[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                        ENABLING MISSION SUCCESS
                     FROM THE GROUND UP: ADDRESSING
                   NASA'S URGENT INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 29, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-28

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
 
 
 
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 


       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
       
       
       
       
                          ______
 
              U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
45-205 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York                 STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia                  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         VACANCY
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                VACANCY
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                 Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

                   HON. DON BEYER, Virginia, Chairman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              BRIAN BABIN, Texas, 
AMI BERA, California                     Ranking Member
BRAD SHERMAN, California             MO BROOKS, Alabama
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              BILL POSEY, Florida
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          YOUNG KIM, California

                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                             July 29, 2021

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Don Beyer, Chairman, Subcommittee on 
  Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and 
  Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................     9
    Written Statement............................................    10

Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    11
    Written Statement............................................    13

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    14
    Written Statement............................................    14

                               Witnesses:

Mr. Robert Gibbs, Associate Administrator for the Mission Support 
  Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Oral Statement...............................................    15
    Written Statement............................................    24

Discussion.......................................................    32

              Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. Robert Gibbs, Associate Administrator for the Mission Support 
  Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.....    50


                        ENABLING MISSION SUCCESS

                 FROM THE GROUND UP: ADDRESSING NASA'S

                      URGENT INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
             Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

     The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., via 
Zoom, Hon. Don Beyer [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Chairman Beyer. This hearing will come to order, and, 
without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess 
at any time. Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to 
note that today the Committee is meeting virtually, and I want 
to announce a couple of reminders to the Members about the 
conduct of this hearing. First, please keep their video on as--
video feed on as long as you are present in the hearing. You 
are responsible for your own microphones. Please keep your 
microphones muted, unless you are speaking. And, finally, if 
Members have documents they wish to submit for the record, 
please e-mail them to the Committee Clerk, whose e-mail address 
was circulated prior to the hearing. So good morning, and 
welcome to today's hearing, ``Enabling Mission Success from the 
Ground Up: Addressing NASA's Infrastructure Needs''. I want to 
thank our NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) 
witness for being with us today.
     This last March many of us watched in awe as fire and 
smoke poured from the B-2 Test Stand at NASA's Stennis Space 
Center in Mississippi. The fire and smoke was expected, and 
part of NASA's hot-fire test of the engines and core stage of 
the world's most powerful rocket, the Space Launch System, SLS. 
It was a long-awaited milestone that was many years in the 
making, and the test was essential to retiring risk and 
ensuring the performance of the core stage in preparation for 
upcoming SLS flights. But getting to that critical test meant 
that NASA not only had to develop the SLS core stage, a 
challenging effort in its own right, it had to restore the B-2 
Test Stand to its design condition, buildout the stand for the 
larger SLS stage, and complete the special test equipment 
interfaces, and that reconstruction effort took six years.
     The B-2 story is a stark reminder of what it takes for 
NASA to achieve its ambitious goals of discovery, exploration, 
and innovation in space and aeronautics. Whether it's landing 
Perseverance on Mars, launching rockets, or testing 
experimental aircraft systems, or archiving massive amounts of 
Earth science data, achieving NASA's ambitious and inspiring 
missions require highly specialized facilities and dedicated 
physical infrastructure. For NASA, amazingly, that 
infrastructure comprises over 5,000 buildings and facilities, 
including those at its nine field centers, the Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory, and five major facilities, all located across 14 
States.
     However, like the B-2 Test Stand that was first used to 
test the Saturn 5 rocket of the Apollo era, more than 70 
percent of NASA's facilities are 50 years old. Maintaining an 
increasingly aging infrastructure across such a vast physical 
footprint has been an ongoing challenge, and NASA's $2.6 
billion deferred maintenance backlog is the case and point. 
Roads and bridges, like the Wallops Causeway Bridge that's 
reaching the end of its anticipated service life--someone 
taught me about this a long time ago, actually--the aging roof 
at Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana, HVAC (heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning) and water systems, and so 
much more, need attention. And on top of these and other urgent 
infrastructure needs, NASA must also manage the impacts of 
climate change. The buildings battered by hurricanes, flooding, 
tornadoes, and the low-lying coastal facilities vulnerable to 
sea level rise.
     In short, NASA's foundational infrastructure is cracking, 
and I fear we're reaching a tipping point. That's why it's 
essential that we prioritize investments in NASA 
infrastructure, especially at a time when Democrats and 
Republicans across the country are coming together on a 
commitment to new infrastructure--in NASA, we have repair, 
recapitalization, modernization, sustainability, and as I'm 
reading also even demolition, and that we do it now. Not doing 
so risks our future for NASA, a future that creates jobs, 
generated a 2019 economic impact of $64 billion, and that 
enables some of our most precious assets, people, innovation, 
and inspiration.
     A 2010 National Academies report on NASA's research 
facilities stated ``The institutional capabilities of the NASA 
centers, including their laboratories, have always been 
critical to the successful execution of NASA's flight projects. 
These capabilities have taken years to develop, depend very 
strongly on highly competent and experienced personnel, and the 
infrastructure that supports their research.'' The report 
underscored that NASA's research labs need to be on par with 
top-tier universities, corporate laboratories, and other 
government labs in order to sustain NASA's leadership in 
science and aeronautics and attract the best talent. It's clear 
that solving the mysteries of dark energy, finding evidence of 
microbial life beyond Earth, and advancing core competencies in 
hypersonics research will take the not only the best minds, but 
world-class facilities.
     So in closing, when we talk about NASA's infrastructure 
needs of today, what we're really talking about is NASA's 
innovation potential of tomorrow. That innovation has profound 
implications for our economic growth, our workforce, and our 
international standing. And, as we know from examples like the 
cell phone cameras we use constantly, NASA's innovation holds 
the potential promise of breakthroughs that can literally 
change our lives for the better, every day. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on the Committee and in Congress to 
address NASA's urgent infrastructure needs, and doing so now.
     [The prepared statement of Chairman Beyer follows:]

    Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing, ``Enabling 
Mission Success from the Ground Up: Addressing NASA's 
Infrastructure Needs''.
    I want to thank our NASA witness for being with us today.
    This last March, many of us watched in awe as fire and 
smoke poured out from the B-2 Test Stand at NASA's Stennis 
Space Center in Mississippi. The fire and smoke was expected 
and part of NASA's hot-fire test of the engines and core stage 
of the world's most powerful rocket, the Space Launch System.
    It was a long-awaited milestone that was many years in the 
making, and the test was essential to retiring risk and 
ensuring the performance of the core stage in preparation for 
upcoming SLS flight tests.
    Getting to that critical test meant that NASA not only had 
to develop the SLS core stage, a challenging effort in its own 
right, it had to restore the B-2 Test Stand to its design 
condition, buildout the stand for the larger SLS stage, and 
complete special test equipment interfaces. That reconstruction 
effort took six years.
    The B-2 story is a stark reminder of what it takes for NASA 
to achieve its ambitious goals of discovery, exploration, and 
innovation in space and aeronautics.
    Whether it's landing Perseverance on Mars, launching 
rockets, testing experimental aircraft systems, or archiving 
massive amounts of Earth science data, achieving NASA's 
ambitious and inspiring missions require highly specialized 
facilities and dedicated physical infrastructure.
    For NASA, that infrastructure comprises over 5000 buildings 
and facilities, including those at its nine field centers, the 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and five major facilities, all 
located across 14 states.
    However, like the B-2 Test Stand that was first used to 
test the Saturn 5 rocket of the Apollo era, more than 70 
percent of NASA's facilities are 50 years old.
    Maintaining an increasingly aging infrastructure across 
such a vast physical footprint has been an ongoing challenge. 
NASA's $2.6 billion deferred maintenance backlog is case and 
point.
    Roads and bridges, like the Wallops Causeway Bridge that is 
reaching the end of its anticipated service life, the aging 
roof at Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana, HVAC and water 
systems, and so much more, need attention.
    And on top of these and other urgent infrastructure needs, 
NASA must also manage the impacts of climate change-the 
buildings battered by hurricanes, flooding, and tornadoes, and 
the low lying coastal facilities vulnerable to sea level rise.
    In short, NASA's foundational infrastructure is cracking, 
and I fear we're reaching a tipping point.
    That's why it is essential that we prioritize investments 
in NASA infrastructure-for repair, recapitalization, and 
modernization, and also sustainability-and that we do it now.
    Not doing so risks our future for NASA, a future that 
creates jobs, generated a 2019 economic impact of $64 billion, 
and that enables some of our most precious assets-people, 
innovation, and inspiration.
    A 2010 National Academies report on NASA's research 
facilities stated
    The institutional capabilities of the NASA centers, 
including their laboratories, have always been critical to the 
successful execution of NASA's flight projects. These 
capabilities have taken years to develop and depend very 
strongly on highly competent and experienced personnel and the 
infrastructure that supports their research.
    The report underscored that NASA's research labs need to be 
on par with top-tier universities, corporate laboratories, and 
other government labs, in order to sustain NASA's leadership in 
science and aeronautics and attract the best talent.
    It's clear that solving the mysteries of dark energy, 
finding evidence of microbial life beyond Earth, and advancing 
core competencies in hypersonics research will take the not 
only the best minds, but world-class facilities.
    In closing, when we talk about NASA's infrastructure needs 
of today, what we're really talking about is NASA's innovation 
potential of tomorrow. That innovation has profound 
implications for our economic growth, our workforce, and our 
international standing. And, as we know from examples like the 
cell phone cameras we use constantly, NASA's innovation holds 
the potential promise of breakthroughs that can literally 
change our lives for the better, every day.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues on the 
Committee and in Congress on addressing NASA's urgent 
infrastructure needs, and doing so now.

