U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–606 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 107–1030

NOMINATION OF SEAN O’KEEFE TO BE

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL

AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 7, 2001

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director 

MOSES BOYD, Democratic Chief Counsel 

MARK BUSE, Republican Staff Director 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican General Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 7, 2001 ........................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Allen ..................................................................................... 14 

Statement of Senator Burns ................................................................................... 13 

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 6 

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 6 

Statement of Senator Lott ...................................................................................... 8 

Statement of Senator McCain ................................................................................. 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 11 

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Wyden .................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES

Boehlert, Hon. Sherwood L., U.S. Representative from New York ..................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

O’Keefe, Sean, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 

nominee to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ................................................................................................................. 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Biographical information ................................................................................. 20 

APPENDIX

Brownback, Hon. Sam, U.S. Senator from Kansas, prepared statement ............ 59 

Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 59 

Response to written questions submitted to Sean O’Keefe by: 

Hon. Trent Lott ................................................................................................. 60 

Hon. John McCain ............................................................................................ 61 

(1)

NOMINATION OF SEAN O’KEEFE TO BE 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL 

AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2001

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room

SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. The hearing will come to order. This is a hearing of the Full Committee this morning. We will excuse our Chairman, Senator Hollings, this morning. His prepared statement will 

be made part of the record. 

I will have an opening statement, but first I would like to recognize our friend and colleague from Alaska. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

going to be opening the floor soon with my amendment, but I come 

to welcome to the Committee once again a former Chief of Staff of 

the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, former Secretary of 

Navy, currently at the OMB and other times Professor at Syracuse 

University. Sean O’Keefe is a man of great honor, great talent, 

great ability and he is the right man for NASA at this time. I am 

delighted to have an opportunity to be here and recommend him 

to the Committee for quick confirmation. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, I thank my colleague and it is a plus for 

this Committee that Senator Stevens and Mr. O’Keefe go way back. 

Mr. O’Keefe, we welcome you. This morning, the Committee is 

going to consider the nomination of Deputy Director Sean O’Keefe 

of the Office of Management and Budget, to be the Administrator 

of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA is 

charged to undertake research regarding flight activities in aeronautics and space. The Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and 

Space, which I chair, has oversight responsibility of NASA. NASA, 

with a budget of over $15 billion, is the largest program within the 

Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. I look forward to working with Mr. 

2

O’Keefe on many of the issues facing the agency. Mr. O’Keefe will 

bring to the job a reputation of a tough fiscal watchdog. 

His skills are especially needed at NASA right now. Mr. 

O’Keefe’s watch will begin during the period of exceptionally tough 

choices for our Nation’s space program. Costs for the horrendously 

mismanaged Space Station have shot out of control while its capabilities have shrunk. Unless Mr. O’Keefe can get the International 

Space Station program back in the box—and quickly—the Space 

Station will use not only allotted resources, but will devour the dollars needed for NASA’s other high-priority missions. 

The fiscal bottom line is clear. There will not be a massive infusion of new funds for NASA during Mr. O’Keefe’s tenure. Mr. 

O’Keefe’s principal challenge will be to refocus the agency and existing Federal funds for carrying out NASA’s original goals—research, development, and scientific exploration of space. Specifically, I want Mr. O’Keefe to return NASA to a science and research 

driven agenda so that our dedicated scientists and engineers can 

find the breakthrough technologies that have been NASA at its 

best. 

I want to be clear. I am not interested in Mr. O’Keefe coming in 

and being a fiscal watchdog to narrow NASA’s scope, but so NASA 

can enlarge its scientific visions. The chief value of sound financial 

management is to ensure the agency has the resources to fulfill its 

mission. I want Mr. O’Keefe to cut the massive overhead that 

keeps us from the stars. 

There will be opposition to this approach. As chair of this subcommittee, I intend to work closely with my colleagues from Congress, those in the Administration with the country’s science leadership and find a way to make this crucial transition. It is absolutely central to the bright future we all want for NASA. 

As Mr. O’Keefe begins to return NASA’s resources to its origins, 

I believe that safety must continue to be the No. 1 priority. I also 

believe that ensuring safety, shortening timelines, and introducing 

new technologies do not have to be mutually exclusive. You cannot 

convince me that NASA doesn’t have the talent to come up with 

new ways of doing things that are also smarter ways of doing 

things. 

Cutting fat doesn’t mean cutting corners on safety. Where there 

are dollars spent on layers of bureaucracy or other areas, the fat 

is not protective padding. The fat is what’s keeping NASA’s missions from reaching their full potential. For example, with respect 

to the International Space Station, in 1993 when the current design was adopted, NASA said the Space Station would cost $17.4 

billion for construction, no more than $2.1 billion per year. 

Earlier this year, NASA admitted the cost of completing the 

Space Station had grown to roughly $30 billion, almost $5 billion 

above cost caps imposed by the Congress. Cost overruns for the 

Space Station reduced a number of astronauts able to work there. 

The station is being redesigned and dubbed U.S. core complete, but 

it is far from the complete scientific platform originally envisioned. 

NASA scrapped plans for the crew return vehicle, application 

module and the propulsion module. Even with those cutbacks, 

NASA will still have to find ways to make management more efficient and do a better job of estimating costs before an even scaledVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 19, 2004 Jkt 082425 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87606.TXT JIMC
3

back version of the program. NASA charged a task force to conduct 

an independent external review for the program. It recently published a recommendation. We are going to discuss them this morning with Mr. O’Keefe. 

The challenge of the Space Station is not enough. NASA also 

faces the difficult challenge of funding necessary upgrades to the 

fleet of Space Shuttles. The subcommittee already held a hearing 

on this topic. These upgrades have become increasingly important 

as the life expectancy of the Space Shuttle has been stunted. Mr. 

O’Keefe is going to be faced with tough choices that are certainly 

not going to always be possible, but it is essential that he choose 

well. 

It is not simply that NASA produces the technology to drive our 

Nation’s economy from aerospace and electronics. The future of the 

human race in space rests on a renewing of NASA’s purpose. The 

alternative is dire. Continuing on the current path will surely bind 

NASA to Earth and its mission along with it. 

Mr. O’Keefe needs this Committee’s support. I look forward to his 

testimony and I want to make it clear that we anticipate swift confirmation. For those who are keeping track, this would be his second confirmation in less than a year, fourth overall. We are going 

to have some introductions in a moment, Mr. O’Keefe, but first I 

want to recognize my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Arizona. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and Chairman Hollings for calling this hearing today. Mr. O’Keefe’s 

nomination comes at an important juncture for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I appreciate your willingness to 

work with myself and others on the Committee to give consideration to this important nomination in a very timely fashion. I welcome you, Mr. O’Keefe, and your family who are with you here 

today. 

As we all know, Mr. O’Keefe is currently the Deputy Director of 

OMB and he has a history of taking on major challenges. He took 

over as Secretary of the Navy at a very demanding and stressful 

time for that branch of our services. 

