international partners?
Answer: See my answer to question 23, above.
Question 25. If it is the Administration policy, and the widely-
held view in Congress, that the severe funding challenges in the Space
Station program should not affect programs outside the Human Space
Flight area, then do you believe this view can be maintained given the
current fiscal realities?
Answer: I believe that both the ISS and Space Shuttle funding
challenges can and should be addressed solely within the Human Space
Flight area. NASA must maintain a balance among its respective program
areas, and a lack of discipline or management failure in one area must
not be allowed to negatively impact another.
Question 26. On the Mars program, there are international
commitments for the joint exploration of Mars with partners, namely
France and Italy. Last month, NASA confirmed the terms of this
exploration with France. Can you comment on the likelihood that these
agreements will be maintained?
Answer: I do not yet have sufficient information regarding the
specifics of these commitments or the prospects for the specific
program elements to which they refer. As a matter of principle, I feel
strongly that the U.S. should maintain its international commitments,
but also believe that such commitments should be made in a manner which
supports the best interests of the United States and a realistic
assessment of the U.S. capability to meet its obligations under any
agreement.
Question 27. What is your position on the Mars exploration program
beyond 2007, as these missions will require extensive planning and
financial obligations by each agency involved?
Answer: Planning for Mars missions in the next decade is an
important activity to understand what key investments in technology
should be made today to maintain a wide set of options. However, given
the uncertainty as to the scientific discoveries and technological
advancements we will obtain from Mars missions and investments this
decade, Mars planning for the next decade cannot be static and should
consider a wide range of potential scientific strategies and mission
options.
Question 28. Some recommendations to NASA from the General
Accounting Office, the NASA Office of Inspector General, various NASA
Advisory Council organizations, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel,
and special commissions are agreed to but never implemented. What steps
do you intend to take to ensure that agreed upon recommendations and
action plans are properly tracked and implemented?
Answer: As part of the cost estimation and management reforms
described in previous responses, the maintenance and tracking of
externally developed findings and recommendations is essential. If
confirmed, I would take steps to emphasize the necessity of utilizing
the body of knowledge represented by the product of these reviews and
couple that with assigning clear responsibility for the maintenance and
dissemination of the material produced as the result of the reviews
conducted by such reviewing entities.
Question 29. The California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has
operated NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory as the sole-source contractor
since 1959. Would you consider opening some or all of the contract to
competition when it comes up for renewal in 2003?''
Answer: I am not yet conversant with the specific terms of the
Caltech contract, and cannot respond with specific comment. As a matter
of principle, I am strongly in favor of competition as a means of
minimizing cost to the government and would, if confirmed, carefully
consider the potential for competitive offering of portions of that, or
any other, contract.
Question 30. What are your views on contracting out and
commercializing additional functions at NASA in light of the present
high level of contracted activities in NASA, and the difficulties NASA
has experienced in some of its high-profile outsourcing efforts (e.g.,
SFOC, CSOC)?
Answer: The Administration position is clear regarding the need to
maximize the opportunity for greater competitive sourcing and
partnering efforts in the management of NASA programs, and I am a
strong advocate for that position. What is essential is to identify the
causal factors of the difficulties in previous and on-going efforts and
to implement refinements and improvements to the process that can guard
against those difficulties. I am confident that means can be found to
enhance the effectiveness of competitive sourcing for those activities,
and if confirmed would aggressively pursue those means.
Question 31. In recent years, the Agency has at times (e.g., the
proposed launch of the X-37 on the Shuttle) taken a very broad view of
the Commercial Space Act of 1998's mandate that NASA fly payloads on
commercial launch vehicles unless the Shuttle's unique capabilities are
required. Under your watch, what steps would you take to uphold the
Commercial Space Act's mandate?
Answer: I support the intent of the Commercial Space Act to expand
the use of commercial launch vehicles and capabilities. Given the
anticipated changes in Space Station assembly and utilization and,
potentially, a concomitant reduction in the Space Shuttle annual flight
rate, as has been proposed by the IMCE, I believe the goal outlined in
the Act becomes even more important. If confirmed, I would undertake
steps to make the maximum effective use of the Space Shuttle's unique
capabilities. I believe a significant outcome of that effort will be an
increasing focus on the use of commercial launch capabilities.
Question 32. NASA has outsourced the ownership and management of
its desktop computers. As a result, the Agency lacks insight into the
security of its information. How do you intend to balance the goals of
outsourcing in the IT arena with the need to protect NASA systems and
data?
Answer: Activities underway by the NASA Office of Inspector General
and the new Office of Security are addressing the IT security concerns
and requirements. I believe it will be possible to identify and
effectively implement the means of maintaining adequate security
protection and realizing the savings inherent in outsourcing that
portion of NASA's IT environment that is appropriately managed through
such an outsourcing arrangement. If confirmed, I will actively monitor
that effort to ensure that both goals are being accomplished.
Question 33. The Japanese government has announced its intent to
become a world leader in the aerospace sector, and is in final testing
of its H-2A rocket. How a great a competitive challenge is Japan to the
U.S. space launch industry?
Answer: The Japanese have an efficient national space agency and a
strong commitment to the development of their space launch industry. To
the extent they are willing to provide governmental assistance to their
private industrial base, they have the potential to be a serious
competitor to the U.S. for launches within the payload capability of
their launch systems. The U.S. commercial launch industry, in
partnership with NASA and other Federal licensing and regulatory
entities, should continue to carefully monitor the potential
competitive situation in the worldwide launch services industry. To the
extent NASA can continue in its privatization efforts and new launch
vehicle and technology development efforts, such as the Space Launch
Initiative, the agency can make an important contribution to enhancing
the U.S. competitive posture within that global industry.
Question 34. There are some that say sufficient technology exists
to support cheaper access to space. NASA needs can be met by use of
current technology to build a low cost 2-stage reusable launch vehicle.
If this is indeed the case, what are the merits of the Space Launch
Initiative (SLI)? What are the impacts of SLI on small commercial
startup launch companies?
Answer: The SLI program, as currently constituted, is intended to
address precisely the question of risk reduction by developing and
demonstrating technological and systems integration capability. It is
the purpose of the program to validate technologies and systems design
concepts that can be eventually applied to advanced vehicle design and
development. Once risks are at acceptable levels and costs are well
understood, new systems will be developed to launch both humans and
cargo to and from space. Some small commercial launch companies are
already participating in the first round of SLI awardees, and it is
anticipated that the number will grow as the program moves forward. It
can also be expected that successful technology developments within the
SLI program will be available to enable small startup launch companies
an opportunity to participate in the development of alternative low-
cost launch capabilities.