     Chairman Beyer. So now let me recognize my friend Dr. 
Babin, from Houston, Texas, for an opening statement. Brian?
     Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
The purpose of today's hearing is to address NASA's complex 
infrastructure issues. NASA is one of the largest property 
holders in the Federal Government. They manage nine field 
centers and six other facilities in 14 different States. This 
includes $40 billion in assets, with an inventory of more than 
5,000 buildings and structures. As our NASA witness will 
testify, many of NASA's buildings and labs are relics of the 
Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury era, and some even pre-date NASA to 
the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics era. Indeed, 83 
percent of NASA's facilities are beyond their designed life. It 
costs up to three times more to repair or to replace equipment 
after it has failed, rather than if the maintenance had 
occurred as scheduled. In 2013, the last time this Committee 
examined NASA's infrastructure, the deferred maintenance 
backlog was estimated to cost $2.1 billion. Well, now it is 
going to cost us $2.66 billion.
     I proudly represent the Johnson Space Center (JSC), home 
to NASA's historic Mission Control Center in Houston, and many 
other unique national capabilities, like the Sonny Carter 
Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory that trains astronauts for space 
walks, the Experimental Impact Laboratory that studies the 
effects of high velocity impacts into geologic materials, 
Ellington Field, that houses many of NASA's critical aircraft, 
and the Astral Materials Acquisition and Curation Office that 
studies materials returned from space, and the White Sands test 
facility that tests materials and propulsion systems. Because I 
represent one of the largest NASA centers, I am certainly aware 
of the challenges that NASA faces when it comes to 
infrastructure. There is no greater advocate for NASA 
facilities which are critical national assets.
     Unfortunately, long term infrastructure and maintenance 
investments take a back seat to near term program and mission 
requirements. But failure to adequately maintain and manage 
infrastructure could actually compromise NASA's ability to 
carry out its vast array of missions, and that's why NASA 
Office of the Inspector General (IG) highlighted infrastructure 
in its 2020 report on top management and performance 
challenges. And rather than being an afterthought, NASA must 
proactively assist, and manage its infrastructure and budgets 
to reflect its missions and its responsibility.
     To its credit, NASA has attempted to do this through 
various initiatives over the years. NASA developed an agency 
facility strategy, an agency master plan, center master plans, 
elevated mission support to the Directorate level, developed a 
mission dependency index, and a facilities condition index, 
conducted a technical capabilities assessment, as well as a 
business services assessment, and is moving toward a new NASA 
operating model and Mission Support Architecture Program. 
That's a lot of management jargon, but hopefully it will lead 
to efficient decisionmaking and research allocation.
     Put simply, NASA should do what every family in this 
country does, that is to manage its budget. When a family 
considers new spending, they factor in the rent, the mortgage, 
and upkeep. NASA's fiscal year 2022 budget request calls for an 
overall increase of 6.3 percent. NASA's fiscal year 2022 budget 
request for safety, security, and mission services, which funds 
center maintenance and operations, is roughly three billion, a 
3.8 percent increase over fiscal year 2021 enacted levels. The 
fiscal year 2022 request for construction, environmental 
compliance, and remediation is actually a 9 percent reduction 
from fiscal year 2021 enacted levels. If NASA's facilities and 
infrastructure are in need, they should be appropriately 
prioritized in the agency's budget request. Administration--
Administrator Nelson indicated earlier this year that NASA has 
a list of infrastructure requirements totaling over $5 billion. 
But the administration has not formally requested additional 
funding, to my knowledge, and that means additional 
infrastructure funding hasn't been cleared by the Office of 
Management and Budget, nor has it been considered in the larger 
context of the Federal budget, including offsets, deficits, or 
additional revenue requirements.
     I think that we can all agree that NASA's infrastructure 
is critical to its overall mission success, but it needs to be 
incorporated and prioritized in the formal budget process, not 
as an off budget wish list. Creating a budget is what every 
family in this country does, and I'm confident that NASA, the 
administration, and Congress can, and must, do the same. And so 
with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much, and I will 
yield back.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]

    The purpose of today's hearing is to address NASA's complex 
infrastructure issues. NASA is one of the largest property 
holders in the federal government. They manage nine field 
centers and six other facilities in 14 different states. This 
includes $40 billion in assets with an inventory of more than 
5,000 buildings and structures. As our NASA witness will 
testify, many of NASA's buildings and labs are relics of the 
Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury era, and some even predate NASA to 
the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics era. Indeed, 83 
percent of NASA's facilities are beyond their design life. It 
costs up to three times more to repair or replace equipment 
after it has failed rather than if the maintenance had occurred 
as scheduled. In 2013, the last time this Committee examined 
NASA's infrastructure, the deferred maintenance backlog was 
estimated to cost $2.1 billion. It is now $2.66 billion.
    I proudly represent the Johnson Space Center--home to 
NASA's historic Mission Control Center, and many other unique 
national capabilities like the Sonny Carter Neutral Buoyancy 
Laboratory that trains astronauts for spacewalks; the 
Experimental Impact Laboratory that studies the effects of 
high-velocity impacts into geologic materials; Ellington Field 
that houses many of NASA's critical aircraft; the 
Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office that studies 
materials returned from space; and the White Sands Test 
Facility that tests materials and propulsion systems. Because I 
represent one of the largest NASA centers, I am certainly aware 
of the challenges NASA faces when it comes to infrastructure. 
There is no greater advocate for NASA facilities, which are 
critical national assets.
    Unfortunately, long-term infrastructure and maintenance 
investments take a backseat to near-term program and mission 
requirements. But failure to adequately maintain and manage 
infrastructure could actually compromise NASA's ability to 
carry out its vast array of missions. That's why the NASA 
Office of the Inspector General highlighted infrastructure in 
its 2020 report on top management and performance challenges.
    Rather than being an afterthought, NASA must proactively 
assess and manage its infrastructure and budgets to reflect its 
missions and responsibilities. To its credit, NASA has 
attempted to do this through various initiatives over the 
years. NASA developed an Agency Facilities Strategy, an Agency 
Master Plan, Center Master Plans, elevated mission support to 
the directorate level, developed a Mission Dependency Index and 
a Facilities Condition Index, conducted a Technical 
Capabilities Assessment as well as a Business Services 
Assessment, and is moving towards a new NASA Operating Model 
and Mission Support Architecture Program. That's a lot of 
management jargon, but hopefully it will lead to efficient 
decision-making and resource allocation.
    Put simply, NASA should do what every family in this 
country does--manage its budget. When a family considers new 
spending, they factor in the rent, mortgage, and upkeep. NASA's 
FY22 budget request calls for an overall increase of 6.3 
percent.NASA's FY22 budget request for Safety, Security, and 
Mission Services, which funds Center maintenance and 
operations, is roughly $3 billion, a 3.8 percent increase over 
FY21 enacted levels. The FY22 request for Construction, 
Environmental Compliance, and Remediation is actually a 9 
percent reduction. If NASA's facilities and infrastructure are 
in need, it should be appropriately prioritized in the agency's 
budget request.
    Administrator Nelson indicated earlier this year that NASA 
has a list of infrastructure requirements totaling over $5 
billion, but the Administration has not formally requested 
additional funding to my knowledge. That means additional 
infrastructure funding hasn't been cleared by the Office of 
Management and Budget, nor has it been considered in the larger 
context of the federal budget, including offsets, deficits, or 
additional revenue requirements. I think we can all agree that 
NASA's infrastructure is critical to its overall mission 
success, but it needs to be incorporated and prioritized in the 
formal budget process, not as an off-budget wish-list. Creating 
a budget is what every family in this country does. I am 
confident NASA, the Administration, and Congress can do the 
same.