The challenge of leading NASA appears to be equally demanding. 

The agency is currently at a major point in its history. When I was 

the Chairman of this Committee, I was amazed as much as anyone 

by the many reports on management problems at the agency. 

At times it appeared as if the agency was ‘‘bleeding billions’’ on 

major cost overruns. There are many who say that NASA has come 

to stand for ‘‘Never A Straight Answer.’’ Based upon its interface 

with the Commerce Committee, I say there is, unfortunately, some 

truth to it. 

I have written to the agency about incomplete and inaccurate information provided to the Committee. The important point to be realized today is for NASA to understand that accurate and complete 

information is critical for the Congress to be able to develop effective legislation. They, of any agency, should understand the virtues 

of sound decisionmaking processes. 

4

The recent Young Report, which I hope all Members of the Committee will read, has highlighted several management issues on the 

most visible program at NASA, the International Space Station. I’d 

like to mention just a few of the findings from the Report. The program’s technical achievements to date are extraordinary. The existing program plan is not credible, according to the Young Commission. 

Existing deficiencies in management structure, institutional culture, cost estimating, and program control must be acknowledged 

and corrected in order for the program to move forward. Cost estimates for the U.S.-funded enhancements are not sufficiently developed to assess credibility, and there are opportunities to maximize 

research on the core station program with modest cost impact. 

I think these findings do a good job of describing the current condition of the program. Based on this Committee’s work over the 

past years, I feel that many of these findings would also be applicable to many other programs at NASA. The Young Report cites the 

need for major decisions to be made. Delaying these decisions will 

only cost the taxpayers more money. I believe that we, the Congress, and the Administration, need to make a conscientious decision on the future of the Space Station. I am willing to work with 

you and other Members of the Committee and the Administration 

to develop a plan within the next 120 days for the future of the 

Station. 

I propose that Mr. O’Keefe lead this effort. The choice is whether 

we want to continue spending $100 billion of taxpayer funds and 

receive 20 hours per week of research in return, or do we want to 

invest additional funds and get a more functional research facility 

in return. If the latter is the preference, we will require additional 

program controls. Finding the funding for additional work won’t be 

easy. Priorities must be established and followed. 

Members of this Committee are concerned about the other areas 

at NASA as well. Space science, earth science, space transportation 

and aeronautics are all important to NASA, as well as the Nation. 

After the events of September 11th, the Nation is in need of immediate advancements in the aeronautical science arena. This is an 

opportunity for NASA to really put its research on display before 

the world. I know the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee is considering additional hearings in this area, and I applaud them for doing so. 

A coherent vision for the agency is also important. I look forward 

to working with this outstanding nominee to define and refine the 

agency’s vision, however, we also know that vision without a strategy is just an illusion. Again, I look forward to working with the 

nominee to develop the appropriate strategy for this provision. 

In light of the problems and concerns I have just mentioned and 

many others, I feel that Mr. O’Keefe makes an excellent nominee 

as an excellent Administrator of NASA. I think he has the right 

skills and capabilities at the right time to fully restore the meaning 

of NASA. I fully support this nomination. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I look forward to quick action on this nominee. 

[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]

5

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Chairman Hollings for calling this hearing today. Mr. O’Keefe’s nomination comes at an important juncture for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). I appreciate your willingness 

to work with myself and others on the Committee to give consideration to this important nomination in such a timely manner. 

Mr. O’Keefe, currently the Deputy Director of OMB, has a history of taking on 

major challenges. He took over as Secretary of the Navy at a very demanding and 

stressful time for that branch of our services. The challenge of leading NASA appears to be equally demanding. The agency is currently at a major point in its history. 

When I was Chairman of this Committee, I was amazed as much as anyone by 

the many reports on the management problems at the agency. At times, it appeared 

as if the agency was ‘‘bleeding billions’’ on major cost overruns. 

There are many who say that NASA has come to stand for ‘‘Never A Straight Answer.’’ Based upon on its interface with the Commerce Committee, I say there is, 

unfortunately, some truth to it. I have written to the agency about incomplete and 

inaccurate information provided to the Committee. I think the important point to 

be realized here today is for NASA to understand that accurate and complete information is critical for the Congress to be able to develop effective legislation. They, 

of any agency, should understand the virtues of good and sound information in the 

decisionmaking process. 

The recent Young Report has highlighted several management issues on the most 

visible program at NASA, the International Space Station. I would like to mention 

just a few of the findings from the report: 

• The program’s technical achievements to date are extraordinary; 

• The existing program plan is not credible; 

• Existing deficiencies in management structure, institutional culture, cost estimating, and program control must be acknowledged and corrected for the program 

to move forward; 

• Cost estimates for the U.S.-funded enhancements are not sufficiently developed 

to assess credibility; and 

• There are opportunities to maximize research on the core station program with 

modest cost impact. 

These findings do a good job of describing the current condition of the program. 

Mr. Chairman, based on this Committee’s work over the past years, I feel that many 

of these findings would also be applicable to many other programs at NASA. 

The Young Report cites the need for major decisions to be made. Delaying these 

decisions will only cost the taxpayers more money. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we, 

the Congress, and the Administration need to make a conscientious decision on the 

future of the Space Station. I am willing to work with you and the other Members 

of this Committee and the Administration to develop a plan within the next 120 

days for the future of the Station. 

I propose that Mr. O’Keefe, if confirmed, lead this effort. The choice is whether 

we want to continue spending $100 billion of taxpayers funds and receive 20 hours 

per week of research in return or do we want to invest additional funds and a get 

more functional research facility in return. 

If the latter is the preference, we will require additional program controls. Finding the funding for this additional work will not be easy. Priorities must be established and followed. 

Members of this Committee are concerned about the other areas at NASA as well. 

Space science, earth science, space transportation, and aeronautics are all important 

to NASA, as well as the Nation. 

After the events of September 11, the Nation is in immediate need of advancements in the aeronautical science arena. This is an opportunity for NASA to really 

put its research on display before the world. I know the Science, Technology, and 

Space Subcommittee is considering additional hearings in this area and I applaud 

them for doing so. 

A coherent vision for the agency is also important. I look forward to working with 

this outstanding nominee to define and refine the agency’s vision. However, we also 

know that vision without a strategy is just an illusion. Again, I look forward to 

working with the nominee to develop the appropriate strategy for that new vision. 

Mr. Chairman, in light of the problems and concerns that I have just mentioned 

and many others, I feel that Mr. O’Keefe makes an excellent nominee as the next 

Administrator of NASA. I think that he has the right skills and capabilities at the 

right time to fully restore the meaning of NASA as the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. I fully support this nomination. 

6

Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing and I look forward to 

working you and Chairman Hollings in moving this nomination.

Senator WYDEN. I thank the Senator from Arizona. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am 

pleased to support Mr. O’Keefe. I think the President has chosen 

well. I think, as some have suggested, NASA faces some very 

unique challenges at this moment, and Mr. O’Keefe’s particular talent fits well with the opportunity to meet those challenges. But let 

me say despite all of these issues that have been raised, and I 

think they are appropriately raised, I deeply admire the men and 

women of NASA who are America’s finest explorers of our universe. 

