[House Hearing, 113 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] ASSESSING NASA'S UNDERUTILIZED REAL PROPERTY ASSETS AT THE KENNEDY SPACE CENTER ======================================================================= FIELD HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS of the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ FEBRUARY 10, 2014 __________ Serial No. 113-87 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov http://www.house.gov/reform _____ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 87-175 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois DOC HASTINGS, Washington ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois ROB WOODALL, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan Vacancy RON DeSANTIS, Florida Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director Stephen Castor, General Counsel Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on Government Operations JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman TIM WALBERG, Michigan GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK POCAN, Wisconsin MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on February 10, 2014................................ 1 WITNESSES Mr. Robert D. Cabana, Director, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Nasa Oral Statement............................................... 6 Written Statement............................................ 8 Brigadier General Nina Armagno, Commander, 45th Space Wing, U.S. Air Force Oral Statement............................................... 12 Written Statement............................................ 14 Mr. John Smith, Public Building Service Regional Commissioner, Southeast Sunbelt Region, U.S. General Services Administration Oral Statement............................................... 22 Written Statement............................................ 24 Mr. Jim Kuzma, Chief Opeerating Officer, Space Florida Oral Statement............................................... 29 Written Statement............................................ 32 Mr. Charles Lee, Director of Advocacy, Central Florida Policy Office, Audubon Society Oral Statement............................................... 45 Written Statement............................................ 48 Mr. John Walsh, Chief Executive Officer, Cape Canaversal Port Authority Oral Statement............................................... 54 Written Statement............................................ 56 APPENDIX Statement of Sen. Marco Rubio, submitted by Rep. Mica............ 90 ASSESSING NASA'S UNDERUTILIZED REAL PROPERTY ASSETS AT THE KENNEDY SPACE CENTER ---------- Monday, February 10, 2014 House of Representatives Subcommittee on Government Operations Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex 1, Kennedy Parkway, Cape Canaveral, Florida, Hon. John L. Mica [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Mica, DeSantis, and Bentivolio. Also Present: Representatives Posey and Miller. Staff Present: Ashley H. Callen, Deputy Chief Counsel for Investigations; Linda Good, Chief Clerk; Mark D. Marin, Deputy Staff Director for Oversight; Jenna VanSant, Professional Staff Member. Mr. Mica. Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone this morning to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Subcommittee on Government Operations, welcome them first of all to our hearing this morning. This is a field hearing of the committee and subcommittee, and the title of this hearing is ``Assessing NASA's Underutilized Real Property Assets at the Kennedy Space Center.'' First of all, I would like to thank the Visitor Center for accommodating us today, and NASA for also their assistance, and the Air Force for helping us. Yesterday we had a tour of the properties of NASA and the Air Force base. I would like to welcome everyone. We are actually in Mr. Posey's district and adjacent to Mr. DeSantis' district. We are joined today by both Mr. Posey and Mr. DeSantis. I will recognize them in a minute. We also have Mr. Bentivolio from Michigan, who is a member of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. We are also joined by the distinguished gentle lady from Michigan who chairs the House Administration Committee, Candace Miller, and also a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee. The order of business. We will start with opening statements. We have a panel of witnesses. We have six witnesses today, someone from NASA, someone from the United States Air Force, U.S. General Services Administration, Space Florida, the Audubon Society, and the port of Port Canaveral. We will hear from those witnesses. We will go through all the witnesses, and then we will have questions from first members of the committee and then from those who are participating. Without objection, Mrs. Miller and Mr. Posey will be accepted as participants in this hearing even though they are not on the committee, and also entitled to question the witnesses and participate after the members of the committee have completed their responsibilities. Without objection, so ordered. So that is sort of the opening rules of how we will proceed today. Welcome, everyone, again, and thank you for your accommodation. We will start with opening statements, and I will give some remarks and a little bit of background, and then I will yield to any other members that wish to submit oral testimony or comments, opening statements today, or written statements for the record. So again, I thank everyone for coming. I am pleased to be here. I am particularly pleased that we would have fairly good representation from our members of Congress for a field hearing. Sometimes it is hard to get members out, although today is a beautiful day. We will have to go back and tell them what they missed in Florida. So, thank you for coming and making the trip, those from outside this area. And again, we are privileged to have two members who represent this area, most specifically Mr. Posey, and adjacent Mr. DeSantis. The reason that we have gathered here today is to review NASA and the Air Force options for dealing with either vacant or underutilized buildings or facilities, land, that may no longer be needed. The mission of NASA has dramatically changed in the last few years, and we are looking at more commercialization of the space activities that have traditionally been here for the past four decades. Currently, NASA has 144,000 acres and many facilities at the Cape Kennedy Center. In addition, the Air Force has some 16,000 acres at the Canaveral Air Force Station. I think someone calculated today that is probably about 240 square miles of space. That is a huge piece of real estate. As the mission has changed, we find ourselves with--I believe the inventory that was provided to the committee--720 buildings and structures on the NASA property, and the most recent information we have gotten from their database is 330 of those properties, buildings, or structures are either unused or vacant. Yesterday we had a chance with the committee and some of the committee staff to take a tour. We spent most of the latter part of the afternoon touring some specific sites. I asked earlier and we started this review early last year of some of the top square footage of vacant or properties that, again, are close to being totally underutilized. This was what was provided to us. That is the tough news. The good news is that actually since we got that inventory, we have put a little check, that little check mark. They have actually taken one of those properties off the list. Our review, and I think the members will concur, of the properties that we visited, and we covered most of those there--and I would like folks to come back for an historic or more of a tourist visit here. But yesterday was business. In looking at what is being done, I was fairly impressed with some of the progress that has been made to date and, again, the efforts to move forward in dealing with, again, a huge amount of inventory. Some time ago we produced a report actually on the Transportation Committee entitled ``The Federal Government Must Stop Sitting on Its Assets,'' a kind of cute title, but also descriptive of something that we need to do. We are the largest property and landowners in the world, and we have billions and billions, probably a trillion dollars' worth of assets that are either idle or underutilized. Having this in my own backyard, chairing formerly the Transportation Committee and now this Oversight Committee, we want to make certain that even in our own backyard and Mr. Posey's front yard and Mr. DenSantis' front yard, that we are good stewards of the properties entrusted to us by the taxpayer. So throughout my time in Congress, most recently we have tried to focus, not only here but around the country. Some of you may have seen our success with the Old Post Office in Washington, which is two blocks from the White House, sat vacant, part of it, for 15 years, costing $8 to $10 million a year. That will now be a 250-room hotel. Instead of costing $8 to $10 million, it will get a quarter of a million dollars of revenue every month, plus a cut of the profits. Mr. Trump is going to be developing that. But that is one of our success stories. We had a power plant facility owned by the Federal Government in Georgetown which sat vacant for 10 years, costing about $2 million a year to maintain. That went up for sale and sold for $19.5 million, again stopping the bleeding and also seeing some realization of that asset for the taxpayers as far as a return. So last year we began this examination of NASA, and also the Air Force property, and their changing mission on this site. And again, I want to commend the leadership of both the Air Force and NASA for some of the progress that has been made. But what we want to do today is really see where we are going for the future. Yesterday, the director told me--I think there were 18,000 people approximately that worked at the Cape. We are down to about 8,000, and what we would like to do is go from 8,000 on up. Maybe we have hit bottom. But each of those buildings have the potential for, again, specific utilization where you can in some cases attract jobs, rent the property, in some cases a long-term lease, or even sell some of the property and get a return, get jobs back in this community, back in this section of the state. So they have done some of that already, and we will hear their story. We also face the reality of a unique property with security protocols and concerns both at NASA and at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and they present certain challenges. I took, again, inventory of where we are going, and also have heard of desires by some in the community to expand some of the natural areas, and we do have the national Canaveral seashore. We have other areas where we have preserved and protected the environment, and I invited the Audubon Society representative to speak to us today about some of the thoughts that that part of our community and state--again, protecting natural treasures, what their interests would be for the future. Unfortunately, the process is slow. Some of the responsibility is Congress. Some is the bureaucracy that we have to deal with. We are going to look at and hear from these folks, too, how they have tried to address moving forward, again with a massive evolution from the government running everything to now a different scenario. Unfortunately, our part of that process in Congress, if necessary, needs to enact laws. We will see what changes we need to do, what suggestions we have, and we can go back and make their job easier in making this transition. So today we will review what property and facilities are required for the current time, and then we want to look into the future. You don't want to give away the store. You want to make certain that we are securing the assets we need for the Federal Government, for our space program, and also for preservation for the public as far as public lands are concerned. So we will continue this effort. This is the first hearing we have held. If necessary, we will hold some hearings in Washington as a follow-up with people who are not empaneled here today but people who do make those decisions. So now we face the challenge of evolving our space program, what has taken place here in the past. Yesterday, all of us who went on the tour sort of went on a tour of the history of the space program from 1962 to just days ago, when they had the most recent successes and launches from this area. But again, I think our job is to carefully review what has taken place and support viable options to putting to use these valuable taxpayer assets as soon as possible. So I would like to welcome our witnesses. We will get to them in a second. Let me first--well, we will do this. Mr. DeSantis, a member of the committee, did you have any comment? Mr. DeSantis. I just wanted to thank the chairman for taking the time to organize this, set this up. Thanks to the Space Center for hosting us, and thank you for all the witnesses for taking the time to come and testify about an important issue, I think, in terms of how this property is disposed of, to protect taxpayers, but also the potential that we have for some commercial opportunities. I think it is very important. So, thanks again to the chairman. Mr. Mica. Mr. Bentivolio? Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to say I have noticed it is apropos that two Michigan members of Congress are here, since so many Michiganders have moved here, or I think you call them snowbirds come down for the winter. In Michigan, sometimes I have heard Florida referred to as Michigan's southern peninsula, because so many of them do come to Florida during the winter months. And this year it was a good choice because there is two-and-a-half feet of snow, and I am in the southern part of Michigan. But other than that, I want to thank the chairman for hosting this hearing, as well as our witnesses. I really enjoyed the tour. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mica. Thank you. The gentleman from our host district today, Mr. Posey. Mr. Posey. First I want to thank you, Congressman Mica, for holding this hearing, and from a personal perspective I want to thank you for including me. I am not on that Oversight Committee, but I appreciate you including me in this. Our taxpayers want accountability, and the hearings that you have been holding clearly are another great effort on your part and the part of Congress to try and provide better accountability. I hope you and members of the committee are pleased to learn how great NASA at KSC and the Air Force over on the Cape side are adapting to the new rules of facilitating our nation's space program in new ways. I note, for example, the building you drove by yesterday, you saw where they are now building the Orion. Two years ago it would have been considered excessive and unneeded property. Ultimately, it is very valuable property and very important for this nation and for this area. I want to thank you all for keeping in mind that the reason this 160,000-plus acres was acquired and utilized and currently owned by the Government is for our nation's space program. I will keep it brief, Mr. Chairman, and yield back. Thank you. Mr. Mica. Thank you again, and thank you for participating. No one watches over the space program more than Representative Posey. He is non-stop in our nation's capital and trying to make certain that we have every success possible here, and also a strong advocate for both our military, the Air Force, and NASA. I am pleased to yield now to the gentle lady from Michigan, Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate as well your calling this hearing today. I have been here at this fantastic facility many times over my lifetime, but never in a hearing situation. So I am delighted to be here. When we think about the incredibly rich heritage that the space program has given our country and the world, quite frankly, I think it is an unfortunate reality in some ways that we are here thinking about the disposal of some of the facilities here rather than having the political will as a country to really buck up for the space program. That perhaps is an issue for another day. I know we have huge supporters of the space program here today, but that is not always the case in the capital. Obviously, with fiscal restraints, et cetera, there are other priorities, I suppose. But when we think about what has happened in our world and all of the positive spinoffs that have happened because of NASA, you can't put a price on these kinds of things. We were just using a GPS on our way over here today, not that we got lost, but you get so you are using it. But it is a spinoff of what happened with the fantastic men and women that have served in NASA. So I am just delighted to be here. I think it will be a very interesting hearing as we are in the mode of trying to make sure that we get the best bang for the taxpayers' buck, certainly. And when I look at the distinguished panelists that we have here today, in particular Mr. Cabana and the General as well, we certainly appreciate the service that you have given to our country and to the world, quite frankly, and we are looking forward to hearing all the testimony of the witnesses today. Thank you. Mr. Mica. I thank the gentle lady. First of all, we have a statement by Senator Marco Rubio, a request to be entered in the record. Without objection, his statement will be entered in the record. Also, I will entertain a motion that the record be left open for a period of two weeks. Others may wish to submit testimony, other members. Without objection, so ordered. So, do we have any other representatives of any of the congressional offices? [No response.] Mr. Mica. Okay. I didn't want to ignore them, and if they do come in, we will introduce them. So with that, we will turn to our next order of business, to hear from our six witnesses. Today we have six witnesses. First we have Mr. Robert D. Cabana, and he is the Director of the JFK Space Center under NASA. We have Brigadier General Nina Armagno, and she is the Commander of the 45th Space Wing, Director of the Eastern Range, Patrick Air Force Base, the United States Air Force. We have John E.B. Smith, Regional Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, Southeast Sunbelt Region, U.S. General Services Administration. Mr. Jim Kuzma, Chief Operating Officer of Space Florida. Mr. Charles Lee, Director of Advocacy of the Central Florida Policy Office of the Florida Audubon Society. And then we have Mr. John Walsh, Chief Executive Officer of Cape Canaveral Port Authority. This is an investigations and oversight committee of Congress, and as such we do swear in all of our witnesses. I would ask our witnesses to please stand, raise your right hand. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Mica. Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. And again, we will welcome each and every one of you. I thank you for being with us and helping us with our task today. First, again, we will go down the witnesses in the order in which I introduced them. Mr. Robert Cabana, not only the Director of the Kennedy Space Center, a great tour guide, and also a great administrator, at least from what we learned of his efforts here yesterday, and also a distinguished astronaut himself. Welcome, sir. What we are going to do is we will try to limit you to 5 minutes. If you have additional information or testimony you would like to be made part of the official record of today's proceedings, just request through the chair and we will do so. So, we will go through each one, try to give you your 5 minutes. But welcome, and you are recognized, sir. WITNESS STATEMENTS STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. CABANA Mr. Cabana. Thank you, sir. Chairman Mica and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear today to discuss NASA's management of its real property holdings here at the Kennedy Space Center, as well as Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. I do have an official statement that I would like to submit for the record. Mr. Mica. Without objection, that will be made a part of the record. Please proceed. Mr. Cabana. But I would like to use this opportunity to also bring forth the key message that I have in that statement. KSC is well on its way to establishing itself as a multi- user space port. It supports both government and commercial flights of both crew and cargo to and from low-earth orbit and beyond. We have made great strides to become more efficient and cost effective, to divest of unneeded facilities, saving precious taxpayer dollars without diminishing our capabilities. We believe our story is an ongoing one of great success in transitioning this storied complex from 30 years of space shuttle operations to the 21st century launch complex of the future. This would not have been possible without the support of our elected officials at both the state and Federal level and the agreements that we have in place with our commercial partners. The Kennedy Space Center has had a glorious past, and we believe we have an even brighter future, and I look forward to your questions, sir. [Prepared statement of Mr. Cabana follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Mica. That was very brief, but we will start with that. Now, she looks very young, but she is also a general, General Armagno from the Air Force, and she was also with us yesterday. I think we ruined everybody's Sunday here, but thank you again for your hospitality and showing us your area of responsibility at the Patrick Air Force Base section here adjacent to the Space Center. You are recognized. STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL NINA ARMAGNO General Armagno. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of today's hearing, it is my honor to be here representing Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Patrick Air Force Base as the Commander of the 45th Space Wing and the Director of the Eastern Range. It is also my privilege to appear among my colleagues this morning to address the management of real property here at the world's premiere gateway to space. Every day, our nation, and especially our military personnel, rely on vital space-based products launched just across the river from where we sit. The rich heritage, geographic advantages, and resident expertise of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and the entire space coast for that matter, make it an attractive location for private-sector customers. Many commercial companies not only want to operate at our site but seek unused facilities to occupy. We give careful consideration to every request. We take our responsibility to manage our resources seriously by adhering to national space policies, public law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force guidelines. We lean forward to make excess or underutilized Eastern Range assets available when feasible. We understand many government approval processes are daunting, and we have attacked this issue over the past several years, attempting to balance the government's need for information and the need for timely responses that private entities depend on to be competitive. Our wing's front-door process welcomes representation from commercial companies, DOD-sponsored contractors, educational institutions and other private entities who are researching possible operations at our location. Space Florida, who is here with us today, has been a valuable partner and instrumental in guiding some of these customers through those actions. We have worked with Space Florida to facilitate their investment in up-front environmental reviews, explosive sitings, Air Force space command, space operations support agreements, and real property licenses for two space launch complexes. We are also pursuing with Space Florida licenses for additional facilities which could be used to prepare launch vehicles for flight. This investment clears several time and financial obstacles for future commercial companies wishing to operate at those locations. I am committed to working closely with our partners you see before you, the customers we are in contact with today, and those to come in the future to ensure we continue to fully utilize the vital resources we have been entrusted with. Despite challenges brought on by our fiscal realities, my priorities remain 100 percent mission success, igniting innovation, and deliberately developing the outstanding men and women of Team Patrick Cape. I thank the committee for your steadfast support of the men and women of the 45th Space Wing and our Air Force and our space mission. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Prepared statement of General Armagno follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Mica. Thank you. And now, back from a return engagement from an empty and vacant--I think we are going on six-year Dyer Courthouse in Miami. We did two hearings there. But it is nice to see you, Mr. Smith. Not only will I have some questions about where we are but where you have been. You are welcome and recognized, Mr. Smith. STATEMENT OF JOHN SMITH Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman Mica and other distinguished members here today. My name is John Smith. I am the Public Buildings Service Regional Commissioner for GSA's Southeast Sunbelt Region. Thank you for the opportunity to join you here today at Kennedy Space Center to discuss GSA's ongoing effort to assist NASA in the disposal of its unneeded real estate. As one of more than two dozen major Federal landholding agencies, GSA manages only about 375 million of the nearly 3.3 billion square feet of space under the government's control. However, we have the statutory authority to acquire, manage, utilize, and dispose of real property for most agencies. Within our own inventory, we have disposed of over 100 GSA- managed properties nationwide, and we received over $160 million in receipts for the Federal Buildings Fund since 2008, while avoiding more than $170 million in liability costs. Here in the Southeast Sunbelt Region, we have disposed of eight buildings to avoid more than $47 million in future maintenance and repairs, and generated approximately $17 million in sales. In addition to managing our own inventory, GSA is the primary real property disposal agent for the Federal Government. We work aggressively to identify and target unneeded assets for our partner Federal agencies. GSA also provides strategic direction to agencies seeking to remove properties from their own inventories. We assist agencies by developing a tailored disposal strategy specific to an asset's characteristics, environmental laws, issues, community interests, market conditions, and other factors that influence the repositioning of unneeded real estate. When preparing a property for public sale, GSA develops marketing plans that optimize public offering. We use tools and techniques designed to reach a very broad audience and, when applicable, we target specific interests. While GSA has the expertise to navigate properties through the disposal process successfully, each individual landholding agency is responsible for making its own asset management decisions as to whether a property is excess to its needs. In the last five years, GSA has disposed of 713 Federal assets on behalf of GSA and other Federal agencies. GSA conducted the majority of these disposal actions through public sales on realestatesales.gov, which provides a cost-effective way to reach a wide dissemination of developmental interests and maximize the return for taxpayers. Most of these properties were not assets under GSA's jurisdiction, custody, or control. In Cape Canaveral, GSA is assisting NASA in developing asset management, utilization, and disposal strategies for unneeded facilities within the John F. Kennedy Space Center. Upon closure of the space shuttle program in 2011, NASA began exploring ways to balance a reduction of the agency's real estate footprint and operations and maintenance costs while assuring that they retain facilities that may be needed in future missions. While NASA has its own land-holding authorities, it utilizes GSA's to dispose of real property. To that end, NASA has engaged GSA to help develop strategies for disposition of its facilities at this site. Thus far, GSA has provided appraisal and appraisal review services to assist with asset management planning for a wide variety and range of facilities here and at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Additionally, we have received reports of excess for four facilities. Together, these facilities account for approximately 54,000 square feet of space. GSA is now reviewing NASA's report of excess and will begin the disposal process. Our next step is Federal screening for each asset. We understand that the Air Force may express interest in acquiring the properties. If NASA reports additional facilities as excess, we will assist in collecting due diligence and run the properties through the disposal process. If there is no expression of Federal need for any of the facilities, GSA will conduct Federal screenings for the homeless under McKinney-Vento and available public benefit conveyance programs and, depending on the outcome of that review, market the properties and identify potential buyers. GSA's Southeast Sunbelt Region is pleased to assist with these efforts. We will continue to work with NASA and provide effective management and disposition of its unneeded real estate assets at Cape Canaveral and across the country. We look forward to working with this committee as this effort continues. On behalf of GSA's Public Buildings Service and the Southeast Sunbelt Region, thank you for the opportunity to be here. I am happy to answer any of your questions. [Prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Mica. Thank you. As I said, we will withhold questions. We will hear from Jim Kuzma, Chief Operating Officer of Space Florida. Welcome, and you are recognized, sir. STATEMENT OF JIM KUZMA Mr. Kuzma. Thank you, Chairman Mica and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to discuss Florida's perspective regarding Federal property that has supported the nation's space program but now lies underutilized and not needed for NASA's mission. Thank you, Representative Posey of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and its Space Subcommittee, for your presence here today and for your strong interest in past work in this area. In addressing this objective, I want to first acknowledge the efforts and progress the Kennedy Space Center has made to transition unneeded property. I also want to acknowledge the positive efforts of the Air Force to transition unneeded assets at Cape Canaveral and to work to address processes and procedures valuable to the commercial industry. We commend the continuing efforts to optimize the use of the Eastern Range. There are some very good people doing their very best to navigate solutions through a very complex situation, but there is more to be done. Change is hard, but change is imperative to face an industry and global marketplace that is rapidly evolving. We are focused on the long-term view that embraces and facilitates the spirit, agility, and business acumen of America's space industry entrepreneurs, not just a short-term transition. Cost-effective and reliable access to space is crucial for U.S. competitiveness. What to do with the unneeded assets at KSC is a matter of utmost importance to the future of U.S. competitiveness. The 140,000 acres that comprises Kennedy Space Center was acquired by the government in the 1960s to support the nation's space program. Federal assets that are not needed now to meet mission requirements are still vital to the U.S. space transportation system. Space Florida's spaceport authority is its focal point for business development and growth in the U.S. industry here in Florida. We have broad statutory authorities and a full range of capabilities that are being used to support our commercial customers with our partners here at the Cape. Florida has been a leader in integrating space transportation into the fabric of our nation's transportation system. Our colleagues in Virginia, Alaska, and California have likewise demonstrated a willingness to assume responsibility for elements of U.S. space transportation development and operations. Congress has embraced a role for the states in helping to promote and facilitate the nation's space transportation infrastructure and directed NASA to reduce their footprint to be consistent with defined missions and resources. In March 2013, Senator Rubio introduced a unanimously adopted ``Sense of the Senate'' resolution that NASA should pursue opportunities such as expedited conveyance or transfer to a state or political subdivision unneeded assets in order to promote commercial and scientific space activity. We are working with our colleagues at the Commercial Space Federation to offer suggestions for updates to the Commercial Space Launch Act that would enhance the effectiveness of state participation, streamline the transfer of unneeded Federal property, and strengthen reporting requirements on efforts of various agencies to promote the country's commercial space industry. Through a combination of state funding and Space Florida's special district financing powers, Florida has provided more than $500 million to the transition of underutilized and unneeded property at both the Kennedy Space Center and the Cape. Some notable investments are highlighted in my written testimony to the subcommittee. Space Florida is now focused on the establishment of a state-facilitated, state-managed commercial space transportation capability to address the U.S. industry need for both vertical and horizontal facilities that can effectively compete internationally. The two components of this initiative are the proposed Shiloh launch complex, which would be located KSC's northern boundary, and the former Shuttle Landing Facility. The state's vision for both is a commercial operation by Space Florida and its partners under FAA spaceport licensing and regulatory authority. It is Space Florida's goal to provide a vertical launch site option to the commercial launch providers on land which is not under the jurisdiction of a Federal installation or Federal range. The need for such an option by the industry has been articulated by U.S. companies such as SpaceX, which is investigating alternative sites in Texas, Georgia, and elsewhere, in addition to ours here in Florida. Further, we believe that our proposed use is compatible with the longstanding conservation uses that have been established through NASA's management agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. With regard to the shuttle landing facility, we have shared with NASA a number of specific concepts and approaches we believe are crucial to achieve a sustainable business model and compatible operations with ongoing Federal activities. I will highlight a few points of critical importance to the state to define the mutually beneficial partnership. Space Florida needs the freedom to manage and operate the facility in accordance with FAA standards. We propose to fully conform to other applicable Federal laws and regulations, but ask that the jurisdiction and laws of Florida apply. As responsible stewards of Florida's taxpayer resources, we seek a reasonable opportunity to achieve a sustainable, self- supporting business model that allows us to effectively compete for and competitively service the specialized users we seek to attract. Other states and nations are vying for this industry and Florida hopes not to be disadvantaged by the location of its spaceport site on Federally-owned land. Florida needs clear rights to develop, improve, and sustain the infrastructure, doing so in an environmentally responsible way, for as long as the state may need the capability to support the industry and its users. There should be an opportunity for return on investment and security in the long- term opportunity for sustained operations. The capability of commercial launch providers to operate independently from a Federal installation and range, at a site where they are in control of their own fate in meeting schedule commitments to their customers, is paramount to their ability to compete in the marketplace. We agree with NASA's IG that the agency's culture and business practices have been a significant impediment. The overarching strategy for the future is sometimes confused. Every agreement with a new facility is begun with a separate and unique transaction with different goals and outcomes. This results in confusing and complex contract development and management. The Inspector General also identified a ``keep it in case you need it'' approach as among the agency's response to uncertain requirements, and a NASA culture and governance structure that has blurred the lines of authority and limited NASA's ability to assess infrastructure needs from an overarching Agency perspective. We believe that the best success and best practices in disposal of unneeded Federal property can be found in the base realignment and closure process and other transfers of former defense facilities such as airports and seaports, a model that looked past short-term revenue generation options to a transition and divestiture of unneeded property, unneeded and underutilized property and its liability from the property list of the services without tails and claw-backs. The model also provided DOD with tools, allowing them to respond as a partner where the future of a community was adversely impacted by government decision. GSA has also delegated transfer authority in some of these through a public benefit conveyance process to place important transportation assets in the hands of a state or local entity. Some great examples may be found in California's Mojave Spaceport and Civilian Aerospace Test Center, Cecil Spaceport in Jacksonville, and the Ellington Field Airport in Houston. All have been success stories economically. Florida is committed to working with the Federal Government to seek ways to both reduce the Federal property liability and improve utilization of the land for its intended purpose. This can be done without compromising the overall balance of land uses which sustains stewardship of the environment, and without compromising NASA's ability to perform current or future missions. I thank you again for requesting a Florida perspective on the matter we are discussing today. I look forward to continuing to be a resource to the committee, your staff, and the Florida delegation whenever needed. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have. [Prepared statement of Mr. Kuzma follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Mica. Thank you. We will get to questions shortly. Mr. Charles Lee of the Florida Audubon Society. STATEMENT OF CHARLES LEE Mr. Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Mr. Mica. You are not picking up, Charles. Maybe a little bit closer? Mr. Lee. Maybe now? Mr. Mica. Yes, that is better. Mr. Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony today. Members of the committee, I have written testimony that I would like to ask be placed ---- Mr. Mica. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record. Please proceed. Mr. Lee. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I have been involved as an employee of Audubon now for 41 years. Audubon is our state's oldest and largest environmental organization, having been formed in March of 1900, almost 114 years ago. During that span of time, a great part of our effort has been directed toward the conservation of the coastal resources associated with what we now know as the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and Canaveral National Seashore. The 140,000-acre Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge exists almost entirely upon lands that are owned by NASA. In 1963, the Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Interior entered into a cooperative interagency agreement establishing the refuge. Today, the refuge is home to over 1,000 species of plants, 500 species of birds, fish and wildlife, some 66 of which are listed by Federal and state governments as endangered, threatened, or otherwise imperiled. Perhaps more significantly, in 2012, 1.2 million people visited the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. It is one of the most popular wildlife-viewing sites in the United States and the premier viewing site on the East Coast of the United States. In addition, over 215,000 sport fishermen utilize the waters of Mosquito Lagoon. Those visits generated in excess of $60 million of economic activity in Volusia and Brevard Counties. I am here today to present two recommendations to you, and these recommendations come out of the fact that the basis for the continued existence of the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge is fragile. NASA can withdraw land from the refuge at any time and could turn it over to private interests or public interests for development purposes. In comparison to that, in 1975, through the enactment of 93-626 Public Law, the Congress of the United States recognized it was necessary to give Canaveral National Seashore the stability of primary control over the land within the National Seashore. Our first recommendation to you is that with regard to the land north of State Road 402, which is the access road to Canaveral National Seashore, we believe that the time has come to move that land permanently into the ownership of the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is significant to recognize that these are the lands that are utilized by those 1.2 million people. In 2012, after looking at the question of whether private industry space launch facilities should be located in the northern area north of State Route 402, a study that was conducted by NASA in 2008, in 2012 the Kennedy Space Center adopted a long-term management plan known as Kennedy Space Center Future Development Concept 2012 to 2031. This divided the natural areas within the Kennedy Space Center into two zones, Operational Buffer 1 north of State Route 402, and Operational Buffer 2 south of State Route 402. We believe that with regard to Operational Buffer 1, it is time to seriously consider moving those lands into the ownership of the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. With regard to Operational Buffer 2, we suggest that NASA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be directed to review the status of the larger blocks of those lands to determine which portions of this land, if any, are appropriate for ownership transfer to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The second recommendation goes to some questions you may have heard discussed by the gentleman from Space Florida. We believe that it is very important that with regard to those 330 vacant buildings, Mr. Chairman, that you mentioned, and with regard to many thousands of acres of either developed or undeveloped land that could be developed in an environmentally desirable way for private space industry use south of State Road 402 which would not interrupt the public use of the National Wildlife Refuge, we believe that a maximum effort needs to be made to repurpose those properties for use by the private space industry and for use by Space Florida. We would point out that in the recent controversial proposal of Space Florida to cut land out of the National Wildlife Refuge and to potentially close access to those several million visitors that are coming, that the reason given by Space Florida to move 10 miles north of NASA's launch compound is a claim that they can't work with NASA, is a claim that they can't work within NASA's security regulations or within the combined launch schedules of the Air Force or NASA. We think, Mr. Chairman, that it is Congress' role to make sure that the bureaucracy does not require private space industry to be forced into the pristine areas of the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge because they cannot align their regulations and launch schedules with the need of the private space industry. Now, we regard the claims of Space Florida with some skepticism, and the reason for our skepticism is that we and the rest of the world know that as Space Florida is making those claims and is trying to stake out its private area in the northern area of the National Wildlife Refuge, space companies such as SpaceX are moving quickly to try to reach their own agreements with NASA south of State Road 402. So we are, frankly, in all candor, not sure how legitimate the issue is. But if, in fact, it is the case that Space Florida is being forced to locate 10 miles north of State Road 402 in the heart of the refuge because of the policies of NASA and the Air Force, we believe that with regard to those policies, the better course of action, in the interest of those 1.2 million visitors, is for Congress to move quickly to make sure that the red tape is sliced through and that an area perhaps to be owned by Space Florida--perhaps, as the gentleman from Space Florida said, entirely under their ownership--be granted to them south of State Road 402 where the space industry could flourish and where there would no longer be the threat of any interruption to the visitors that utilize the area in the National Wildlife Refuge. The final thing that I will say ---- Mr. Mica. Could you wrap it up? I have given you 3 extra minutes, but just wrap it up real quickly, and we will have a chance during questions. Mr. Lee. Great. I just wanted to conclude by saying that the northern end of the refuge north of State Road 402 has been spared most of the public closures because of the good planning of NASA to place everything south of 402. The launch trajectories don't go over the refuge and the seashore, and State Road 402 is relocated north to actually make sure that when the shuttle program was going there would not be long-term closures of Canaveral National Seashore. And so we think very clearly NASA's plan from 2012 is the way to go, following that plan, inserting the private space industry south of State Road 402, and we support that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Prepared statement of Mr. Lee follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman. Now we will hear from our final witness, Mr. John Walsh, CEO of Cape Canaveral Port Authority. Welcome, and you are recognized. STATEMENT OF JOHN WALSH Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the hearing today. Canaveral Port Authority is an independent Port Authority, chartered and authorized under the State of Florida. CPA is now the second busiest cruise port in the world. Over 4 million cruise passenger movements take place annually, with plans to double this by mid-2020s. In 2012, the Port aggressively proceeded with cargo expansion, with two new piers and over 80-acre container backup terminal region to expand trade and cargo badly needed into central Florida. Over $70 million has been invested in these two deep-water berths, with two ship-to-shore post-Panama container cranes arriving this March. Eventually, another $150 million will be invested by both the port and private terminal operators. The port today has total direct and indirect jobs from the port activity that now exceed 17,000. CPA currently has a $3.5 billion net economic impact to the region each and every year. Direct rail service is a critical component for dynamic and vibrant cargo business at Port Canaveral. The Florida East Coast Railroad, which serves the east coast of the Florida peninsula, is situated west of Route 1. In 2012, CPA began discussions with Kennedy Space Center planners to explore rail connections to the port. CPA looked at working with Kennedy Space Center planners, the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station planners, and eventually five routes were put into place. But by process of elimination, the route utilizing the Upper Jay- Jay Bridge, maintaining service through Kennedy Space Center, has appeared as the preferred route and option. A Phase II study has been completed, with positive results, and lead to the need for agreements with Kennedy Space Center for an EIS with a Federal sponsor separate from Kennedy Space Center. KSC would remain a cooperating agency in this EIS. CPA is now working with MARAD, the Maritime Administration, as its EIS Federal sponsor. CPA and Kennedy Space Center staff are currently also working on a space agreement to perform added testing such as vibration impact analysis so that the rails do not have a negative impact on the prime operations of the phase. CPA appreciates the open and willing efforts of NASA staff and leadership to work with CPA on the proposed rail asset transfer and operating agreements. This would be a classic 3-P initiative to reduce NASA's operating cost and not having to go it alone on rail, and the port can have rail service badly needed to create jobs, growth, and regional economic development. This project still has many hurdles, and the process to go through the EIS will be able to allow all needed agencies and stakeholders to understand how this rail can be built safely and continue with care for our environment. The port has always made the environment one of our key priorities. CPA has a limited amount of land available today for growth. One request of CPA is that the submerged lands north of the port need a mutual review with NASA as there is a 1963 agreement and a 1964 agreement that have a 100-acre overlap to each other. CPA has also reached out to the United States Air Force with an unsolicited offer from CPA to lease Air Force lands adjacent to and north of the Middle Basin. This offer was issued to General Armagno and, after review with space command, has been submitted to the U.S. Air Force Civil Engineering Unit in Texas for an ELU review. We appreciate the General's open- mindedness to explore these concepts through the established ELU process and procedures. In closing, we appreciate the congressional hearing today as a way CPA can work openly and transparently to continue communication with our two Federal partners in Brevard County to expedite these critical initiatives. We can create 5,000 living-wage jobs in the port region over the next five to seven years, and at least 10,000 additional jobs over the next 10 to 15 years working with private infrastructure industries. Our mission is to lift up our community, creating high- quality jobs in diverse industries, good logistics, and leads to good manufacturing. This community and the region need the stakeholders at this hearing to pledge to work diligently together so our community can proudly support their families with thousands of former workers back to work again. Nothing replaces the feeling of a hand up and a job instead of a hand out. Our area is filled with blight and economic ravage from the downturn of the space programs. We can do better. We can diversify our region. We can supply a growing state with goods and services it needs right here from east central Florida. This rail and land discussed today can allow CPA to do our part to put those 10,000 to 15,000 people to work. If we can send a Rover to Mars, surely we can connect 10 miles of railroad and a technology that has been done since the 1800s. We believe this is doable, and we share in the responsibility to make it happen. I believe we can redefine our future now, and as new industries grow from this port into our industrial parks, we need to have strong infrastructure to link ourselves to the world economy. Strong communities and economies grow out of strong and dynamic ports, airports and seaports, as well as space ports. This seaport can be the backbone and driver of your continued help. We truly appreciate the start of this process with Mr. Bob Cabana and General Nina Armagno, as well as the respective staffs. We know we can bring this mission to a success. Thank you, members of the committee. [Prepared statement of Mr. Walsh follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Mica. Thank you, and I thank all of the witnesses. We will launch right into questions. First of all, Director Cabana, and then General Armagno, both in charge locally with carrying out the mission, and Congress has said in an act, I guess the authorization act you all did in 2010 for NASA, that we would move forward with right-sizing these operations, both the NASA and also the Air Force property here. I heard interesting testimony today from Space Florida. Jim Kuzma said there are sometimes blurred lines. I know you are both trying to do your best on the ground here. Can you give us a candid assessment of any impediments or anything you think we could do to speed up the process? We have also heard from GSA. GSA told me--Mr. Smith told us he has 54,000 square feet that has been turned over to him, determined as excess. That is not a lot considering all the property and space that we have here. So, I want to know two things. One, how can we speed this process up? What tools do you need to have us move forward? And if there are blurred lines, what lines need to be cleared up? So first we will hear from the director and then the General. Can you tell us again your candid assessment of how we get things moving even faster? Mr. Cabana. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe there are blurred lines. I think it is very clear how we are dealing with our property. We did an intensive study post-Shuttle to determine what facilities we needed for our future programs, our exploration programs. Mr. Mica. Is that the 2012 study? Mr. Cabana. It was, and we have our--there are two things. First off, the future development concept that was mentioned, that is complete. It has been reviewed by headquarters and approved. We have our new master plan up at headquarters now and we are waiting for final approval of that so that we can release it. But we did a study within the program also, the exploration program, systems development in SLS, the space launch system, to determine what we actually needed facilities-wise, and we are divesting ourselves of those we don't need. We took a close look at which ones we could convert to commercial use, which would be given to other Federal agencies. Specifically, the Air Force is interested in some at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and also some facilities on the Kennedy side. Mr. Mica. So then you say you have--you have enough as far as ---- Mr. Cabana. We have a plan. Mr. Mica. You have plans in place. Mr. Cabana. We are executing it. Mr. Mica. You are executing it, and you don't see any delay in time or authority? Mr. Cabana. It has been--well, there are numerous authorities that we use to transfer these facilities. We have the Enhanced Use Lease Space Act Agreement, use permits, commercial space launch agreements, and concessionaire agreements. Mr. Mica. Right. But you have all--all of those would all be tools that you can execute. Mr. Cabana. I believe we have the tools. Mr. Mica. So we have this little list up here, and since we started this about a year ago we now have a check-off on one of these top six properties, at least in space. Mr. Cabana. On those properties, we are using the one that is checked, and all the others are slated for demolition. So we have a plan. Mr. Mica. Okay. So again, there is no potential use. Mr. Cabana. No, sir. Mr. Mica. Nothing is going to be transferred to ---- Mr. Cabana. There was no interest. Mr. Mica.--to Mr. Smith. Mr. Cabana. We went out to industry. We went out and asked for anybody that was interested in any of the vacant facilities. Mr. Mica. And they are not interested. Now, you did point out yesterday in one of your demolitions you were able to recoup a certain amount of money for materials and all that. That sounded beneficial to the taxpayers. But again, we are trying to see what the long-term plan is, and I have a whole bunch of different reports, and they are not all buildings. Some are small structures. Some are launch pads and other things that aren't easily transferred to another use. Mr. Cabana. Yes, sir. Mr. Mica. So you feel you have enough authority to move forward on an expedited basis. Mr. Cabana. Well, as quickly as we can within the system, sir. Part of the problem is a lot of this hadn't been done before, and each one of these agreements that we enter into is unique to the facility and the customer that is taking it over. So we use a different ---- Mr. Mica. Right. It isn't just a typical situation, and you are in a secure area here that is somewhat unique. Mr. Cabana. Yes, sir. Mr. Mica. And again, the broad nature of the property. Mr. Cabana. We also retain ownership of the land underneath. Mr. Mica. Right, and that would be your intent for all of the land? Mr. Cabana. Yes, sir. Mr. Mica. Or you are looking at disposing of any? Mr. Cabana. No, sir. We are looking to keep all the land as a buffer zone and as part of our secure area. We have also ---- Mr. Mica. The land that the port is interested in, Mr. Walsh, is that Air Force or is that NASA? Mr. Walsh. The land lease is Air Force, Congressman. Mr. Mica. Air Force? Okay. Well, let me hear from the General, then. Now, do you have the authority? Are you able to move forward? And then what have you done to, again, comply with the terms of what Congress passed, both authorization and also in a recent ``Sense of Congress'' that was passed in the budget? General Armagno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your question. I think this hearing has been a great opportunity to get the word out that the space mission is very much alive and well here at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. As the Air Force has flown out old capabilities such as Titan and Atlas, we have replaced old capability with new. I believe I have the tools. I agree with Mr. Cabana. We don't have blurred lines, and there are no impediments to the actions we need to take. We have the tools that we need I know on the Air Force side of the 16,000 acres on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, roughly 1,600 facilities. We do a quarterly review. We lean forward. We have a robust accountability process. We have three choices with our property. We either continue to use the buildings with the viable missions that are there. We can lease to new partners. Or we have a very small amount that is currently vacant. About 11 percent of our property is vacant, and that equates to about eight facilities that we are looking to new customers for. Mr. Mica. What about that we heard Mr. Walsh say he has a proposal before Air Force? How long will that take to process? General Armagno. Sir, we received Mr. Walsh's proposal in January, and it is an incremental proposal. It begins with about 20 acres of land that they are looking at on our port side, which is the very south end of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and they are looking to expand their cargo operations at an area of the Cape that could be potentially dual use. The Air Force uses that port property to bring in our large boosters and other launch vehicle equipment. We also know that the Army has some staging area down there and, of course, the Navy uses the southern area of our port. So I have briefed my chain of command and we have taken this proposal and given it to the Air Force Civil Engineer Center for them to do an operational assessment. Mr. Mica. When do you think we would hear something back? General Armagno. Sir, we are hoping to hear something back in the next few months. We are hoping six months, and we will be very anxious to receive that assessment. Mr. Mica. Okay. Then we have the proposal. Mr. Posey and I made an attempt a couple of years ago with your predecessor to look at the possibility of getting rail into the port. The port is a huge economic generator. I don't know how many hundreds of additional jobs we could have through this expansion, but we were just turned down flat. We want to tell you that you are a breath of fresh air from the West Coast. I guess you came from Vandenberg, where they had actually had some activity, where they had a rail line. We looked at that yesterday, and it doesn't seem like something that can't be accomplished with people working together. We looked at the line coming in, and they do deliver, I guess, the solid rocket boosters from Utah where they are produced, and they end up--we went to the site where they are delivered, and the line looked like it was in pretty good shape. So it is something I think that we would like to see everyone work on because, again, this is about jobs, this is about expanding the economy, not to mention there might be some revenue for the Air Force. I didn't ask Mr. Cabana how much money are you getting on any lease. Incidentally, he didn't do a good job telling you all the things he has done, but we did look at 39A and B and his transformation of some of that. Part of it is used by SpaceX, I guess. Mr. Cabana. If I could, sir, we have 53 agreements in place right now, and more in work. Mr. Mica. Okay. You have to toot your horn, Cabana. [Laughter.] Mr. Cabana. It is in my written statement, sir. Mr. Mica. Yes, but these guys didn't catch it here. Mr. Cabana. But if I could, we have recently selected SpaceX to take over operations at Pad 39A. They are going to move in there. We should be closing that agreement with them here in the next few weeks or so. Mr. Mica. A huge vehicle assembly building he is converting, I guess, into dual uses. Mr. Cabana. Well, one bay we are going to use for our space launch system, and we are looking at Bay 1, offering that to a commercial company along with mobile launch platforms. That announcement still has to go out. We are working through the process on that. The Orbiter processing facilities we found users for. All the major, the really high-dollar-value items that will enable commercial space operations, we are moving forward. Mr. Mica. Have you got any amount of lease money coming in? Mr. Cabana. We do have some money coming in. I don't have the numbers for you. I can get that. Mr. Mica. If you could provide that to the committee, we would just like to see what you are getting in ---- Mr. Cabana. Sure. Mr. Mica.--from what you are turning around. Mr. Cabana. In some cases they are paying just direct costs because it is through commercial space launch agreements where it enables commercial space operations, but we are not making money. But the real benefit here is that we are not paying money to maintain these facilities. They have been taken off the taxpayer rolls, saving us precious dollars in our operating expenses while enabling commercial space operations at the same time. Mr. Mica. Could you recite for the record what your operations--you were giving us that yesterday. It was $360 million, $330 million? Mr. Cabana. Well, that was in 2013. What we initially went in with for a cost to run the center was in the ballpark of $370 million. By the time we got the budget and the sequestration and all the cuts were made, we were down to $320- some million. So we are managing to live within that. But in order to do that, we have to become more efficient and cost- effective, and we are doing that. Mr. Mica. Okay. Mr. Cabana. I would also like to add, if I could, when we were talking about being more commercial friendly, we don't think that we are onerous in bringing commercial operators in. Our goal is to make them as autonomous as possible. By way of example, I cast our safety assurance folks to look at what are the requirements to operate at KSC, and we have three models. We have purely NASA operations, joint use operations, and purely commercial operations. During Shuttle and our safety documentation, there were 2,200 shell statements, requirements that had to be met. We went through that and scrubbed that, what are requirements, what are best practices, and are there other ways to meet these requirements. We don't have to tell a commercial customer that he has to meet OSHA requirements, that he has to meet environmental requirements. That is law that they have to meet those. So we have gotten those 2,200 down to 55 shell statements in our safety documentation. We are working with the Range to figure out ways to launch in a more friendly manner, if you will. Customers have to meet commercial space requirements, get an FAA license in order to launch. Those requirements are the same as the Range requirements. So we are working to make commercial operations at KSC as user-friendly as possible and as autonomous as possible. Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. DeSantis? Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jim Kuzma, can you give the committee an update on Space Florida's bid to construct a launch facility complex at Shiloh? Mr. Kuzma. Yes, sir. Thank you, Representative DeSantis. Currently, where we are at is that the center director approved that the environmental impact statement that is needed for the actual license would fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA Office of Space Transportation. Actually, tomorrow and Wednesday the scoping meetings for the environmental impact statement are being held both at New Smyrna High School and at the Eastern Florida State College, Titusville campus. It is there that the public will have the opportunity to identify issues and actually discuss a lot of the issues and alternatives that Mr. Lee spoke of at that time. At the same time, we are pursuing the other facets of a license, the licensing requirements to be a site operator, and will continue to do so, sir. We expect that the environmental impact draft will be ready in approximately July of 2015, which actually is aligned to one of our commercial customers looking at that as an option for their launch site. Thank you, sir. Mr. DeSantis. And what about Shiloh? Why did Space Florida choose that particular location? Mr. Kuzma. Sir, to be quite honest with you, it was in response to SpaceX looking at Texas as a launch site, moving away from the Cape. We did an exhaustive search up and down the east coast of Florida, five different sites, and actually the site selected was actually Launch Complex 36. It was presented to SpaceX. It was at that time that we were informed by the leadership at SpaceX that they would not look to a government range to host their commercial activities. They would do some from the Cape, and they are continuing to do that, but for a long-term look at a number of launches, they would look for another site that they could have that environment. I think one of the things that has to be pointed out is that Space Florida's mission is sometimes in tension with both NASA and the 45th. Our job is to grow the industry and be responsive. In that case the industry market, the leaders, and not only launch providers but their payload providers are looking for some of those assurances. We are looking to create that environment that they would have in Texas, and that is how we moved up toward Shiloh, which had been identified as an optimum site on two other occasions. Mr. DeSantis. And in terms of the private entities that were looking at commercial launch, why do they not want to use existing facilities? Why would something like Shiloh be more attractive to them? Mr. Kuzma. Sir, a lot of the entrepreneurs, if you will, they like to be in control of their own destiny, right? Unfortunately in the past, there have been occasions where a payload not being ready just from a throughput process specifically at the Cape, a long time ago. The rocket sat in the building and prevented any other activity. So you can relate that to when a lot of the commercial industry started going overseas for that. There have been different activities. The discussion of security is a big one with regard to national security. So when those come in, a lot of the customers have foreign customers, there are some challenges they are getting there. But quite honestly, during 9/11, and even in the most recent government shutdown, a lot of those folks were not permitted to go, not necessarily on the Air Force side but on the Cape side. It is a lot of different things that they look at, but it is really that a lot of them are looking to specifically optimize their opportunities. You have to realize, too, that they generate revenue by meeting timelines, and they pay fines if they don't meet their contractual requirements. Mr. DeSantis. You mentioned that sometimes there can be a tension between Space Florida and NASA. So how, with this whole issue with Shiloh, how has NASA responded to the bid? Mr. Kuzma. Sir, I would like to couch that as attention is really in the objectives, not in the relationship. Mr. DeSantis. No, I understand that. Absolutely. Mr. Kuzma. I think there was lots of discussion early on. But quite honestly, Director Cabana has been very supportive in us pursuing the environmental impact statement. We have not-- there are some options as to how the property, what kind of property transfer ownership would be there. But quite honestly, we decided that we needed to push through whether or not it was a viable location and address those during the actual process, and I think that is a very prudent way to approach it. Mr. DeSantis. So you anticipate kind of future negotiations with NASA? You think that those are likely to be productive? Mr. Kuzma. Yes, sir. Mr. DeSantis. Do you want to add? Mr. Cabana. If I could, sir, yes. NASA is neutral on this. As an owner of the property, we are a participating agency in the environmental impact statement. The environmental impact statement is being led by the FAA. If at some point there is a positive environmental impact statement and there is a business case that would justify it, then NASA would consider entering into negotiations. Mr. DeSantis. Very good. Just one more question on this for Mr. Kuzma. What benefits does Space Florida see to the community and taxpayers out of commercial space flight development in this region? Mr. Kuzma. Sir, I don't actually have the numbers. We can come back with an economic study to do that. But certainly, if you look at what--before we enter into any agreement, we look at both the number of jobs and actually the capital investment. So we are looking at close to--most of the time it is between 150 and 250 jobs per commercial company. If you look at SpaceX, that is where they are going to be. And you are looking at investment from that company of somewhere between $60 million to $120 million. Mr. DeSantis. Very well. Well, I thank the witnesses. I really enjoyed listening to you, and I yield back. Mr. Mica. Mr. Bentivolio? Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In a 2013 review, the NASA Inspector General reported that since 2005 the agency's operations and maintenance costs have increased by $173 million, or 44 percent. As of 2010, NASA had over $2.6 billion in annual deferred maintenance costs. According to the Inspector General, in 2013 NASA continues to retain real property that is underutilized, does not have identified future mission uses, or is duplicative of other assets in its real property inventory. In 2012, an internal agency-wide NASA review estimated that the agency may have as many as 865 unneeded, or I heard 720 now, facilities with maintenance costs of over $24 million annually. Mr. Cabana, according to NASA Inspector General, NASA's operation and maintenance costs have increased by 44 percent since 2005. What is the cause of any rising costs you see here at Kennedy? Mr. Cabana. So, at KSC, I should say that we took it very seriously what is in that report, and we are looking very closely again at what facilities we need, and we are divesting ourselves of those that we do not need. Obviously, with an aging infrastructure, maintenance costs continue to rise over time, and we are constantly repairing water lines and so on as we upgrade. In many cases, it makes much more sense to demolish an old facility and build something new. For example, our new propellants north facility is a leads platinum facility. It actually generates more electricity than it uses. It puts energy on the grid, and we get our electricity for free at night in that facility. So that is what we are doing. We are identifying the facilities that we need and getting rid of those that we don't, and trying to be very efficient in how we do it. The Chairman asked earlier how much rent we were getting. And again, this isn't profit. It covers the direct costs of those facilities also. But with our current agreements, we have $580,000 a year coming in in rent on those facilities. Again, that covers our costs to help provide the services that we do to those facilities also. But again, it takes them off our rolls where we are not paying those maintenance costs. Mr. Bentivolio. Now, I am new at understanding this bureaucratic process. Maybe you can help me here. When you identify a building or buildings that are going to be mothballed, abandoned or disposed, they go to the GSA, correct? You notify the GSA? Is that correct? Mr. Cabana. It depends. Only if we were going to sell it or if we were going to transfer it to another agency, and we are not actually selling the buildings. We are keeping them and either getting a use agreement for them, an enhanced use lease, a Space Act agreement, and they have to be something that would help enable commercial operations, space operations at the Cape as part of our mission. Mr. Bentivolio. Right, I understand that. What I am trying to get to is what is the process, the timeframe it takes? You have to notify GSA--do I understand this correctly?--that you are going to put this building up for rent or make it available to private enterprise that must meet certain requirements that you have set, right? So how long does it take before you come to the conclusion that nobody is interested and it is time to demolish the building? Mr. Cabana. I think it depends on the facility and the studies that are being done. I would have to defer to the representative from the GSA how long it takes to get through the process. Mr. Bentivolio. Mr. Smith, he notifies you that this building, he would like to put this building up for sale or lease. What is your process to advertise and ---- Mr. Cabana. Sir, actually, we are not going through the GSA to lease our buildings. Mr. Bentivolio. Okay. Mr. Cabana. We are utilizing the GSA to transfer between Federal agencies. So those facilities at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station that are NASA facilities, my goal is to remove ourselves as much as possible from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and just have the NASA facilities at Kennedy Space Center. So those facilities that we are transferring, we have to do that through the GSA. Mr. Bentivolio. So you have a limited market to lease these buildings. Mr. Cabana. Yes, sir. Mr. Bentivolio. How long does that take to see if anybody is interested? And if not, when you determine that it is going to be demolished, what is that process? What is the timeframe? Mr. Cabana. It could take as long as a year. It depends. Again, if we are going to demolish a facility, we have to have the funds to do that. So we have to work through NASA headquarters and our budget process, our construction facilities and the facilities maintenance folks. Mr. Bentivolio. Okay. So you don't have a customer. Now you want to demolish the building. What ---- Mr. Cabana. If I identified it now, it would get put in the list of priorities at NASA as to what facilities, where had the highest priorities for the funds that were available in that budget year to provide it. So it may be next year, it may be the year after that. In the meantime, if it were not able to be demolished right away, it would be abandoned. It would be put in a safe state where we are not investing money to maintain it knowing that it is going to be demolished. Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you very much. With that, Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mrs. Miller, you are recognized. Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I thank you for calling this hearing this morning. I so much appreciate the premise of the hearing, but I also think that we can't be too hasty about certainly excessing property on this facility either. I mean, leasing buildings is one thing. Those can be--leases can be stopped, or they lapse or what have you. But I think turning property over or actually excessing property to the Department of Interior, as has been suggested by some testimony this morning, I think is totally something else because I think that could be very short-sighted by the nation. I think that optimally the space program will begin really ratcheting back up at some point. I mean, there is always an ebb and flow to these kinds of things. There is an ebb and flow to the economics, et cetera, and the space program in my mind needs to be, as I mentioned in my opening statement, Congress needs to think about ratcheting it up, revving it up a bit more, and it is not just some romantic concept, the space program. It is a critical component of our nation's ability to be positioned globally in the economic footprint when we think about STEM and some of the other kinds of things that have to be happening in our educational system. So I would say this. As we had an opportunity yesterday to tour, one of the things I heard from General Armagno, as well as in particular Mr. Cabana, was about the partnerships. That seemed to be sort of an operative phrase throughout the tour, partnerships with some of your commercial ventures, et cetera. But I think as we face the challenges really of utilizing the real estate here, obviously one of the priority issues must be security and how you can secure all of your facilities here and make sure you are protecting the taxpayers' assets, et cetera. But as has also been talked about here, and this sort of goes to my question a bit, when you think about the economic identity of the space coast's two biggest components, tourism certainly, but much of it is NASA, and also the port, what has been happening at the port is incredible in a very fantastic way. So how can the--is there more that can be done? As was talked about, the ELU, the Enhanced Land Use, I am pleased to see has been going through some of the process. I have had some experience with that at a base at my facility, and it is part of the total living experience, getting through that bureaucracy. So, good luck with all of that. But I think as we think about the potential and the possibility of a rail spur, the first thing that you would think about would be the security concerns about that, and I am appreciative of that. I sit on the Rail Subcommittee on the Transportation Infrastructure Committee. But really, one of my primary responsibilities in the Congress is sitting on Homeland Security. I am Vice Chair of the House Homeland Security. So I am very familiar with the kinds of new technologies that have been utilized for rail security, and believe me, it can happen. You can be in an extremely high level of confidence about the security of a rail spur coming out of the port, and I just sort of throw that out there, because when you think about the Panama Canal being expanded, I know that is part of the overall long-term master plan for the region here so that you are able to accommodate the larger SALT. Having an intermodal component is a very important thing, obviously, for the entire region. So I would just mention as well about what your thoughts are about the security concerns for the possibility of a rail spur, utilizing the existing rail through here. I would throw that out. Mr. Cabana. Yes, ma'am. So, I am still waiting to see the results of the study. After the study is complete, then we can make an informed decision. It will also require an environmental impact statement. But we are going to work with the port to see how we could get to accommodating that. The rail, as it goes right now, doesn't reach as far as it needs to. We would have to provide access. The port is going to have to figure out how to get from where the rail ends the rest of the way to the port. But we have easements in a number of our agreements. I am sure it is something we would be able to work if this ends up being the right thing to do, but it is still in the study phase. But we are very cautiously optimistic that we will get to a solution that is of benefit to both of us. So I am looking forward to the results of that study. I believe that we can make security work. We will figure out how to do that. Security is a huge concern. That goes into who we allow on-site, what companies we allow in. We don't just allow anybody in, and that is extremely important when you are dealing with the assets that we are dealing with. But we have also--I will mention we have an agreement with Space Florida for Exploration Park. It is a research and development park on NASA property but outside the secure perimeter that allows easier access for foreign nationals and so on. Right now it is anchored with the Space Life Sciences Lab, but soon another building is going to be added, and hopefully that will grow into an area where commercial companies can operate, can build and be in close proximity to the Space Center without actually being inside the secure perimeter. So security is a very important concern. Mrs. Miller. Thank you. And if I could, General, I am going to ask you another question, since I have a limited amount of time here. You were indicating yesterday in the tour about the drone that was here, the land station and the drone for the customs and border protection, the CBP. I think as we think about future BRACs, Base Realignment and Closure Commission, the country might not have the stomach right now for another BRAC, but there will be another BRAC. Another BRAC is going to come. I think as you look at what could happen here, even on Patrick really, but the idea of the total force concept of the partnerships again, with the Department of Homeland Security, I often tell the Secretaries of Homeland Security that they really miss the boat many times with these BRACs by not being proactive by looking at some of the existing properties, particularly geographically sited around the country for more of the components of homeland security. I don't know about the drone, but there are I think various kinds of things when you think about the maritime environment, the kind of challenges that we are all facing, whether it be the Coast Guard or the CBP, Air Force, et cetera, not only national security but homeland security, about the potential of utilizing some of the facilities here. So then you are not really looking at a commercial partner but another agency partnership that I think could be useful in the immediacy and also long-term planning to think about BRACs. Because, I will tell you, the next BRAC, total force concept is going to be a critical element of that. They are going to look at not just one element of DOD, or they will look at other agencies and those kinds of things when they look at the facilities throughout the inventory, domestically in particular I think. Do you have any comment on that, General? General Armagno. Thank you, Congresswoman Miller. I do. We work closely with our mission partners, even today, and together we are ensuring the viability of the space program here. But even beyond the space program, we have already a joint force with us, if you will. The Navy is on Cape Canaveral already, that is to the Naval Operations Test Unit. They test the Trident missile force. We work with the Army. They have land down around the port, as well as the Coast Guard has a squadron down there around the port. We already work with the Department of State, who has a flying unit at Patrick Air Force Base where they do a lot of the maritime interdiction, drug interdiction, and even other kinds of flying in combat areas, but they keep their aircraft at Patrick. So I know that we have great property with a lot of potential, a great place to fly, if you will, certainly a great place to launch rockets. But for any new customer that comes to us, we have to look at mission compatibility. I am entrusted with one mission, and that has to come first. So we have to look at the safety not only of the incoming customer but the public safety that I am entrusted with for the space launch business. We look at security, as well. We look at encroachment. Environmental issues are very important to us, as well as radio frequency emissions. We can't interfere in radio wave speak with the way we do business as well. So while we think that there is a lot of opportunity, I also have to balance the fact that I can't decrease the value, the military value of Patrick or Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mica. Mr. Posey? Mr. Posey. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, not only for this hearing but also the time that you have taken and the members here have taken to get up to speed on some of these subjects. They are not something that typically a member of Congress goes around having the knowledge of what is going on at this port, what is going on at this space center, what is going on at this cape. I appreciate the members' time and interest they took to prepare themselves for this hearing today. Accountability is something that our citizens want. Unfortunately, many times elected officials in general, Congress in particular, are too busy to give any attention to accountability. There are other important matters that seem more important at the time. But you have been diligent in trying to bring better accountability, and I am very grateful to you for that. The same can be said for space. As you see by voting trends in the past, there is really not a whole lot of, overwhelming at least, support in Congress for our nation's space program even though it is a matter of our national security, it is a matter of our economic and technological advancement in this nation, and ultimately it will be responsible for the survival of our species. I recently heard, was honored to hear a lecture by Neil deGrasse Tyson, who I think is one of the most amazing ambassadors for the space program, and he brought out the point that funding for space is probably the only thing that Congress does that entirely is beneficial to the next generation. Most of the other money that we spend solves problems on Earth and in America or around the world for this generation here and now. Very little that we do is truly focused on future generations, and space is one of those points of focus. I wish and hope that someday we can make a commitment to our space program, maybe 1 percent of our budget for 25 years, straight line, so you can have some idea of what the future is going to be so we can properly plan and prepare for future space endeavors. I want to again go on record that I strongly support whatever efforts it takes to get rail service, as the chairman has long had an interest in and as Mrs. Miller has mentioned earlier here today, to our port. I don't think that should be something that is unachievable given the fact that we can put men on the moon and bring them back within a 10-year span. We have had about 40 years to get a rail spur to the Cape, and I don't think that should be a super-human feat if we focus proper attention on it. So I appreciate you giving me the time to participate in this hearing and to comment, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Mica. Thank you. Let me go over a couple of questions here. Like I said, we had this 2002 plan and the plan that you referred to, Mr. Director, and Mr. Lee said that that plan really looks at divesting at least to preservation or Mother Nature's stewardship the land north of 402. Is that correct? Mr. Cabana. Sir, our plan does not--there is no plan for any NASA development north of 402. Mr. Mica. But then we have the Shiloh project. That is north of 402? Mr. Cabana. Yes. That is Space Florida. Mr. Mica. Okay. And I understand that the firm that is looking at that is looking at also acquiring land. Would that be title land? Could that be title land to them, or leased land? I thought you had said everything had to be leased. Mr. Cabana. If we were to do it, we would not want to give up ownership of that land. Mr. Mica. Okay. But it would appear to me that there might be space below 402 for that type of activity, keeping what Mr. Lee has come to request, sort of pristine from that type of development. Is that a possibility, or is that being looked at? Mr. Cabana. In our master plan we have looked at another launch site just north of Pad 39B. You could call it 39C or some other name, but we have looked at the possibility of developing something there. Mr. Mica. Bringing that closer to the 402. I notice 402 does--we have it up here. Mr. Cabana. Right. It would be closer to it but it would be on the south side of it. Mr. Mica. Okay, okay. That would make Mr. Lee happy. The record will reflect he has two thumbs up and a grin on his face. [Laughter.] Mr. Mica. Well, again, it is amazing how things change. Mr. DeSantis has the area in Volusia County, Canaveral National Seashore. The biggest thing I had, Ron, to worry about in my first 10 years was the nude bathing on the beach there, and now you guys have acquired the responsibility of this transition. This is a huge piece of property. I mean, I asked them how big is Manhattan. What is it? Thirty-seven square miles? This is 240 square miles, just your part, not the Air Force, and it stretches a long way. It has a lot of value, and you don't want to be short-sighted. I mean, we have two strong advocates over here. Well, the whole panel I think are strong advocates for the space program. We don't want to leave ourselves short- sighted for the future. But you feel that the plan that was adopted in 2012, again utilizing that land south of 402, would be sufficient to carry our mission to any foreseeable future, Director and General? Yes? No? Mr. Cabana. For NASA's needs, yes. Mr. Mica. General? General Armagno. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. I am not familiar with the plan because that is not Air Force property. Mr. Mica. Okay. Well, I want you to look at the plan and then comment for the record. You have two weeks to do that, report back, okay? General Armagno. Yes, sir. Mr. Mica. And if you have to go above, ask them if they think it is adequate. And then if there is anything disposable that you can dispose of or--of course, no one wants to preclude what has been talked about here for economic development of the port. That is a big economic generator. We heard Mr. Kuzma testify, 250 jobs you gave the amount of investment. Mr. Walsh, what kind of jobs could we have if we had the port connection and the additional land there? A guesstimate. Mr. Walsh. Our projections are 5,000 within the next ---- Mr. Mica. Five thousand. Mr. Walsh. Five to seven. Mr. Mica. My goal would be--we have gone from 18,000 down to 8,000, and I think you have started actually--he didn't take credit for it, the Director didn't, but I think we hit bottom, and now we are employing people using some of these facilities. So our goal would be get it past that 18,000, not only with the space activity but also other economic potential. That is a very significant figure. All right, GSA. You had the 54,000, and here again the Director didn't give himself much credit. You showed us a building yesterday that you were transferring other government activities into. How big was that space? The Director. Mr. Cabana. Which one? I am trying to remember. Mr. Mica. You were telling us that you had moved another agency into a building it was going to occupy. Was that one of yours? Mr. Cabana. No, no. What I was talking about was we were moving into--I took my engineering team and consolidated. I moved all my engineering directorate into a newer building. Mr. Mica. That was the building across ---- Mr. Cabana. Across from the vehicle assembly. Mr. Mica. Across from the vehicle assembly? No, we passed another building, and I thought you said that they were going to have someone come into that from another agency. Mr. Cabana. That was a building also that we have leased to Space Florida that was part of the OPF Bay 3. Mr. Mica. Okay, so that is private. Mr. Cabana. That is a private company. Mr. Mica. Okay. So, Smith, you got 54,000 square feet from him? Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Mr. Mica. How long have you had it? Mr. Smith. I think the access came in the January timeframe. Mr. Mica. When? This year? Mr. Smith. This year. Mr. Mica. Okay. I hope some of that is prompted by the action of the committee. Mr. Smith, I am sure I will see you again and I will be asking you the status of making that available or whatever we are going to do with it. And since I have you here for another one, I think we are making some progress on the Dyer Courthouse? It was six or seven years now vacant in Miami? Mr. Smith. Sir, we are working with Miami-Dade College. Mr. Mica. I appreciate that, and I got the report back. They are interested in a potential lease. How long do you think that is all going to take to review and get a decision on it? Mr. Smith. We are supposed to sit down with them. We are looking for a good win/win situation. Mr. Mica. Could you tell me, the committee, provide me in the next two weeks when you plan to sit down with them, and then give me chronological order for submission in this record as to what timeframe you think that could be accomplished? Mr. Smith. I will. Mr. Mica. Okay. I just had Dr. Padron and others. This is a vacant courthouse. I think we are going six or seven years now in Miami, and we had two hearings, one at the community college which is across the street from the vacant Federal courthouse where we did our first hearing about two years ago. We are getting up to two years, yes. All right. Again, sorry to give you a hard time, Mr. Smith. That is what I am getting paid for. But right-sizing this property is a challenge both for NASA and also for the Air Force. Now, let's go back to Kuzma. From the outside, you have had to deal with this in a big way, getting your foothold here. Anything we can do to speed up the process, your recommendation? They are not going to cancel your lease, at least not this week, so just be frank with us. [Laughter.] Mr. Mica. You would be surprised how hard it is to get people to testify. I mean, really, it is. We have done some of these Federal property, and I can't get a witness. I have offered a bag over their head and a screen, and they won't come near us to talk because they are afraid of retribution from either GSA or some Federal agency. But you have a past here. Go ahead and tell us anything positive that would help the process from what you have seen. Mr. Kuzma. Thank you, sir. I think one of the things that may get lost at times is that Space Florida is accountable to the Office of the Governor. So our requirements are a little different than some of our Federal partners, and we are looking at that partnership between the two to be beneficial to us, to be able to track those customers and different things. I think you may have used a great example with six years for a building. All the buildings I think, many of the buildings that the Director showed you--OPF-1, OPF-3, the ONC Building, Launch Complex 41 that was modified for ELV, the Space Life Science Lab, the ROV hangar at the Shuttle interstate--all those were, in fact, Space Florida where Florida has put resources in there to draw those companies here. It is tough to transition those facilities. You have to find the right partners. We do a lot of due diligence on those, too. Mr. Mica. It is pretty amazing. Three years is the last launch out of 39? But again, my question for the record is, is there anything you can recommend to the committee? We will go back, look at legislation. We will look at kicking agencies in the tail to move them forward, whatever it takes, anything you want to offer today. Mr. Kuzma. Sir, I think we looked ---- Mr. Mica. Or you can submit for the record if you don't want to ---- Mr. Kuzma. I think I would like to submit for the record, sir. Mr. Mica. Okay. [Laughter.] Mr. Kuzma. Thank you for that option, sir. [Laughter.] Mr. Mica. All right. Well, again, our goal here is to take this incredible national treasure that has a little bit of rust and a little mold, some of it sitting idle, but to brush it off and see what we can do with it to turn it into the very best asset for the taxpayers, and then hopefully get jobs and economic activity, get the private sector involved, as they should be, in the space mission as a good partner. And then from our defense standpoint, this is a very important asset, and maximizing that too. Finally, General, how many launch pads are empty and how many are being used, just for the record? General Armagno. Mr. Chairman, there are a total of 47 launch pads. Of those, three are active on the Air Force side. Two are NASA's, 39A and B. Nine were never built. Six are national historic landmarks right now and inactive. And there are 20 that are deemed inactive, but we did a review of those 20, and only eight of them are unencumbered by other activities going on on the base. Mr. Mica. Okay. Well, I mention that so it is in the record so people will know and they can contact you. Some of the hearings we have done, they have actually gone out and put ``For Lease'' on the building after we had done the hearing. I don't expect you to do that, although you could fly a couple of those planes with banners. But just, again, getting out there to the public that we have these facilities, and maybe some investors, and we want to make Florida attractive, because other states and countries are attracting private-sector activity for those types of uses. Other members have any follow-up questions? Mr. DeSantis? [No response.] Mr. Mica. Mr. Bentivolio? [No response.] Mr. Mica. Mr. Posey? Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to wrap this up, following up on a request that you made. Just as a bit of history for members that might not have a real long history of our program, the buzz right now is about commercial space and a lot of focus by the Air Force and NASA on commercial space. That is why Space Florida exists. There was a time when America virtually had a monopoly on commercial space. One hundred percent of the satellites fundamentally were launched from right here. Under the old business model with NASA and the Air Force, we basically choked the Golden Goose to death with red tape and over-regulation, launch fees and other disincentives. Many in the commercial space industry found it much more advantageous to operate in other countries where, in fact, instead of over- regulating and essentially taxing the commercial space industry, they subsidized it. So pretty soon we became not very competitive, and we went from 100 percent of the world's commercial launch business to probably less than 10 percent. We are trying to get that back now. At one point, there was a master plan signed by the Air Force, by NASA, by Space Florida, everyone with an interest, saying we would have a commercial launch center inside the gates of the Space Center, a range within the Range. We know, of course, that all this is subject to the Air Force's dominion of every inch of air space, probably from Jacksonville to Miami they control. So while it is often easy to say, well, why don't people run in and use some of these other empty launch pads, there are some practical reasons why. If you are on Pad 1 and I am on Pad 2, and we have different launch schedules, there are times when you can't do anything if I am right next door. So just some practical things that you don't think about. People say, well, they have unused launch pads, so simply just use those. But there are other reasons for doing that. There is also infrastructure cost that I am going to put into a long-term investment if I have a long-term commitment for it, and I am not going to put in that long-term investment if I don't have the long-term commitment. So what I am kind of driving at is, to follow up on your question that you asked for responses to, if not Shiloh, tell the chairman where you think a range within a range viable for future launch operations for commercial space would be located, if not Shiloh? If you would include that in your responses to the chairman in the next couple of weeks, I would appreciate it. Mr. Mica. Thank you, and we will leave the record open for a period of two weeks. We will have additional questions we will be submitting to the witnesses that we will enter in the record also. Mr. Mica. First of all, again, I have to thank our witnesses. Director Cabana is a pretty modest guy in his presentation here today. I was very impressed with him yesterday, and I will never forget standing with him in the vehicle assembly building, the VAB, which is one of the largest single structure buildings I think in the world. Somebody told me you can see it from the moon. But he told me that he came, I guess, as a Naval cadet, came into that building many, many years ago, a young Naval guy, and who would have thought that he would be directing actually the future of that many, many years later. But I was very impressed because sometimes we will pick people who aren't always the best choices to direct some of these operations. But here is a guy that started out from the very beginning and having experience in the program as an astronaut, a whole host of activities, and then ends up here. So I think it is a very good choice, and we were impressed with what we saw yesterday. We have lit a fire under them, quite frankly, the last year, and so has Congress the last couple of years to move forward, the various committees, particularly the Space and Science Committee. But our intent is, again, on behalf of the people. Also, I think we are fortunate to get the general here, General Armagno, because she had experience at Vandenberg, sent at the perfect time. Mr. Posey and I had heard the ``just say no'' for long enough, and she has a vision hopefully for the future that we can work with. Mr. Smith, he continues to take my abuse and yet returns to GSA and does it all very cheerfully, and hasn't hired anyone to take me out yet. Again, it was exciting to hear from Mr. Kuzma. They have actually broken through all of this and have a number of exciting projects that are and will be employing people and get us to the next level of activity in space competition nationally and internationally. Mr. Lee, always the protector of the environment with the Audubon Society, and will hopefully go away with a semi-smiling face today, but always there doing a good job and protecting our natural treasures. And thanks, Mr. Walsh, for participating. I think of all the things I heard, when you said 5,000 jobs, if that doesn't make you salivate, nothing will. So hopefully we can expedite where we all want to get, and that is in a positive direction. There being no further business before the subcommittee today, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] APPENDIX ---------- Material Submitted for the Hearing Record [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]