     Chairman Beyer. Ranking Member Babin, thank you very much 
for your comments. I greatly appreciate them. And now let me 
rank--let me recognize the Chairwoman of the Full Committee, 
Chairwoman Johnson from Texas.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Well thank you very much, and I want 
to thank you, Chairman Beyer, for holding this hearing today on 
a very timely topic of NASA's urgent infrastructure needs. The 
Subcommittee held a hearing back in 2013 on NASA's aging 
infrastructure. We heard then about the risks to NASA's ability 
to successfully and safely achieve its ambitious missions with 
infrastructure that was largely dated back to the Apollo era, 
and was more than 40 years old. On this date in 1958, NASA was 
established. We knew then, as we know now, that infrastructure 
has to be kept to--up to date. More than 50 years old, many of 
the concerns from 2013 still ring true today. For example, what 
was $2.2 billion deferred maintenance back in 2013 has grown to 
be more than $2.6 billion, so NASA is falling behind, not 
catching up.
     NASA's infrastructure needs span the spectrum. They 
include the mundane, but the critical, and often forgotten, 
utility and access systems across nine centers, and other 
research and test facilities. They also include the specialized 
and unique R&D facilities that no other entity has, including 
wind tunnels for subsonic and hypersonic aircraft, gigantic 
clean rooms, and vacuum chambers for highly sensitive 
interplanetary spacecraft, one of the most powerful 
supercomputers on the planet, neutral buoyancy tools, and 
countless others. Managing this vast infrastructure is made 
more challenging by climate change, with some of NASA's 
critical facilities located in coastal, low-lying regions 
vulnerable to sea level rise and the increasing frequency and 
severity of extreme weather. In my home State of Texas, 
Houston's Johnson Space Center saw significant flooding in 2017 
from Hurricane Harvey. It's clear that NASA's infrastructure 
challenges need attention now if NASA is to continue to lead 
and succeed in achieving its inspiring and ambitious missions. 
That's why I'm working hard to have Congress address NASA 
infrastructure as part of a larger investment in the Federal 
R&D infrastructure.
     While the path forward in Congress may not yet be totally 
clear, my commitment to addressing our R&D infrastructure needs 
is steadfast. Science, research, and innovation are our future. 
Without necessary core capabilities, such as facilities and 
infrastructure, we run the risk of constraining that future. 
That's not the vision I want for NASA. As I close, I want to 
thank our witness, Mr. Robert Gibbs, for appearing before us 
today, and I look forward to his testimony. Thank you, and I 
yield back.
     [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Good morning.
    I want to thank Chairman Beyer for holding this hearing 
today on the very timely topic of NASA's urgent infrastructure 
needs.
    This Subcommittee held a hearing back in 2013 on NASA's 
aging infrastructure. We heard then about the risks to NASA's 
ability to successfully and safely achieve its ambitious 
missions with infrastructure that largely dated back to the 
Apollo era and was more than 40 years old. Now, that 
infrastructure is more than 50 years old and many of the 
concerns from 2013 still ring true today. For example, what was 
$2.2 billion deferred maintenance backlog in 2013 has grown to 
more than $2.6 billion, so NASA is falling behind, not catching 
up.
    NASA's infrastructure needs span the spectrum. They include 
the mundane-but critical, and often forgotten-utility and 
access systems across nine Centers and other research and test 
facilities. They also include the specialized and unique R&D 
facilities that no other entity has, including wind tunnels for 
subsonic to hypersonic aircraft, gigantic clean rooms and 
vacuum chambers for highly sensitive interplanetary spacecraft, 
one of the most powerful supercomputers on the planet, neutral 
buoyancy pools, and countless others.
    Managing this vast infrastructure is made more challenging 
by climate change, with some of NASA's critical facilities 
located in coastal, low-lying regions vulnerable to sea level 
rise and the increasing frequency and severity of extreme 
weather. In my home state of Texas, Houston's Johnson Space 
Center saw significant flooding in 2017 from Hurricane Harvey.
    It's clear that NASA's infrastructure challenges need 
attention now if NASA is to continue to lead and succeed in 
achieving its inspiring and ambitious missions. That's why I am 
working hard to have Congress address NASA infrastructure as 
part of a larger investment in Federal R&D infrastructure. 
While the path forward in Congress may not yet be totally 
clear, my commitment to addressing our R&D infrastructure needs 
is steadfast. Science, research, and innovation are our future. 
Without the necessary core capabilities, such as facilities and 
infrastructure, we run the risk of constraining that future. 
That's not the vision I want for NASA.
    As I close, I want to thank our witness, Mr. Robert Gibbs, 
for appearing before us today, and I look forward to his 
testimony.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

     Chairman Beyer. Madam Chair, thank you very much for your 
opening statement. At this time I'd like to introduce our 
witness. Mr. Robert Gibbs is the Associate Administrator for 
the Mission Support Directorate at NASA Headquarters in 
Washington, which provides institutional support to enable 
successful accounts of NASA mission objectives. Mr. Gibbs first 
joined NASA as the Assistant Administrator for the Office of 
Human Capital Management, and NASA's Chief Human Capital 
Officer in May 2017. From 2013 to 2017 he served as the Chief 
Human Capital Officer at the Department of Energy (DOE). And 
prior to becoming a member of the Senior Executive Service, Mr. 
Gibbs completed the nuclear training pipeline and served at sea 
with the U.S. Navy, completing numerous strategic deterrent 
patrols; and ashore at nuclear repair facilities. He's a 
retired Naval officer. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Business 
Management from the University of Washington, and he's a Doctor 
of Jurisprudence from Northern Virginia's George Mason 
University.
     So welcome, Mr. Gibbs. As you know, you have five minutes 
for your spoken testimony, and your written testimony, however 
long it is, will be included the record for the hearing. And 
when you've completed your spoken testimony, we'll begin with 
the questions. Each Member will have five minutes to question 
our one-person panel. So, Mr. Gibbs, you're center stage, and 
you are now recognized.

                 TESTIMONY OF MR. ROBERT GIBBS,

                    ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

              FOR THE MISSION SUPPORT DIRECTORATE,

         NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

     Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman Beyer, Ranking Member 
Babin, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to appear today to discuss NASA's infrastructure. 
We look forward to working with you to change the trajectory of 
NASA's infrastructure health and ensure the agency's continued 
prominence as a national illustration of leadership in space, 
exploration, technical, and aeronautic innovation. I'd like to 
begin by offering a backdrop for this conversation to 
contextualize the challenges NASA faces. When NASA was founded 
in 1958, public investment enabled a national vision to lead 
the world in space exploration and scientific discovery. Apollo 
era infrastructure provided a modern foundation from which we 
launched into space and the first humans, Americans, stepped 
onto the surface of the moon. Over the last 60 years NASA has 
continued to inspire the world, explore the universe, to learn 
to live and work in space, advance science, and develop 
technologies that improve life for everyone.
     Today America has a rapidly expanding space industry, 
including increased commercial and international participation. 
NASA's role remains crucial in enabling commercial growth 
investing in science and engineering for responsible space 
activity for the global community of space faring nations. Our 
current missions are no less inspirational, to return humans to 
the Moon, establish a permanent lunar presence, and extend 
humanity to Mars, expand our understanding of climate science, 
and the human impacts on--to make engineering breakthroughs, 
and drive economic expansion. However, a majority of our 
facilities and assets are relics of the Apollo era. We are now 
in a state of marked obsolescence and degradation.
     Chairman Beyer. Mr. Gibbs your sound keeps coming in and 
out. It's almost cycling. If some of the NASA technical folks 
could help us?
     Mr. Gibbs. I mean, is this any better? Maybe I just need 
to lean forward a bit.
     Mr. Perlmutter. Let's see. Just keep talking for a second.
     Mr. Gibbs. How about this? I'll try two mikes. Is two 
mikes better?
     Staff. Sir, it's----
     Chairman Beyer. Yes----
     Staff [continuing]. As if----
     Chairman Beyer [continuing]. Please.
     Staff [continuing]. There's an automatic--it's as if 
there's an automatic gain control, and it's taking the volume 
up and down, so they may want to check that.
     Mr. Gibbs. I'm looking at our tech guys, and we'll 
hopefully get this straightened out. If you can hear me, I'll 
continue.
     Chairman Beyer. Yes, please. Continue.
     Mr. Gibbs. As I was saying, this leads us to one 
inescapable point. NASA's infrastructure represents the single 
greatest threat to mission success. Approximately 82 percent of 
our facilities are beyond their designed life. Our annual 
maintenance requirements are increasing every year, and 
exceeding our resources. Maintenance of 5,000 plus buildings 
and structures has been consistently underfunded due to 
competing priorities resulting in the deferred maintenance of 
2.6 billion referenced earlier. Historically, recent NASA 
budget requests constitute the absolutely essential 
requirements that ensure mission success, but NASA continues to 
carry a significant threat of infrastructure failure.
     NASA has had a substantial number of critical 
infrastructure requirements for repair, modernization, 
recapitalization, new capability across the centers. These 
requirements represent executable infrastructure actions that 
NASA has assessed would go far to off-
set these mounting risks and possible delays to schedule, 
hardware, continuing operations, and personal safety. If you 
could please display slide one?
     [Slide one follows:]
     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    
     I want to provide some examples of the Artemis era 
investments we need to maintain our technical capabilities that 
enable these groundbreaking achievements. A hypersonic wind 
tunnel at Langley Research Center would enable future 
investments in high-speed travel and more efficient air travel. 
A new robotics lab at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in 
California would propel NASA forward in the uncrewed 
exploration of Mars and other planets. We recently opened a 
Health and Human Performance Lab at Johnson Space Center in 
Texas, which provides NASA the collaborative research 
environment to understand impacts, and the potential of space 
travel. Could you please show slide two?
     [Slide two follows:]
     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    [
    