I have long believed that a society that stops exploring is a society 

that stops progressing. 

All of us very much want NASA to succeed. This is an important 

and exciting set of missions on behalf of our country, and I believe 

all of us want success for NASA, so Mr. O’Keefe is offered to us 

by President Bush as his nominee. 

Mr. O’Keefe and I met yesterday, and I am very pleased to support this nomination. I think the President has chosen well. 

Senator WYDEN. Senator Hutchison. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you 

and Chairman Hollings and Senator McCain for having this hearing early. I think it is so important that we have firm leadership 

at NASA for the long-term future. I am supporting Mr. O’Keefe. He 

came to see me right after his nomination, which I appreciate. 

I have to say, I have reservations, not because of anything particular with you, but because I am concerned about the OMB actions toward NASA, since the first of this year. I think OMB has 

focused on budget cutting and I don’t think the leader of NASA can 

be just a budget cutter. I think the leader of NASA must look at 

the big picture. I think the leader of NASA must change the problems at NASA which are budget related, but they are leadership 

related as well, and we have been in limbo for too long, and I want 

to have a firm leader. For that reason, I am going to ask for confirmation before we leave in December so that you can take firm 

control and hopefully prove that you have a vision for NASA that 

will be a long-term vision. 

Most particularly, Mr. O’Keefe and I discussed the Young Report, 

and Mr. O’Keefe suggested that this would be the backbone of his 

beginning to grapple with the problems at NASA. In the Young Report, I thought the most important red flag was the issue of the 

core complete 3-person crew that would be in the Space Station, 

and whether that would be a permanent situation or whether the 

goal would be to achieve core complete 3-person crew and then 

move beyond that to the 7-person crew. 

It is said in the Young Report, and confirmed by others that I 

consulted, that it takes about 21⁄2 crew members just to operate the 

Space Station, thus leaving only half a person worth of man hours 

7

to conduct research. If we expend all of the station efforts on operating the station, I think we will lose the forest among the trees. 

We will lose the big picture and we will lose what is uniquely 

NASA’s mission, which is to go beyond operating and have the capability to do the innovative research that only the Space Station 

can do, such as with the microgravity conditions. So I would like 

to ask Mr. O’Keefe if he is committed to moving beyond core complete into the capability to have more scientists be able to conduct 

the research. 

I think this also has an impact on our international relations. 

Our international partners are not interested in just operating a 

station. They are interested in the research that they are going to 

get for their investment. I think it would otherwise be an abrogation of our agreements. In spirit with our international partners, 

we should seek to learn enough that is new and creative in the 

medical field, as well as the scientific field, that we will all be able 

to then create the industries and the improvements in quality of 

life that that research will bring. 

I don’t think you can precisely budget a war, and I don’t think 

you can precisely budget innovative research. By its nature, when 

you are pushing the envelope, you are going to have mistakes. You 

are going to have miscalculations, you are going to learn from those 

and create your final product. So I am going to hope that there is 

more than a budget cutting mentality and a vision along with a 

common sense budget mentality. 

I have great faith in the President of the United States’ commitment to NASA. I believe that he believes, along with Vice President 

Cheney, that NASA is one of the economic engines of America. It 

is what has given us the leadership in the world for creative and 

very valuable satellite information and quality of life improvements, and I think we can do more if you have the capability to 

produce the vision that will assure we stay in the forefront. 

So I will be your biggest booster if I see that in you. You have 

said that the Young Report will be your basic guideline. I think the 

Young Report is quite sound, and if you can create the infrastructure that will allow us to go forward with that vision, then NASA 

will get its feet back on the ground and we will have the same kind 

of creativity and spirit at NASA that has inspired the American 

people to be supportive and has created a basis for new scientists 

and an inspiration to the young people of our country that science 

is a very important component of entrepreneurship and creativity 

in our country. 

I do support the nomination. I will be working with you hand 

and glove. I want you to produce, and I want you to show more 

than an OMB mentality. I thank you. I hope that we can give him 

the opportunity to be the leader at a very early chance, and I think 

before we leave, we should confirm this nominee so that he can 

take the next 2 months when we are not in session to put his team 

together and begin to offer us the plans that would show that there 

is a new day and a new vision and a new spirit for NASA. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague. 

Here’s how we are going to proceed at this point, because we 

have a vote on the floor of the Senate. We have the distinguished 

Minority leader here with us, Senator Lott and his schedule is very 

8

tight. At this point, I want to recognize Senator Lott. We will then 

break for the vote. When we return, we will recognize Senator Nelson, who was here next, and then Senator Allen and Senator 

Burns. 

Senator Lott, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI 

Senator LOTT. Thank you. I thank my colleagues for giving me 

this courtesy. I just wanted to be here and congratulate Sean 

O’Keefe on being nominated for NASA Administrator. I think 

NASA has an important role for our country, but I think NASA has 

been wandering around for the last several years without a real vision for the future without the type of leadership really needed and 

frankly, in many instances, in certain programs without sufficient 

money to do the job properly. Then in other areas, Congress has 

forced money on NASA for programs that probably are not of sufficient value. So I hope that your experience at the Department of 

Management and Budget, and your knowledge of Congress will 

help you in trying to get NASA headed in the right direction. 

I have felt like in recent years that commitments were made by 

NASA that weren’t kept, and that particularly unnerves me when 

I have the feel that the leadership of an agency is not being square 

with you or honest with you. And I hope that as certain people 

have said why you need budget responsibility and your strengths, 

that you are not going there to just phase it out or phase it down. 

If it is a core agency, focus on getting the work done where it needs 

to be done. 

If you are going to NASA just for a BRACC type arrangement, 

you are going to meet a lot of resistance from a lot of us here in 

this room. I personally have been supportive of NASA over the 

years and disappointed at various times, but it is doing a lot of innovative things. Vehicle manufacturing has a lot of potential that 

will be useful for NASA, but also in the commercial area. 

One area that I am particularly interested in is the Landsat data 

continuity mission, which I think will yield a lot of that, and it will 

be useful in the private sector. Once again, it looks to me like 

NASA is moving toward NASA owning a single satellite and minimizing the value of this program, as opposed to using the commercial, the private area to get the maximum bang for the buck and 

to make sure that there is competition and that this is not just a 

government-run program. 

You have a lot of private issues to get involved in. Let me just 

ask you that in particular. For years, I have urged NASA, by the 

way, to get the information you have, the technology you get, the 

science that you benefit from into the private sector, and that has 

not been easy. 

We made a little progress in this Landsat area. Are you committed to that type approach, as opposed to just a government-run 

and operated program? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Yes, sir. Absolutely. 

Senator LOTT. Well, I could ask a whole lot of questions. 

