[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]