     Horizontal infrastructure is just as vital to NASA's 
operation as the specialized crane at Kennedy that assembles 
the space launch system. When a water main ruptures, like the 
one did at Johnson Space Center in 2020, mission activity 
halts. Timelines are delayed, and repairs are costly. Other 
examples include the degradation of the Wallops Flight Facility 
Causeway bridge in Virginia, which is the only access to the 
launch complex that supplies the International Space Station, 
and necessary site-wide infrastructure improvements to enable 
increased launch tempo required by NASA, DOD (Department of 
Defense), and commercial partners at the spaceport at Kennedy 
Space Center (KSC)--you'd show slide three?
     [Slide three follows:]
     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    
     In closing, a greater investment is needed to modernize 
and build the capabilities of the future, something our 
commercial and international partners, our employees, and our 
stakeholders demand. Investing in NASA capability leads 
directly to scientific innovation, more efficient, more 
effective space travel, and development of the next generation 
of scientists, engineers, and astronauts. Funding NASA's 
infrastructure will accelerate 21st century advancements in 
climate science, avionics, propulsion, green technologies, 
miniaturization, and so much more. Given NASA's role as an--
proven role as an economic driver, innovation catalyst, and 
jobs creator, an investment in NASA's infrastructure and next 
generation capabilities is an investment in American jobs and 
expanding the commercial markets. Thank you, Chairman Beyer, 
Ranking Member Babin, and the Members of the Committee and the 
Subcommittee, for giving me this time. I'm happy to answer any 
questions.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbs follows:]
     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    
     Chairman Beyer. Mr. Gibbs, thank you very much. It's 
fascinating to look at your map, and realize that--more than 5 
billion in NASA investments in Virginia, which I represent, and 
Alabama, with Mr. Brooks, Florida, with Mr. Posey, over 4 
billion in Colorado, with Mr. Perlmutter, and over 16 billion 
in California. Poor New Jersey is left out. Let me begin.
     Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Babin talked about, you know, how families 
plan their budget, and how we shouldn't be, you know, doing 
emergency off the books funding for something like this. I 
notice that your 2.6 billion number, that's roughly 7 percent 
of the 39 billion in asset value of NASA. Are we in a different 
period now? Why is there a crisis at this time, looking back at 
budgets over the last five, 10, 15, 20 years? Have--has NASA 
structurally failed to ask for the right amount of money to 
keep up this infrastructure on an ongoing basis?
     Mr. Gibbs. So I think I----
     Chairman Beyer. You see where I'm going with this? OK.
     Mr. Gibbs. Yeah. Yes, sir, I do. I do see where you're 
going with this, and I think it's a very fair question. You 
know, for 10 of the last 12 years we--our budget that we have 
received has been less than what we have asked for. You know, 
with an aging infrastructure, as we have at NASA, this becomes 
a--sort of a circular problem, right? You can't invest to 
maintain your aging infrastructure, it gets older, you need 
more money to invest, you have less dollars, and it goes around 
like that. I do think that we are at a critical point right now 
with infrastructure. I'm concerned. It's what keeps me up at 
night. My portfolio has a lot more than infrastructure in it, 
and I will tell you, I am concerned.
     Chairman Beyer. Great. Thank you. When we had Senator 
Administrator Nelson here in May, he suggested a number like 
5.4 billion in infrastructure needs. What's the gap--the 
doubling between the 2.6 that we typically use for NASA and 
Senator Nelson's 5.4?
     Mr. Gibbs. So deferred maintenance and the $5.4 billion 
investment portfolio are slightly different things. If we were 
to receive those additional funds, it would retire a majority, 
or a substantial majority, of the deferred maintenance. But the 
5.4 is looking at--across the entire complex of NASA, driven by 
the mission. You know, what are the things that we need to 
invest in to make our mission successful not only today, but 
going forward? What is the facility, the infrastructure, all 
the investments we need to make?
     It falls into categories like modernization. Where do we 
need to build new capability? We talked a little bit about the 
hypersonics tunnel. I think that is a new capability that 
should be a national capability, and work for the Department of 
Defense. We talked about recapitalization, modernization, and 
repair, so it's bringing all of these facilities back up to 
acceptable standards. I think that's the way I would address 
that, Mr. Chairman.
     Chairman Beyer. Thank you. Yeah, Mr. Gibbs, the 2010 
National Research Council report I had mentioned raised 
significant concerns about the research laboratories. Are we 
yet at the point where the infrastructure is an impediment to 
scientific progress and discovery?
     Mr. Gibbs. I think we're able to continue with scientific 
discovery, but that point where infrastructure is going to 
start limiting mission is around the corner. I think it's in 
the very near future for us, is how I'd answer that, sir.
     Chairman Beyer. OK. One small point. You--in your written 
testimony you talked about mitigating systemic arc flash issues 
in electrical systems. Are these--is this a new problem, or is 
this--are the arc flashes something we've been dealing with for 
a long time?
     Mr. Gibbs. It's a problem that has existed for a period of 
time. I mean, when you're talking about arc flash, you're 
talking about electrical explosions, when you have a low 
impedance to ground on energized equipment. It has gotten worse 
as our electrical infrastructure has aged. You know, now it 
requires--you can't work on energized gear. You have to de-
energize systems, sometimes laboratories, or structures, or 
parts of our centers, in order to work on this gear. So it is a 
personnel safety issue. It has an unpredictable failure rate, 
or failure mode, so we have to be, you know, putting personnel 
safety first. It requires us to take additional steps, and 
those steps are required more often right now.
     Chairman Beyer. I seem to recall six and a half years ago 
we had an arc flash in the Metro tunnel here in Washington, DC. 
that killed someone. One last question. I was fascinated that 
there were 134 cleanup projects-- service or groundwater 
installations, hazardous wastes. How are we doing in our 
responsibility to those 134 communities?
     Mr. Gibbs. You know, we put public safety and protecting 
the environment as one of our greatest priorities. The budget 
that we have in '23--'22 is enough to maintain our fiscal 
responsibilities, our statutory responsibilities, in these 
facilities. You know, we talked a little bit about the Wallops 
bridge. There has been an issue--Wallops and Chincoteague--in 
the water supply, and I think we've done a very good job of 
installing water filtration equipment, providing the town with 
clean drinking water, monthly sampling, which is showing no 
results of any contaminant, and doing all of these things, and 
digging new wells, as a way to sort of ensure that we hold up 
our end of the environmental questions that face the agency.
     Chairman Beyer. Mr. Gibbs, thank you very much. Let me now 
recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Babin, for his questions.
     Mr. Babin. There it is. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman and Mr. Gibbs. Thank you for being here. We appreciate 
you. And my question, as I mentioned in my opening statement, 
there at JSC in Houston is home to the Astral Materials 
Acquisition and Curation Office. As NASA plans to develop the 
Mars Sample Return Mission, there's an ongoing debate over 
where the returned samples will be processed and housed. At a 
hearing earlier this year, NASA scientists indicated that they 
had not decided as of yet on that location. From an 
infrastructure perspective, does it make sense to build a new 
capability somewhere else, rather than utilizing existing 
facilities, particularly when NASA already has an 
infrastructure backlog?
     Mr. Gibbs. So, to answer your question directly, JSC, 
Johnson Space Center, is the center that owns the Mars sample 
curation, right? The sample return program. I don't think we 
have come through where that facility is going to be located 
yet.
     Mr. Babin. OK. Well, is NASA planning to use the existing 
infrastructure at JSC to support this mission? Or where--what 
are some of the thoughts there among those who are making this 
decision?
     Mr. Gibbs. Sir, I'd have to take that for the record and 
talk with my science colleagues. I do know at this point we 
haven't made a decision as an agency.
     Mr. Babin. OK. Well, NASA released a request for proposals 
for space suits this week. The Johnson Space Center maintains 
the Nation's space suit and the extra-vehicular activity (EVA) 
expertise. How much funding does JSC receive for infrastructure 
from the Human Exploration Mission Directorate to fund space 
suit and EVA facilities?
     Mr. Gibbs. I apologize that I'll have to take that for the 
record. I do not control the HEO (Human Exploration and 
Operations) Program budget for space suits that is--that--
developed and maintained at Johnson.
     Mr. Babin. OK. Well, I want to hear your opinion, then. If 
NASA outsources space suits and EVA capabilities, will JSC's 
budget to maintain the facilities be covered through the Safety 
Security Admission Service Account to offset any funding 
shortfalls caused by the acquisition strategy?
     Mr. Gibbs. So at this point I have no intention of 
lowering the budget of Johnson, if that answers your question.
     Mr. Babin. OK. Were additional costs to maintain the 
critical infrastructure necessary to enable EVAs, and space 
suit development and training, considered in any cost-benefit 
analysis of acquisition or purchase to determine the best value 
for the taxpayer?
     Mr. Gibbs. Again, I apologize, but I'd have to take that 
for the record and talk with our procurement folks. My gut 