Senator WYDEN. We are going to invite you right after the break 

to join us if you can. As you can see, Mr. O’Keefe, our colleagues 

9

have strong minds on these issues. I am going to break for 10 minutes and as you can see, we are going to have a vigorous debate 

this morning and we will start with Mr. Boehlert when we return. 

[Recess.] 

Senator WYDEN. The hearing will come to order. We are very 

pleased to have Sherry Boehlert here. Please proceed to introduce 

the nominee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK 

Representative BOEHLERT. Thank you for the opportunity to 

speak in support of the nomination of Mr. Sean O’Keefe to serve 

as Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I hope that the Senate will follow your example by moving 

quickly to confirm this nomination. Sean O’Keefe is a dedicated 

public servant who has never shirked difficult challenges. 

He served as Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Defense, later as Secretary of the Navy and earlier 

this year was confirmed by the Senate to serve as Deputy Director 

of the Office of Management and Budget. By their nature, these 

are not jobs that earn you many friends, but Sean has earned a 

reputation for being a talented manager, fair and open-minded 

while being absolutely committed to ensuring that the agencies he 

manages are adaptable, efficient and mission focused. That is exactly what NASA needs today. 

I have not been impressed by the criticism of Sean sometimes offered that Sean is ‘‘a budgeteer, not a rocketeer.’’ Well, guess what, 

Sean is not going to NASA to personally design rockets. But he 

knows enough about rockets to know that they burn cash, just as 

assuredly as they burn fuel, and that both propellers are finite. It 

won’t hurt NASA to have someone who can husband the agency’s 

resources. But the criticism is not only less damning than intended, 

it is also unfair. 

Sean is indeed a skilled manager who wants to make sure that 

taxpayer dollars are spent effectively, but that doesn’t make him 

any less of a thinker. Like any good manager, Mr. O’Keefe is not 

just interested in how many dollars are spent, but on what they 

are spent for. And I know from our conversations that he is excited 

intellectually by the challenge of working to design the space program that will increase our understanding of both Earth and outer 

space, hone our Nation’s technological edge, and add to our economic strength. 

NASA has accomplished that in the past, and it should in the future. That is why I, like most Americans, am a strong supporter 

of NASA and the manned and unmanned space programs. 

I remember the thrill of watching the first landing on the Moon. 

My fear and the faith of the crew of Apollo 13 and the unforgettable horror of Challenger. I have marvelled at unmanned probes 

to the outer reaches of our solar system and at the technological 

achievement that is represented by the International Space Station. Nonetheless, NASA is an agency that has lost its way. 

The cost trajectory of its marquee program, the Space Station, is 

unsustainable. This is truer today than ever in this time of vanishing surpluses and pressing national security and redevelopment 

10

needs. We can no longer afford to manage large technical programs 

without any real regard for costs. 

The question, of course, is how we proceed from here. 

At the current rate, we will have pumped more than $30 billion 

more into the station, enough money to fund the National Science 

Foundation for almost a decade and we need to salvage that investment. We need to complete the core elements of the station within 

the existing budget. We need to ensure that the cost of building the 

Space Station does not eat into other programs and prevent NASA 

from pursuing its other scientific missions, and as we do this, we 

need to look at options to ensure that the station is capable of fulfilling its primary mission, science. 

The Young Task Force stated that NASA must undergo radical 

reforms if it is to restore credibility to the Space Station program. 

That was a biting critique of the way this program has been managed. But it also marked the path, albeit painful, that NASA must 

travel if it is to restore its credibility and generate broad public 

support for future missions. I believe that Sean O’Keefe is prepared 

for this challenge and that he is dedicated to restoring NASA to its 

place as the crown jewel of American technology and ingenuity. 

This will require established a new vision of the future of the 

agency and restoring the sense of mission that NASA has lacked 

since the race to put a man on the Moon. It will also require management reforms and changes to the way NASA conducts its business. 

I am confident that Sean O’Keefe has the toughness, the intellect 

and the dedication to meet this challenge. I urge you to favorably 

report his nomination out and hope that he will be confirmed before we leave for the holidays, and may I also submit, Mr. Chairman, for the record, a strong letter of endorsement from Chairman 

Dana Rohrabacher of the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Sherwood Boehlert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHERWOOD BOEHLERT

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity speak 

in support of the nomination of Mr. Sean O’Keefe to serve as Administrator of the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I hope that the Senate will follow 

your example by moving quickly to confirm his nomination. 

Sean O’Keefe is a dedicated public servant who has never shirked difficult challenges. He served as Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the Department of 

Defense, later as Secretary of the Navy, and earlier this year was confirmed by the 

Senate to serve as Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. By 

their nature, these are not jobs that win you many friends. But Sean has earned 

a reputation for being a talented manager—fair and open minded—while being absolutely committed to ensuring that the agencies he manages are adaptable, efficient and mission focused. 

That is exactly what NASA needs today. 

I have not been impressed by the criticism of Sean—sometimes offered sotto 

voce—that Sean is quote: ‘‘a budgeteer, not a rocketeer.’’ Well, guess what? Sean is 

not going to NASA to personally design rockets. But he knows enough about rockets 

to know that they burn cash just as assuredly as they burn fuel, and that both propellants are finite. It won’t hurt NASA to have someone who can husband the agency’s resources. 

But the criticism is not only less damning than intended; it’s also unfair. Sean 

is indeed a skilled manager who wants to make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent 

effectively, but that doesn’t make him any less of a thinker. Like any good manager, 

Sean is not just interested in how many dollars are spent, but in what they are 

spent for. And I know from our conversations that he is excited intellectually by the 

11

challenge of working to design a space program that will increase our understanding 

of both Earth and outer space, hone our Nation’s technological edge, and add to our 

economic strength. 

NASA has accomplished that in the past, and should in the future. That’s why 

I, like most Americans, am a strong supporter of NASA and the manned and unmanned space programs. I remember the thrill of watching the first landing on the 

Moon, my fear for the fate of the crew of Apollo 13, and the unforgettable horror 

of Challenger. I have marveled at unmanned probes to the outer reaches of our solar 

system and at the technological achievement that is represented by the International Space Station. 

Nonetheless, NASA is an agency that has lost its way. The cost trajectory of its 

marquee program—the Space Station—is unsustainable. This is truer today than 

ever in this time of vanishing surpluses and pressing national security and redevelopment needs. We can no longer afford to manage large technical programs without 

any real regard for cost. 

The question, of course, is how we proceed from here. 

At the current rate, we will have pumped more than $30 billion into the station—

enough money to fund the National Science Foundation for almost a decade—and 

we need to salvage that investment. We need to complete the core elements of the 

station within the existing budget. We need to ensure that the costs of building the 

Space Station do not eat into other programs and prevent NASA from pursuing its 

other scientific missions. And, as we do this, we need to look at options to ensure 

that the station is capable of fulfilling its primary mission—science. 