tells me yes. We go through a very in-depth analysis as we work 
through all procurement opportunities. But I don't----
     Mr. Babin. OK.
     Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. Know that for a fact.
     Mr. Babin. OK. How does NASA ensure that such a cost-
benefit analysis is an apples-to-apples comparison? I can 
envision a scenario where a service contract would be cheaper 
at face value, but when--when the necessary NASA facility and 
infrastructure costs are accounted for, though--the overall 
taxpayer cost is larger if facilities are not decommissioned.
     Mr. Gibbs. Yeah. I will tell you--I'll answer that very 
generically, that--I will tell you, as we go through these 
propositions, we spend a lot of time to ensure that we have 
accuracy in our data. When we're looking at procurement 
opportunities, we look at total life cycle costs. All in, what 
do they cost us to procure this activity or this service? 
Additionally, what we have are folks from across the agency 
with multiple stakeholders sitting in with us as we go through 
these procurement and other decisions to ensure that all the 
folks that are impacted by these decisions get that voice 
heard. And we have a pretty strong group, honestly, that do 
this--that does this work at the agency.
     Mr. Babin. OK. The NASA IG semi-annual report to Congress 
recently highlighted the fact that a recommendation from 2013 
has still not been implemented by NASA. The recommendation 
states, ``Ensure life cycle and milestone reviews, incorporate 
programmatic and technical risks, and are conducted with the 
Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations 
Mission Directorate, and other senior agency officials.'' Why 
hasn't NASA implemented this recommendation?
     Mr. Gibbs. I'd have to take that for the record, sir.
     Mr. Babin. OK. Well, can you ensure that NASA provides a 
response to these questions for the record, if you don't mind? 
We would greatly appreciate that, seeing the answers to these.
     Mr. Gibbs. Yes, sir. Happy to do so. Thank you for your 
questions.
     Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
     Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Babin, very much. And I 
recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, if our Chairwoman is 
still here. If she was here, but if she is not, then let me 
recognize Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren. Not Chair of this Committee, 
but Chair of lots of other things. So, Ms. Lofgren, the floor 
is yours.
     Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks 
for holding this hearing. Obviously we have infrastructure 
needs throughout this agency, and no matter where those 
infrastructure needs, it matters to all of us because it's the 
science mission that drives our decisionmaking. But I do want 
to mention the Ames Research Center. It's not in my district, 
but it is in the county I represent, and it is the second 
oldest NASA center. It's my perception that the infrastructure 
needs has sometimes fallen off the priorities, and a sense that 
one of the biggest barriers to funding is the lack of strong 
advocates at the top of the agency.
     Now, that could be that, you know, other centers are 
dominated by specific programs, for example Earth science or 
aeronautics. Ames is a blend of smaller programs across all the 
divisions, and so that kind of advocacy is diffused. I'm 
wondering what kind of evaluation we are going to use so that a 
program like Ames doesn't get lost in the dust, if you will, 
what kind of objective evaluation is going to be used. And, Mr. 
Gibbs, I thank you so much for your advocacy. You know, it's 
possible, we hope not, that not every priority will be funded. 
If there's not 100 percent funding, how are you going to 
prioritize what gets funded?
     Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your question. 
First, on the concept of--I--how do we make all these things 
work, right, across the agency? We have a lot of competing 
priorities, a lot of competing needs, and in a limited resource 
environment, it's tough. I'll just tell you, frankly, this is a 
tough problem to solve. We have an agency master planning 
process which we have stood up in the last year which involves 
representatives from all of the mission directorates that come 
in and say, here are our requirements. It involves all of the 
centers saying, here are our capabilities. And then we take a 
look at those things and say, OK, across our infrastructure 
portfolio, how do we put these things in buckets? 
Fundamentally, what are the things we absolutely know we need 
today and tomorrow to complete our mission? So those--that's 
one bucket we can set aside. What are the things that we know 
we don't need, that should be on our demo list? Let's put that 
aside. Now let's really focus on those things in the middle 
that could possibly be out grants, using enhanced use lease 
(EUL) authority, where, you know, it's things we could just 
maintain at a very minimal funding level, so that way we can 
continue to stretch our dollars to the greatest extent 
possible.
     I will tell you that I think Ames has pretty good 
representation within the agency, and its importance to the 
overall agency mission, I think, goes without question, if 
that----
     Ms. Lofgren. Well, I appreciate that. And so many of the 
scientists there, you know, some live in my district, and I'll 
tell you, it's tough, because, you know, Ames is located in the 
middle of Silicon Valley. You've got kids walking out of 
college that are earning two or three times what those 
scientists are earning, and they stay there because of their 
commitment to the mission, and I really respect that, and I 
appreciate what they are doing, and we need to make sure that 
their service and sacrifice is honored in every way possible.
     I'm wondering, Mr. Gibbs, would it be possible to share 
that document that you've just described so the Committee can 
understand the thinking of the agency as you sort through the 
very challenging decisions you need to make?
     Mr. Gibbs. Yeah. We're very happy to work with the 
Committee and get you the information you need.
     Ms. Lofgren. I would love to see that. Mr. Chairman, thank 
you so much for holding this hearing. I think it's essential, 
and, you know, as we know, it's already--the national--pardon 
me. The National Research Council has already deemed NASA's 
infrastructure needs to be, you know, trailing NSF (National 
Science Foundation) and other facilities, DOE, university 
facilities. We really can't permit that to continue, and I 
appreciate your leadership, and that of the Chair and the 
Ranking Member, to make sure that that changes. And, with that, 
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
     Chairman Beyer. Thank you very much, Ms. Lofgren. I now 
recognize the Chairman from Cape Canaveral--or the Member from 
Cape Canaveral, Mr. Posey.
     Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Chairman Beyer, for 
holding this hearing addressing NASA's urgent infrastructure 
needs. Great to have you here, Mr. Gibbs, and great to see NASA 
making great strides that it has made in regards to its 
operation. I remember when the legislature appropriated a few 
million dollars for a life sciences lab, it took I think 
something like 3 years for NASA to get it together and come up 
with a lease to offer them. Wow, what a paradigm swing we've 
seen since those days, which I most notably observed through 
the leadership of Bob Cabana at KSC, and I'm sure Janet Pepco 
will do just as great a job.
     Between the civil and commercial space launches at Kennedy 
Space Center, it puts a tremendous strain on its existing 
infrastructure, as you mentioned. This is sometimes maybe a 
good thing that we're doing so well, but we should work to 
address the needs that would meet a higher launch cadence at 
Kennedy Space Center. This means increasing high-flying 
capacity, and adding wider roads to accommodate the 
transportation of the next generation vehicles, as you well 
know.
     The State of Florida has been forward leaning on 
addressing the infrastructure challenges with some funding, and 
after the cancellation of the Shuttle Program the Kennedy Space 
Center pivoted to supporting not only space flights, but also 
the commercial sector array. KSC repurposed critical national 
capabilities like the vehicle assembly building, and the 
crawler transporter, and made other underutilized facilities, 
like the orbiter processing facilities and launch pads, 
available for commercial users. My question is, as the 
commercial space sector grows, how can NASA best leverage the 
unique partnership it has with Space Florida to maintain its 
infrastructure that is key not only to NASA, but to the State 
of Florida?
     Mr. Gibbs. Yeah, I--thank you, sir, for your question. I 
think that's a great partnership. You know, the Indian River 
Bridge, we worked with the State of Florida, Space Florida, the 
Florida Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department 
of Transportation and their INFRA (Infrastructure For 
Rebuilding America) grant Program to be able to recapitalize 
the bridge. Right now NASA is paying to relocate all of the 
utilities at the Indian River Bridge. Construction will begin 
later this fall, with completion by 2025. So that's a great 
example of Florida working with NASA to achieve that joint sort 
of program of expanding the space industry.
     I will also tell you that we are going to have to make 
additional infrastructure investments at KSC to support this 
increased launch tempo. 2021 is going to see the most launches 
NASA has ever done, and that pace is expected to continue 
through '24 or '25. We have to make commensurate investments in 
infrastructure to be able to support commercial, DOD, and 
NASA's launches in the future.
     Mr. Posey. You know, I understand that KSC submitted a 
construction of facility request for Fiscal Year 2022 of 63.8 
million, but only 33.3 million was approved for inclusion in 
the President's budget request, a request to build a new Hybrid 
platform of 22-1/2 million, and the RL-10 engine shell down at 
eight million to support the SLS. Block 1-B were both rejected, 
unfortunately. Do you know why the infrastructure projects 
associated with SLS Block 1-B were not supported?