The Young Task Force stated that NASA must undergo radical reforms if it is to 

restore credibility to the Space Station program. This was a biting critique of the 

way this program has been managed. But it is also marks the path, albeit painful, 

that NASA must travel if it is to restore its credibility and generate broad public 

support for future missions. 

I believe that Sean O’Keefe is prepared for this challenge and that he is dedicated 

to restoring NASA to its place as the crown jewel of American technology and ingenuity. This will require establishing a new vision of the future of the agency and 

restoring the sense of mission that NASA has lacked since the race to put a man 

on the Moon. It will also require management reforms and changes to the way 

NASA conducts its business. 

I am confident that Sean has the toughness, the intellect, and the dedication to 

meet this challenge. I urge you to favorably report his nomination out and hope that 

he will be confirmed before we leave for the holidays. 

Thank you.

Senator WYDEN. Without objection. Chairman Boehlert we very 

much appreciate you coming over here to offer a statement. You 

are always welcome here. Thank you for an excellent statement. 

The nominee is lucky to have you in his corner, and we will excuse 

you at this time. 

Next in the order of appearance, our colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Congressman Boehlert, it is getting to be a regular occasion that you are coming, as you were here yesterday and 

your testimony was eloquent then. Under—I might say—withering 

questioning and you were excellent and you are again today. 

Representative BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, sir. 

Senator NELSON. A pleasure to have you as a friend and a colleague. 

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted, I had the privilege of talking with 

Mr. O’Keefe for a couple of hours yesterday, and I want to follow 

up in detail. I would just say by way of introductory comments that 

some of the concerns that Senator Hutchison of Texas has expressed, I would echo some of those concerns. 

12

Here we have a little agency that is the symbol of America’s 

technological prowess. And so much of the hopes and the dreams 

of America, particularly our youth, are summed up in the success 

of this little agency. And this little agency needs a leader, and a 

strong leader. It needs a leader in the mold of Jim Webb, the leader that in the glory days of NASA, took us to the Moon and safely 

to return. 

That is a tall order for Mr. O’Keefe to handle. One of the questions that I asked him yesterday that I would like for him to expand on today is his vision for NASA. This morning’s Orlando Sentinel has a story that says that America’s European partners in the 

International Space Station Thursday threatened to pull out of the 

deal because of a U.S. proposal to scale back the orbiting lab. That 

just adds another complication to the enormous complexity that we 

have. 

The political component of this is a very important component. 

That is our relationship with other nations because we have a common ground, upon which adversaries and former enemies can come 

together as was so aptly demonstrated in the Cold War when an 

American and Soviet spacecraft wound up in space and for 9 days 

those cosmonauts and astronauts did it together. Commander Tom 

Stafford is one of the people that I have reached out to in preparation for this hearing today. 

I tell you that story simply to say that there is so much riding 

on the success of this little agency called NASA. And I believe that 

through 3 Administrations, including the present one, that they 

have targeted it for cuts that you just cannot keep cutting without 

paying the price. And when you and I sat here at this table in the 

first week of September for that day-long hearing on Space Shuttle 

safety. Of course that is one of the concerns that I have, that the 

cuts are ultimately going to end up where the Space Shuttle safety 

upgrades are not made, that they are stretched out, and will cause 

us to have another accident. And if that occurs, and it is always 

possible. There are 1,500 critical parts on Space Shuttle. Any one 

of which fails, that is it. 

And if that happens, then the entire manned space program is 

in jeopardy. Now, there is a lot more at stake here. Because after 

you and I had the hearing, the very next Tuesday, the great tragedy occurred, and now we know as we go after these terrorists all 

over the world that we have got to have the assets up there for the 

signal intelligence as well as the extremely important human intelligence. 

And Lord forbid that, thank goodness we have got the Florida 

National Guard flying F-15s right now over the Cape, and they did 

so on heightened alert at the time of the launch 2 days ago. But 

there are a lot of other pads out there, and were we to be denied 

access to space with expendable booster rockets, the only thing left 

to have assured access to space is the Space Shuttle, so that is another reason we have got to have this as a functioning reliable system, and all of this is going to come in on NASA. NASA’s success, 

in large part, Mr. O’Keefe, is going to be on whether or not the 

leader of NASA gives it the leadership in order for its entrepreneurial creativity to blossom. And so I am really looking forward 

to this hearing. 

13

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague. 

The Senator from Montana. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much. Senator Nelson, I am in 

awe of your passion for this, but I also know from which it comes. 

We were talking about those years of attempted cuts. There was 

some of us who sort of stood our ground and made sure that the 

money was there. I have a higher opinion of the tenure of Dan 

Goldin, because he has done some things that allowed us to build 

a very positive support base in every community across this country. 

We talk about the value of the Space Station. We talk about the 

value of pushing the envelope, and doing those things that we can 

do now. But we also, we tend to forget about the work that was 

done to broaden the support of NASA, because no other single entity that this government does so stimulates the curiosity of young 

people, and edges them toward the sciences and the mathematics 

and the physics that it is going to take to survive in this world in 

the days ahead. 

Take into account the financial constraints and other limitations, 

I am very pleased with Mr. Goldin, although the public was quick 

to criticize NASA for failed missions, it was the successes and the 

advancements in the work with students that occurred with little 

fanfare that the media did not pick up. Space exploration is risky 

at best. And it is also an unknown business. 

But I would say to a Nation today that once we are lulled or 

numbed into a society that shrinks and does not push the envelope 

and continues to reach out and to explore the unknown, then we 

will be a shrinking society that will fade from the face of the earth. 

150 NASA launches since 1952, and only 10 on record that I have 

said they were failed missions. 

That is pretty good when you are dealing in the unknown. And 

developing new technologies in order to accomplish the mission 

that is ahead. 

Furthermore, the successes of NASA goes way beyond exploration. In my little State of Montana, 950,000 people, many of our 

State University researchers are working on NASA with several 

initiatives so far with very satisfactory results. The University of 

Montana is a NASA partner on Earth observations systems or the 

OES program. The university has promoted interests in science, 

engineering and technologies to all ages from the young to the elderly. 

Montana State University and NASA officials recently participated in a conference on astrobiology. How did we get here and 

evolve and what is the destiny of life on Earth and what it means 

to us were some of the questions they asked. MSU scientists are 

playing a role in searching for life in extreme environments. The 

Institute of Thermal Biology hosted a meeting with key researchers 

and NASA top management in an overview to finding the search 

for life in those environments. 

Previously unknown life forms have been discovered in Yellowstone National Park under very, very difficult environments, and 

14

also in the gold mines of South Africa desert that has never received a drop of water. So NASA’s Earth sciences program is dedicated to transferring the knowledge that we know by looking down 

on Earth to the resources that can be utilized to our Nation’s agriculture and food and fiber production, to our people who utilize our 

national renewable resources, our land planners, and our health organizations. 

During the meeting I had with Mr. O’Keefe, and I will say speaking as a Scottsman, turning this over to an Irishman makes me a 

bit uncomfortable there, but I was very encouraged by his desire 

to reach out to students in educational institutions, and that is the 

key to the NASA success. 

I also want to draw one parallel here. There was a time we 

lagged behind Russia in space technology. And to compare the two 

societies is almost like comparing day and night. The Russians took 

their technology and they would not share it with anybody. They 

stuck it in a safe away from the rest of the world and especially 

to their own people. Where NASA took the technology that we developed and set up technology transfer centers and got it out into 

the public sector where every one of us in this room, we drive automobiles, our new composites, our computer systems was a result of 

that technology transfer. And all of society, we are all benefactors 

of this program. 

We continue to grow and to lead the world with not only this 

agency, but also all of America in various ways. Our friends in Russia are gone. That is a stark difference. But it is like Senator Nelson said, this is a spirit of America, and we are going to have failures, because we are dealing with pushing the envelope, and like 

I said, nobody has to sell me on the merits of this program, because 

I am a disciple. You see, I do not have a college degree. I am not 

proud of that. 

A lot of folks that work at NASA have a lot of letters behind 

their names. Behind my name is NDBBA, ‘‘No Degree, But Boss 

Anyway.’’ But I think that we have to have a vision to dream and 

we have to make sure that this continues for my children and 

grandchildren and generations to come that will prosper in this 

great country and the spirit that it has. I kind of got off on a little 

tangent here. But I really believe this is one of the most important 

appointments that this Administration will make and it is one of 

the most important missions that this Committee has under its jurisdiction in its support of the future. I thank the Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague. 

The Senator from Virginia. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding this hearing and I want to associate myself with the remarks 

that you made at the outset of this hearing, as well as those of Senator McCain, Senator Hutchison, and I did not hear Senator Nelson, but Senator Burns hit the nail right on the head. I join my 

colleagues, Mr. O’Keefe, in welcoming you here to this Committee. 

I look forward to listening to your vision, your views as to where 

15

NASA needs to go and to the future and also working with you in 

the future. 

In my opinion, NASA is just a uniquely wonderful government 

organization. It is one that is made up with brilliant people, some 

of whom are dreamers. They are intellectuals, and just some truly 

topnotch scientists as well. In terms of leadership in the scientific 

community, NASA is just one of the very top in the entire world, 

not just this country, but all over the world. In its scientific research that has direct benefits clearly to our national security and 

national defense, but also to our economy, and tangibly over the 

years, has improved the lives of Americans and people all over the 

world. 

Americans, I think, should be and are proud of the historic accomplishments of NASA. But we are not here to talk about the 

past. We are here to talk about the future. And there is a lot of 

talk about the way things have been in the last few years. It is important to look at past record and where it can be improved, but 

what I am most interested in is really what was alluded to by Senator Hutchison and Senator Burns, and that is the core guiding 

principles that will mark your leadership. Leaders are to lead, to 

motivate, to inspire, and to get others to join in that cause. 

I think that the guiding principles here need to be held in equal 

esteem. No. 1, it should be continued scientific excellence for the 

competitive leadership of America in aeronautics and space, and 

the second principle should be, of course, fiscal responsibility with 

the taxpayers’ dollars. Those are two equally important principles 

and goals. 

Now, from what I have read in the newspapers and discern 

through answers that you have had, Mr. O’Keefe, to the Committee 

questionnaires, I see that these objectives seem to be your objectives. 

Now, folks have talked about the Space Station at length. I want 

to focus on the first A of NASA, which is aeronautics. 

That is scientific excellence that we need to focus on, because it 

is an important responsibility of NASA. Back when I was Chairman of the subcommittee, before Senator Wyden was Chairman of 

the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee, back in April, 

we held a hearing on aeronautics in our country. We heard about 

Europe’s serious plan to dominate the skies in the future. At the 

same time, we heard about a lack of attention given to the U.S. 

programs for advancements in this vital area of aeronautics. 

The question is for all of us and you as Administrator, Mr. 

O’Keefe, what does the United States intend to do about this? 

What do we intend to do and how are we going to respond to this 

challenge? If we are going to respond to this challenge, which I 

think Americans would want us to do, when, and how? And in that 

hearing, it was made abundantly clear that aviation-related manufacturing as far as jobs in this country is the next exporter in our 

economy and so if we lose this preeminence, that means a loss of 

some outstanding jobs and capabilities here in our country. A study 

by the National Research Council stated that the continued reductions in funding for aeronautics research and development may 

have irreversible consequences. 

16

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, where our main competition may 

have been the Soviet Union, America was still alone at the top in 

the field of aeronautics research. No other country in the world 

could boast what we had then. But since early 1990s, the U.S. position in this field has steadily declined and now the very existence 

of our U.S. entry in this field is being threatened by better funded 

European initiatives. Once the United States loses this leadership 

position, it will be extremely difficult to regain that leadership role 

given the difficulty of reassembling the infrastructure, the scientists, the engineers, the highly skilled people in the investment 

capital that is needed. It is not as if you just find people who have 

those capabilities or the facilities. 

I think in addition to this international challenge, we have a national challenge, Mr. O’Keefe, and that has to do with better security. We have seen it since September 11th. 

I think advancements in aeronautics can help with security as 

well as better transportation system through the skies and this is 

going to depend on new technologies, the need is both short-term 

and long-term. We need to pursue both evolutionary and revolutionary advances, but the key to it is clearly human capital. 

We need to make sure that more and more youngsters or younger people are studying in our colleges and universities. The age of 

those who are in the aeronautics field are older people, more likely 

to retire. You’ll find that within the NASA organization. We have 

to reverse this trend by first increasing our efforts at aeronautics 

research at NASA, as well as the private sector. 

I was very pleased to read in one of the answers to your questionnaires that the use of colleges and universities in that effort 

and partnership, it doesn’t need all to be NASA. 

Our colleges and universities can help whatever the mission may 

be on that particular project, but also encourage youngsters or people who are being educated to get an education in aeronautics. 

There are many funding matters. 

There are many important missions in NASA. Aeronautics needs 

to be equally there at the top. We must inspire to improve the lives 

of people in the future and innovate, as well as make sure our 

economy is strong and make sure we have security in our skies. I 

look forward to working alongside of you in the future for America’s future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague for an excellent statement. 

I am sure, Mr. O’Keefe, you are excited that you can begin now. 

We welcome you and I understand the O’Keefe starting five is here, 

your family. Perhaps you could introduce them at this point to all 

of us. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. My wife Laura is here, daughter Lindsay, son 

Kevin and son Jonathan. 

Senator WYDEN. Welcome to all of you. It is an exciting day for 

the O’Keefe family. Despite all the speeches, I want to note for the 

record that everybody will vote for you. We will enter your prepared remarks in their entirety into the record. Please proceed 

with your opening statement as you choose. 