     Mr. Gibbs. Yes, sir. I--so that is a Human Exploration 
Operations Program funded line item. That's what they're 
funding. But I will tell you, again, it's the same symptom of 
limited resources. You have to measure those resources across 
the agency in order to meet requirements. Now, I think those 
were not necessarily declined. I think they were deferred to 
later progress, but I'd have to check with our HEO Program 
folks to make sure I'm giving you the accurate information.
     Mr. Posey. OK. Do you know if there's other plans to 
address the shortfall?
     Mr. Gibbs. I do not. I do not.
     Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time is about 
to expire. I yield back. Thank you for--again for this hearing.
     Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Posey, very much. I now 
recognize the past and future Governor of Florida, Member 
Charlie Crist.
     Mr. Crist. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. 
Gibbs, thank you for being with us this morning. As you know, 
NASA's enhanced use lease authority allows the agency to lease 
underutilized property to private entities, academic 
institutions, and State and local governments, while also 
allowing NASA to keep the proceeds to cover maintenance costs 
and other activities. It's my understanding that NASA has used 
this authority with great success at Kennedy Space Center to 
help transform the facility into a robust, multi-user spaceport 
to include SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others. It's this type of 
innovation that gave the Space Coast its new nickname of the 
Comeback Coast, following the shuttle's retirement and 
resulting layoffs in 2011. However, you note in your testimony 
that NASA's enhanced use lease authority expires at the end of 
the calendar year. What is the impact to NASA if this 
authorization is allowed to lapse, and what would happen to 
those leases?
     Mr. Gibbs. So the impact would be significant. Enhanced 
use lease authority allows us to charge a fair market value for 
facilities and infrastructure that we--is underutilized in the 
NASA portfolio. Being able to take these proceeds in and apply 
it to infrastructure, apply it to needs, apply it to other 
areas of critical sort of needing some dollars, an infusion of 
dollars, to maintain or get it back to adequate levels is 
incredibly important. Additionally, those partnerships, those 
relationships that the EULs, enhanced use lease authorities, 
actually form are just as important, you know, as we go 
forward.
     Now, the impact to the folks that currently have EULs, 
it's probably fairly minimal, as I would assume that they would 
be allowed to continue through the period of the agreement. The 
issue becomes that we have 15 new EULs we're looking to enact 
in fiscal year 2022, and I couldn't do any of those, and a lot 
of those relate to Space Coast activity not only here, but in 
the State of Virginia as well. So I think, you know, EULs are 
going to be critical for our success kind of going forward.
     Mr. Crist. Thank you. Administrator Nelson previously has 
testified that NASA has identified a set of infrastructure 
needs totaling about $5.4 billion. It's no secret that Kennedy 
Space Senator's--Center is located right on the Atlantic Coast 
of Florida, which makes it vulnerable to climate change. Do any 
of the infrastructure needs the administrator referenced 
address the need for climate adaptations at Kennedy?
     Mr. Gibbs. They do. I will tell you that, you know, 
working with the impacts of climate and climate change are 
incredibly important. Kennedy is a great example of something 
that we're working on to solve. We've built a 17-foot dune, 
barrier dune, between the waterways and the launch pads that we 
used recycled soil from the Air Force, when they were doing 
dredging operations. The dune is 17 feet tall, it's 200 foot at 
the base, 100 foot at the height, and then it's, you know, 
planted with native grass and plants. You know, those sorts of 
efforts to ensure that we can continue to conduct our mission 
are incredibly important.
     So yes, you know, we do look at, you know, the coastline 
restoration efforts not only there, but at Wallops. You know, 
we look at earthquake hardening at the Jet Propulsion 
Laboratories in California as part of this program as well. So 
there is quite a bit.
     Mr. Crist. OK. Thank you, sir. Beyond the 5.4 billion 
Administrator Nelson referenced, does NASA have a plan of 
action to protect Kennedy's assets from the impacts of climate 
change? And if so, what's included in that plan, and what does 
NASA need from Congress to carry it out?
     Mr. Gibbs. Well, I appreciate the question. You know, so--
at this point in time, we plan these things into our 
infrastructure budgets. It's about an every 3 year cycle for 
shoreline replenishment, and other things that go on to support 
Kennedy, but that's about as much of an answer as I can give 
you.
     Mr. Crist. Fine. Well, NASA's Fiscal Year 2022 budget 
request notes that, due to COVID-19 closures at NASA centers, 
most ongoing facility construction projects were halted, and 
that ``in the absence of supplementary funds, planned 
construction projects may be deferred.'' Can you discuss which 
construction projects at Kennedy were significantly impacted by 
COVID closures, and what impacts will that have on NASA 
missions carried out at Kennedy, including the launching of the 
Artemis missions?
     Mr. Gibbs. So I'll take the complete answer for the 
record, but I'll give you sort of--the overall picture is there 
are a lot of requests for equitable adjustments that went on 
because of COVID, but that isn't telling you the entire story. 
The whole story really is that we have to delay, defer, and 
descope projects on a regular basis because our construction 
funds are lower than requested. The reality is I've had to 
delay, defer, descope 47 projects over the last two budget 
cycles because I just didn't have the resources.
     Mr. Crist. Thank you very much----
     Mr. Gibbs. Hopefully that answers your question.
     Mr. Crist. Appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
     Chairman Beyer. Thank you very much. I believe we'll now 
move to Mr.--no--get this right. No, Ms.--Member Kim from 
California. You are now recognized. Madam--Young Kim? It is 
your turn to proceed.
     Mr. Perlmutter. I don't think she heard you. There you go.
     Chairman Beyer. OK. Congresswoman Kim? If you can hear us, 
it is now your turn to ask questions of Mr. Gibbs. And if 
you're having a--technical problems, we can move on to Mr. 
Gonzalez, and come back to you, if that would be OK.
     Staff. Just sent a signal----
     Chairman Beyer. There we go.
     Staff. --Mrs. Kim to unmute.
     Chairman Beyer. Mrs. Kim, I think that--think we had you 
there for a minute. You seem unmuted at the moment. Please 
proceed.
     Mrs. Kim. Am I up? OK. Sorry about that. All right. Well, 
I want to thank you, Chairman Meyer, for yielding, and I want 
to thank you, Mr. Gibbs, for testifying before the Subcommittee 
today. NASA currently has a maintenance backlog of over $2.66 
billion, so how is it that funding broken down by NASA's 
condition-based maintenance approach and its prioritized risk 
assessment process? And do all these projects fall under the 
same priority, or are some more necessary than others? Can you 
provide the Committee with a prioritized list of the $2.66 
billion maintenance backlog?
     Mr. Gibbs. Yes, we can provide you with that list. 
Understand it's not a static sort of thing. If there's 
additional resources that we're applying, needs change, and the 
rest of it, but we'd be happy to provide information to show 
you how we establish our priorities, and what those priorities 
are, if that helps.
     Mrs. Kim. Sure. You know, understanding that maintenance 
is a priority, why was----
     Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
     Mrs. Kim [continuing]. This not included in the 
President's fiscal year 2022 budget request?
     Mr. Gibbs. Again, you know, it's one of those things where 
if you have limited resources, you have to apply those 
resources to first support the mission, ensure safety, ensure 
health, and all of those things, and then you have to do the 
best you can with the resources you have. Unfortunately, 
maintenance generally is one of the things that gets deferred 
on a regular basis, if you're funded less than, you know, what 
you would've requested. And this isn't something that happened 
overnight, right? I think we talked in 2013 of a $2.2 billion 
deferred backlog, and it occurred--and it happened long before 
that.
     You know, part of this--and this may not be the best 
answer, but I think it's really part of our reality, is that 
maintenance, and construction, and these things, it's not, you 
know, the glamorous stuff that you see. It's not rocket 
launches, and launch pads, and landing on Mars, and doing all 
of the really cool, really important science that we do, and 
aeronautics, and all the rest of it. Some of this is, you know, 
you're--you can't see it. It's the infrastructure behind the 
scenes that, you know, you don't invest in if you have a new 
lab, but, you know, you have to remember that these labs and 
launch pads are so--are supported by this horizontal 
infrastructure, most of which is pre-World War II, or in that 
era. So it becomes a very difficult problem. I hope I----
     Mrs. Kim. Well, how is----
     Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. Answered your question.
     Mrs. Kim. Mr. Gibbs--so how is the deferred maintenance 
backlog affecting our ability to meet timeline goals for the 
Space Launch System and Orion Programs?
     Mr. Gibbs. Well, right now it's not. It's not impacting 
our ability to achieve those goals. But I will tell you, as you 
don't do maintenance, infrastructure systems equipment decays. 
It--you have an issue with it becoming obsolete, so you have to 
do certain maintenance. And if you don't do that maintenance, 
the bill you pay at the other end--I think you heard earlier 
someone was saying three times. That is a good, strong industry 
number. It's about three times if it fails on--with an 
unplanned issue, as opposed to doing that deferred maintenance. 
But, again, it's environment that we have to operate in, and 
have been operating in for a long period of time.