17

STATEMENT OF HON. SEAN O’KEEFE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF 

THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, NOMINEE TO 

BE ADMINISTRATOR OF NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it 

is a pleasure to be here this morning. I am most honored to be the 

President’s nominee to be Administrator of National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration. It has been a particular honor to enjoy 

the sponsorship of the distinguished House Science Committee 

Chairman, Congressman Sherry Boehlert and my long-time friend 

and mentor, Senator Ted Stevens. I am honored by their support 

and deeply appreciate their kind introductions. 

Should the Senate confirm the President’s nomination, I expect 

that service as a NASA Administrator will be a daunting challenge, 

but I have been overwhelmed by the willingness of the Members 

of this Committee and counterparts in the House to offer invaluable advice and counsel on how these challenges should be addressed. It speaks volumes about the prospect of a strong constructive working relationship with this panel and with Mr. Boehlert’s 

Committee colleagues if I am confirmed. 

I am most excited by this opportunity and am privileged that the 

President has entrusted his confidence by his nomination. NASA is 

an unparalleled preeminent institution dedicated to world class 

technology research and development with a storied history known 

to all Americans. We all take great pride in remarkable achievements and the dedication of the amazing professionals our Nation 

has been fortunate to attract to the agency’s important mission. 

The President and the Vice President have charged me with the 

task of capitalizing on this impressive legacy, and reinvigorating 

that entrepreneurial spirit that has characterized this fabled institution since its beginning in 1958. Their expectation is that NASA 

will press the edge of the technology envelope and develop sciencedriven enterprises and applications in the finest traditions of this 

institution. 

Now, to accomplish this task, I’d like to say that I bring the full 

range of experience and capability that anyone would hope to have 

as an Administrator. But I must be honest with this Committee 

and with myself that I do not embody all the characteristics I think 

would be desirable. For such challenges, I would like to be a lot 

more like my dad—educated at the United States Naval Academy, 

Notre Dame, Tulane, Naval Postgraduate school, he is one of the 

original elite corps of Rickover-trained engineers. He excelled in a 

range of industry challenges in the power generation business and 

shipbuilding. Now fully retired, and that is a euphemism, at the 

age of 75 he is attending Bowdoin College pursuing studies in astrophysics and German literature. He is the quintessential Renaissance man with a penchant for exasperating my mother. 

Instead, the President’s nominee before you is a public servant 

fortunate to have served in a range of Federal public institutions, 

academia, think tanks and private corporate pursuits. That has 

contributed to complexities of space-driven research projects and 

most important is the responsibility to support and continue developing the extraordinary professionals engaged in NASA’s diverse 

and complex endeavors. My qualifications are that of a public adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 19, 2004 Jkt 082425 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87606.TXT JIMC
18

ministrator, and I have developed a good sense not to attempt 

tasks which require the expertise of the chief engineer, but the 

skills to attract talent qualify to succeed technology. 

The immediate challenge confronting NASA today are largely not 

scientific, technical or engineering in origin. Indeed, the history 

and achievement in these disciplines is legendary. Rather, the challenges are more aptly described in management terms. Problems 

aren’t overwhelming, but they do require attention to fundamental 

management principles less they are to be assumed by process failures. The larger vision for NASA must include the essential leadership of NASA to develop leading technologies rather than success 

defined by linear incrementalism. Indeed, the creativity is there at 

NASA in the academic community, within the industry, and with 

our international partners. And this creativity can be channelled to 

achieve effective results and assure that the best ideas are pursued 

to get the most out of this impressive research enterprise. But, 

these are noble objectives. They can be pursued and achieved within a firm management framework. 

I wish I possessed all of the range of talents that my dad embodies. But I regret the dominant genes he passed along mapped 

a path to a premature gray, receding hairline, and a persistent 

sinus condition. Those are the two most dominant traits he passed 

along, but the good news is that he is a very attentive and extremely available for solid advice and counsel. In my upbringing, 

he and my exceedingly tolerant mother, instilled in me a commitment to do my very best in everything I do. 

That is an element of character I promise to employ, with my 

modest talents, my wife Laura and children can attest to the fact 

that it takes me a lot of time to accomplish my best. They have tolerated my penchant for the rigors of public service, a malady that 

every Member of this Committee endures for love of country. My 

unending gratitude and love for them can be not adequately expressed. They know the depth of my appreciation for their sacrifice. 

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you again 

for the consideration. I look forward to the prospect of working 

with you on this exciting portfolio should you and your colleagues 

find it appropriate to advise and consent on the President’s nomination. I am prepared to respond to any questions that you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement and biographical information of Hon. 

Sean O’Keefe follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SEAN O’KEEFE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this 

morning. I am most honored to be the President’s nominee to be the Administrator 

of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and I am grateful for the 

Committee’s expeditious consideration. It is a particular honor to enjoy the sponsorship of the distinguished House Science Committee Chairman, Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, and my long time friend and mentor, Senator Ted Stevens. I am 

honored by their support and deeply appreciate their kind introductions. 

Should the Senate confirm the President’s nomination, I expect that service as the 

NASA Administrator will be a daunting challenge. But, I have been overwhelmed 

by the willingness of the Members of this Committee and counterparts in the House 

to offer invaluable advice and counsel on how these challenges should be addressed. 

It speaks volumes about the prospect of a strong, constructive working relationship 

with this panel and with Chairman Boehlert’s Committee colleagues, if I am conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 19, 2004 Jkt 082425 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87606.TXT JIMC
19

firmed. I am most excited about this opportunity and am privileged that the President has entrusted his confidence by his nomination. 

NASA is an unparalleled, preeminent institution dedicated to world class technology research and development with a storied history known to all Americans. We 

all take great pride in the remarkable achievements and dedication of the amazing 

professionals our Nation has been fortunate to attract to the agency’s important 

mission. The President and the Vice President have charged me with the task of 

capitalizing on this impressive legacy and reinvigorating the entrepreneurial spirit 

that has characterized this fabled institution since its beginning in 1958. Their expectation is that NASA will press the edge of the technology envelope and develop 

science driven enterprises and applications in the finest tradition of the institution. 

To accomplish this task, I’d like to say that I bring the full range of experience 

and capability any one could hope to have in an Administrator. I must be honest 

with the Committee and with myself, that I do not embody all the characteristics 

I think would be desirable. For such challenges I’d like to be more like my Dad—

educated at the Naval Academy, Notre Dame, Tulane and the Naval Postgraduate 

School, he is one of the original, elite corps of Rickover-trained nuclear engineers. 

After a distinguished naval service career, he excelled at a range of industry challenges in the power generation business and ship construction. Now fully retired at 

age 75, he’s attending Bowdoin College pursuing studies in astrophysics and German literature—conducted in the language. My father is the quintessential renaissance man with a persistent quest for knowledge—and a penchant for exasperating 

my mother. 

Instead, the President’s nominee before you is a public servant fortunate to have 

served in a range of Federal public management opportunities, academia, think 

tanks and private corporate pursuits. These experiences contribute to a working understanding of the complexities of managing a technology-driven enterprise with 

program responsibilities as varied as large scale systems integration to dynamic 

aerospace operations to science-driven research projects. Most important is the responsibility to support and continue developing the extraordinary professionals engaged in NASA’s diverse and complex endeavors. My qualifications are that of a 

public administrator, and I’ve developed the good sense not to attempt tasks which 

require the expertise of the chief engineer, and the skills to attract talent qualified 

to succeed at harnessing technology. 