     Mrs. Kim. Sure. You know, let me ask one last question. 
How can NASA better engage with the private sector and other 
agencies to better utilize, on a reimbursable basis, NASA test 
stands, and wind tunnels, and other unique facilities?
     Mr. Gibbs. You know, I think using the Space Act 
Agreements and the enhanced use lease authority, which we 
discussed earlier, are two great vehicles. But I will tell you, 
working with others, industry, academia, other Federal 
agencies, which we do on a regular basis today, is absolutely 
crucial to our success going forward. It has to be part of our 
program.
     Mrs. Kim. Well, with that, thank you so much. I will yield 
back my time.
     Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, ma'am.
     Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Ms. Kim, very much. Let me now 
introduce the Congressman from the great State of Colorado, Mr. 
Perlmutter.
     Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and you can see my 
bumper sticker in the background there, Mr. Gibbs. You know 
where I'm coming from. I want to get us to Mars by 2033. And so 
I guess I hear you, and I apologize, as a Member of Congress, 
that, you know, to do the plumbing, and to do the road work, 
and do the basic things for any, you know, facility, you guys 
are kind of put to the back of the bus. And, personally, I want 
to be an advocate for you as we go through this infrastructure 
package, and the reconciliation. And so I would like that list 
of deferred maintenance projects that you have.
     I know Ambassador Beyer, with Charlie Crist, and I think 
Brian Babin still on here, and Don Norcross, all of us to be 
advocates for you as we go through this infrastructure moment, 
because you're definitely infrastructure, in my opinion. And I 
don't want to be a Pollyanna about it, you know, because you've 
had to deal with these shortfalls, you know, year in, year out, 
but I'd like to, at this moment, given what we're trying to do, 
to plus you up a lot.
     So give me an idea--one, I--Ms. Kim asked for that list. 
I'd like that list of needs. Second, my question would be sort 
of--the Artemis Program, the Moon, Mars, what are your top two 
or three infrastructure needs for you to be able to support the 
Artemis Program?
     Mr. Gibbs. That's a great question. Let's talk a little 
bit about that $5.4 billion infrastructure list we keep talking 
about or around. What I will tell you is it'll put jobs in 
almost every State, and I will execute that 5.5--$5.4 billion 
investment in 5 years. We have a lot of stuff already in the 
box, ready to go, to start investing in this infrastructure. 
We've spent a lot of time on this. We started with a much 
larger list, and then cut it down, and said, OK, what are our 
real needs to support those things? What are the opportunities 
that we can exploit going forward? What are the things that we 
can do so our house is in order so, we ever get this 
opportunity, you know, we would be ready for it? So I think 
that's one incredibly important thing.
     I will tell you, and I'll be happy to provide the list, 
the Artemis related is about $608 million in that bucket, ready 
to go to support Artemis going forward. I don't have the--all 
of the projects and programs specifically laid out of all 5.4 
billion, but I'll be happy to take that for the record and 
provide you that information.
     Mr. Perlmutter. I'd like it. So I have--I represent the 
Federal Center in Colorado. I have the National Renewable 
Energy Lab (NREL), we have, you know, sort of the Lockheed 
Waterton plant south, so there's a big NASA presence, or a 
number of NASA projects. On the Federal Center I have a 
laboratory, it's a USGS (United States Geological Survey) 
laboratory, so not something you have to worry about, but of 
the same vintage of many of your facilities, and literally the 
roof is ready to fall in. It was a World War II era laboratory, 
couple hundred scientists and engineers, and we've got to get a 
new facility for it, because over the years it just has, one, 
outgrown itself, it's aged, and when I'm looking at some of the 
statistics here, 83 percent of your infrastructure is beyond 
design life. More than 70 percent is at least 50 years old, and 
approximately half of your facilities were built at or before 
the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo Programs. Is that true?
     Mr. Gibbs. Yes. Yes, it is true, and, honestly, 
Congressman, I--having come from the Department of Energy I'm 
very familiar with NREL, I'm very familiar with WAPA (Western 
Area Power Administration), out--just outside of Denver as 
well, the Western Area Power Administration, for the 
investments. I will tell you, the infrastructure of NASA is 
significantly degraded when you compare it to that of the DOE. 
I can tell you that from having been in both agencies and 
seeing those things. So yes, that is true.
     We have some unbelievably difficult challenges to face. We 
have facilities in California that don't have heat and air 
conditioning. Our Advanced Material Structure Lab at Langley 
went without air conditioning for a period this summer while 
they were doing critical work. You know, there--this just goes 
on and on across. Now, we do have an opportunity at this 
moment--if there is investment, we can work on the other side 
of it, and replace these facilities with state-of-the-art 
facilities that'll support not only NASA, but the Nation's 
interests going forward. So hopefully we're going to have an 
opportunity to do those things.
     Mr. Perlmutter. Well, I--will be an advocate for you, and 
I think the other Members of our Committee, Democrats and 
Republicans, will advocate, and I'm saying to my colleagues 
this is the moment for us to advocate for something like this. 
It's squarely within the infrastructure package, in my opinion. 
Thank you, Mr. Gibbs, for your testimony.
     Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, sir. I have been told by my folks 
that this--the $5.4 billion list has been provided to the 
Committee staff, so you do have it.
     Mr. Perlmutter. Well, that's--but also make sure that we 
get it, and our----
     Mr. Gibbs. Yes, sir.
     Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. Staff, and the Committee 
staff, is great. I would ask them to provide it to us so that 
we can start pounding away at some of our colleagues to make 
sure all of it, or at least a chunk of it, is in this package 
as it winds its way through the House and the Senate.
     Mr. Gibbs. Will do, sir----
     Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you.
     Chairman Beyer. And thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. We'll make 
sure that we get it out to every Member of the Committee. And 
now let me recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, who is also 
an expert on space traffic and orbital debris, Mr. Norcross.
     Mr. Norcross. Thank you very much, Chairman, appreciate 
it. Mr. Gibbs, great to have you here. When we read, and I've 
mentioned it quite often, NASA has been one of those 
organizations that we all look up to, that was always on the 
cutting edge, and, you know, it gave us real hope for the 
future, and you've done great things. I look at the assets, 14 
States, 43 billion in assets, 5,000 buildings, it's a massive 
infrastructure. But what I hear today is rather distressing, 
and--certainly focusing on the infrastructure needs. And you 
talk about limited resources. Have you ever had adequate 
resources to run the organization? Has there ever been a time 
in your career?
     Mr. Gibbs. Not since I've been in the job, but I will tell 
you, in 2012, the Mission Support Directorate comprised about 
17 percent of the overall agency budget. Here in 2021, 2022, 
I'm around 12 percent. And this is coming at a time when the 
agency's budget, if you use it as a proxy for requirements, is 
going up. So I have an increasing requirements portfolio, and a 
decreasing resources portfolio, in which to supply mission 
support, which mission success is built on. It's a challenging 
proposition.
     Mr. Norcross. Now--exactly where I'm headed toward, that--
you know, we hear about deferred maintenance, and you have a 
list, and there's certain degrees of lists that you have. You 
know, is it urgent, does it have to be done? And, when you 
think about the risk, is it a strategy when the likelihood of 
an assets failure may have severe consequences? This is a 
decision that is made--yearly basis when--where your resources 
go, the money goes.
     Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
     Mr. Norcross. And that's what I want to talk about, is the 
culture of what is going on. One of the easiest things, and 
this is across business spectrums, whether you have a refinery 
or an office building, is deferred maintenance, not 
preventative maintenance. And that's where I want to really 
focus on, on how important that is, that each time you defer 
maintenance, you are making a choice to increase risk. We've 
seen example after example what has happened across this 
country when that risk is taken on. Sometimes you win, but 
sometimes you lose, and in your business, when you lose, 
people's lives are on the line.
     So let's talk about that. When you put together a budget, 
when is it that you say, we have to fix things, or we can't do 
this? It seems that NASA's always, we'll get it done no matter 
what, and that's the risk I'm going to ask you about. How are 
you dealing with that, and at what point do you say no?
     Mr. Gibbs. So I've got to tell you, that's a--that is a 
great point, and it's one of those subtle points of culture. 
It's the other side of the coin of engagement, right? We have 
the best workforce in the Federal Government, we're the best 
place to work in the Federal Government, all those things are 
true, because our folks are engaged and our leaders care about 
their people. The other side of that is we're going to get 
stuff done. We're going to work to nearly kill ourselves to get 
things done, and I think that sort of A student mentality 
sometimes can have unforeseen repercussions, and that is, well, 
they made it--they made due with X dollars, we can give them a 
little bit less, and they'll make due with that too. So I think 
that has sometimes come into the thinking of a lot of folks.
     I will tell you, though, when it comes to safety, you 
know, that is a line I will not cross. I will shut down a 
facility, I will shut down a system, if I'm endangering 
personnel safety. If we get to that point, I won't hesitate, 
and then we'll figure out how to recover the programs and 
projects, but personnel safety is paramount, and I won't put 
anyone at risk with the infrastructure----
     Mr. Norcross. Now----
     Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. Budget we have. Yes, sir.
     Mr. Norcross [continuing]. If you know that risk, and 
that's----
     Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
     Mr. Norcross [continuing]. The point we're making here----
     Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
     Mr. Norcross [continuing]. Is, without preventative 
maintenance, and that--because the arc flash that our Chairman 
brought up----
     Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
     Mr. Norcross [continuing]. You know, is stunning to me. 
There had been--the energized gear risk has been in place for 
over a decade. That--this is nothing new. I saw the transformer 
that was on fire. That's nothing new. These are things that 
maintenance, and preventative maintenance, can figure out 
before it happens.
     Mr. Gibbs. Right.
     Mr. Norcross. We have great advocates here, and I count 
myself as one of them. Even though you have nothing in New 
Jersey, we care a lot about you because of what you do for our 
country. But this culture----
     Mr. Perlmutter. That was mean.
     Mr. Norcross [continuing]. That culture has to change. You 
just have to put that maintenance up there in certain degrees 
as a risk to life and limb, and if you don't know the risks, 
you don't know when it's going on. So, Mr. Chairman, and 
certainly to my colleague Mr. Perlmutter, we are there to help 
you, but we can't always get it done, and then live with the 
consequences later on. With that, I yield back.
     Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, sir.
     Chairman Beyer. Mr. Norcross, thank you very much. And Mr. 
Gibbs, you may not realize this, but when Mr. Norcross, who is 
an accomplished electrician, talks to you about arc flashes, he 
knows what he's talking about.
     Mr. Gibbs. Yes, sir.
     Chairman Beyer. We're blessed to have people with a wide 
range of great skillsets. Representative Gonzalez has been with 
us for most of this hearing. Representative Gonzalez, if you're 
here, we'd love to recognize you for questioning.
     Mr. Perlmutter. I think Representative Gonzalez is in the 
Financial Services hearing, because I can----
     Chairman Beyer. OK.
     Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. See him on my TV.
     Chairman Beyer. OK. In the meantime, our dear friend----
     Mr. Perlmutter. I do see----
     Chairman Beyer. --Mr. Weber----
     Mr. Perlmutter. --Mr. Weber----
     Chairman Beyer [continuing]. Of Texas has just arrived. 
Mr. Weber, if you're ready from your car to talk to Mr. Gibbs, 
we would like to recognize you.
     Mr. Weber. Well, yeah, thank you, I'm ready. And actually, 
it's not my car, it belongs to the bank and me. You know how 
that goes.
     Chairman Beyer. Yeah.
     Mr. Weber. Beyer's laughing because he loves selling those 
cars. But anyway, thank you. Mr. Gibbs, I've read that over 83 
percent of NASA's infrastructure is beyond its design life, 
with more than 70 percent of facilities, as of 2017, being 50 
years old. Fiscal year 2022 congressional justification 
document explains that immediate repairs compile a growing 
share of the maintenance budgets, with unscheduled maintenance 
costs up to three times more than scheduled. So my question is 
how long has this problem been going--and it's continued to--
how long has it been continuing, and how do we ensure we don't 
end up with a similar situation, or worse, in 10 years?
     Mr. Gibbs. That's a great question. I would tell you that 
our opportunity--if the opportunity is presented for additional 
resources, where we can build new and retire the old, if we can 
put more dollars into our demolition account, if I can find 
ways to get rid of some of this deferred maintenance by demoing 
it and building new, that is one way for us to attack this 
problem. I think it's absolutely critical, as we go forward, 
that we continue to invest in those facilities and get--really 
to shrink our footprint so the portfolio is manageable in the 
future, getting to your future conversation.
     You know, I don't think we're in a place where NASA has to 
own each--own of everything or 5,000 pieces of infrastructure. 
We need to work very closely with our mission directorates and 
develop a sustainable portfolio that supports our missions 
today, and going forward. So there's a lot there. Hopefully I 
answered your question.
     Mr. Weber. Well thank you, and I appreciate that. And you 
talked about, you know, a smaller footprint--and I'm not able 
to see the clock there, Mr. Chairman, so I'll--I've got another 
question. Mr. Gibbs--so, with that in mind, do you believe the 
existing established structure within NASA for prioritizing 
infrastructure repairs and upgrades, and the dispensing of 
funds, is the best, or are you able to extrapolate--if you're 
going to reduce your footprint, are you able to identify ways 
you can do that, and then kind of categorize that those will 
be, if you will, at the back of the--end of the line?
     Mr. Gibbs. Yeah. The short answer there is yes. You know, 
when we built the agency master planning process, the one we're 
using now at the agency level, we worked with industry heavily 
to see how did you do it? We went out and saw people that owned 
scientific, and laboratory, and high science sort of 
portfolios, and inventory of infrastructure, and asked them 
the--for their advice, they--how would you manage this? We then 
took that and overlaid it into a NASA process which involved 
our mission directorates, who determined the future--the 
current and future missions of the agency, and our centers to 
really understand what's the condition of the things that we're 
dealing with today? I think that process is going to lead us to 
a pretty good place. And, like I said, we're well underway in 
that.
     Mr. Weber. Yeah. Well--how much--do I have any time left, 
Mr. Chairman?
     Chairman Beyer. You--Mr. Weber, you still have 2 minutes 
left.
     Mr. Weber. Good, good, good. I should've started a timer. 
So, Mr. Gibbs, who lays out that plan? How do we coordinate 
that? And I know this is a tricky question, political question 
in some regard, with the changing of the guard every so often, 
every, say 2 years in Congress, or 4 years in the White House, 
how do we maintain that continuity?
     Mr. Gibbs. I think through the publication of the agency 
master plan, which will be published in fiscal year 2022. We 
work very hard on all of the things that we're working on. And 
one thing doesn't change--while the missions may change, and we 
have to be able to adapt to those missions changes as the 
administration's priorities change, the thing that doesn't 
change is a really in depth knowledge and understanding of our 
infrastructure as it exists today. That's the backbone. That 
really tells us what our capabilities are, and allows us to do 
measurement of what we need, and what we don't need, depending 
on the mission. So I think there's--I think we--we're in a 
pretty good place, sir.
     Mr. Weber. And as the commercialization of space 
continues, and NASA becomes a customer, if you will, are you 
able--is that going to necessitate, for lack of a better term, 
on an ongoing basis changing that plan as we see working with--
I mean companies, and as we see this new commercialization 
process gaining foothold, or speed, or however you choose to 
look at it? Or gaining warp speed, maybe. So does that----
     Mr. Gibbs. That--yeah, that's a great question. You know, 
I would say--you know, it's really interesting, when you talk 
about the commercialization of space, you know, even if we're 
buying services from private companies or from private 
industry, whether it be launch or anything else, they still 
generally end up relying on NASA backbone and infrastructure, 
like the spaceport at Kennedy. So while the service may be 
cheaper on the front end, I'm going to have those commercial 
companies come to me and say, hey, we need greater electricity. 
We'll need to dispose of waste. Launch services, greater pad 
availability, and all of these things. So from an 
infrastructure perspective, it all comes right back around, and 
we still have to continue to invest in our infrastructure to 
support commercial space.
     Mr. Weber. Well, that's good to hear, that there's a plan 
in place that'll ensure we can do that. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield back.
     Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Weber, very much. I 
believe, unless Mr. Gonzalez is abandoning his other Committee 
hearing, that we have heard from all of our Members to--with 
Mr. Gibbs today, so thank you, Mr. Gibbs, very much. Really 
appreciate your coming and testifying with a great knowledge of 
what NASA needs. And I can promise we will all, Democrat and 
Republican, do our best to make sure that NASA has the dollars 
in the years to come to close that infrastructure gap.
     Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
Committee. Thank you for your time.
     Chairman Beyer. Yeah. Thank you. So, before we bring the 
hearing to a close, thank you. The record will remain open for 
two weeks for additional statements from Members, and for any 
additional questions the Committee may ask of the witness. I'll 
make sure that we get the--distribution to the Full Committee 
of the $5.4 billion, both urgent and looking forward, 
infrastructure needs. And with that, Mr. Gibbs, you are excused 
to go back to your other job, and the hearing is now adjourned.
     Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
     [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the Subcommittee was 
adjourned.]

                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions




                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
                   
                   
Responses by Mr. Robert Gibbs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]