The immediate challenges confronting NASA today are, largely, not scientific, 

technical or engineering in origin. Indeed the history of achievement in these disciplines is legendary. Rather, the challenges are more aptly described in management terms—financial, contractual and personnel focused. The problems are not 

overwhelming, but do require attention to fundamental management principles lest 

the important science and technology-driven enterprises be subsumed by process 

failures. The larger vision for NASA must include the essential element of leadership to establish strategic goals for developing leap ahead technologies rather than 

successes defined by linear incrementalism. Indeed, the creativity is there at NASA, 

in the academic community, within the industry, and with our international partners. And this creativity can be channeled to achieve effective results and assure 

that the best ideas are being pursued to get the most out of this impressive research 

enterprise. These are noble objectives. They can be pursued and achieved within a 

firm management framework. 

I wish I possessed the full range of talents my Dad embodies, but regret the dominant genes he passed along mapped a path to a premature grey, receding hairline 

and a persistent sinus condition. The good news is that he is very attentive and 

available for solid advice and counsel. And in my upbringing, he and my unceasingly 

tolerant mother, instilled in me a commitment to do my best in everything I do. 

That’s an element of character that I promise to employ—and with my modest talents, my wife Laura and children, Lindsey, Jonathan and Kevin can attest to the 

fact that it takes me a lot of time to accomplish my best. They have tolerated my 

penchant for the rigors of public service—a malady that every Member of this Committee endures for love of country. My unending gratitude and love for them can 

not be adequately expressed, but they know the depth of my appreciation for their 

sacrifice. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for your consideration and 

I look forward to the prospect of working with you on this exciting portfolio should 

you and your colleagues find it appropriate to advise and consent on the President’s 

nomination. I am prepared to respond to any questions the Committee may have. 

20

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name: Sean O’Keefe (middle name, Charles). 

2. Position to which nominated: Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

3. Date of nomination: November 27, 2001. 

4. Address: Home: Information not released to the public; Office: 1252 Eisenhower 

Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. 

5. Date and place of birth: January 27,1956; Monterey, California. 

6. Marital status: Married to Laura O’Keefe (formerly Laura McCarthy). 

7. Names and ages of children: Lindsey SeYeon O’Keefe, Age: 15; Jonathan 

JungSoo O’Keefe, Age: 12; Kevin Sean O’Keefe, Age: 10. 

8. Education: Master of Public: Administration, The Maxwell School of Citizenship 

and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, 1978; Bachelor of Arts, Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1977; Program in National Security and International 

Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985. 

9. Employment record: Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget, March 

2001-Present; Louis A. Bantle Professor of Business & Government Policy, and Director, Maxwell-SAIS National Security Studies, Maxwell School of Citizenship & 

Public Affairs; Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, 1996-March 2001; Professor of Business Administration and Special Assistant to the Senior Vice President 

for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1993-1996; Adjunct Professor, Naval Postgraduate 

School, Monterey, California, 1993-March 2001; Secretary of the Navy, 1992-1993; 

Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer; Department of Defense, 1989-1992; Staff 

Director, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Defense Subcommittee, 1986-

1989; Professional Staff Member, 1981-1989; Budget Analyst, Naval Sea Systems 

Command, Department of the Navy, 1980-1981; Presidential Management Intern, 

inaugural class of 1978-1980. 

10. Government experience: Advisor to the Director, Congressional Budget Office, 

1999-March 2001; Chair of the Secretary of the Navy’s Personnel Task Force, 1999-

2000; Counselor to the Secretary Defense Quality of Life Commission, 1995; Vice 

Chair of Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge’s Base Closure and Realignment Advisory Committee, 1995-1996; Staff Member to the Louisiana State Senate Committee 

on Highways, Transportation and Public Works, 1977. 

11. Business relationships: Member of the Board of Trustees, The CNA Corporation, 1995-March 2, 2001; Member of the Board of Directors, Tesoro Petroleum Corporation, 2000-March 2, 2001; Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State 

University, 1994-March 2, 2001; Chairman, 1999-March 2, 2001; Member of the 

Raytheon Company Strategy Advisory Board, 1999-March 2, 2001; Member of the 

Northrop Grumman Corporation Advisory Board for the Integrated Systems and 

Aerostructures Sector, 2000-March 2, 2001; Member of the Sensis Corporation 

Board of Directors, 2000-March 2, 2001; Member of the Board of Directors, J. Ray 

McDermott, S.A. 1997–1999; Consultant, Textron Corporation 1993-1995; Member, 

Advisory Board, DSR Corporation 1995-1997; Member of the Board of Directors, 

GKI, Inc. 1993-1994. 

12. Memberships: Member of the Information Technology Commission, Center for 

Strategic & International Studies, 2000-March 2, 2001; Member of the Naval Postgraduate School Advisory Board, 1993-1995; Honorary Chairman, Marine Corps 

League Toys for Tots Campaign, Nittany Leathernecks Detachment, 1995; Member 

of the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors, 1996-2000; Chair, Military 

Investigative Practices Study, National Academy of Public Administration, 1999-

2000; National Academy of Public Administration Fellow, 1996-present; Member of 

the Bohemian Club of San Francisco, 1996-present. 

13. Political affiliations and activities: (a) List all offices with a political party 

which you have held or any public office for which you have been a candidate. Registered Republican, RNC. 

(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered to all political 

parties or election committees during the last 10 years. Member of the Central 

Pennsylvania Republican Party 1993-1996; Member of the Eastern New York Republican Party, Onondaga County 1996-present; National Policy Forum, 1994-1995; 

Republican National Committee 1981-present. 

(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the past 

10 years. Senator Chafee Committee (PAC) 1994, $100; George W. Bush for Governor Committee 1994, $500; Republican National Committee, 1994, $250; Alliance 

for American Leadership (Dick Cheney PAC) 1994, $2,000; Santorum 1994 (Senator 

21

* Contributions by myself and my wife, Laura O’Keefe. 

Santorum campaign) $250; Ted Stevens for Senate (campaign) 1996, $2,000 *; Joe 

McDade Legal Defense Fund 1995, $250; Peggy Wilson for City Council (campaign) 

1997, $500; Bob Livingston for Congress (campaign) 1994, $1,000; George W. Bush 

Exploratory Committee, 1999, $2,000 *; George W. Bush for President, 2000, 

$2,000 *

14. Honors and awards: Distinguished Public Service Award presented by President George Bush and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, January 1993; Fellow of the 

National Academy of Public Administration, elected 1996; Visiting Scholar, Wolfson 

College, University of Cambridge, UK, 1994; Visiting Lecture, Strategic Studies Program, Pembroke College, Oxford University, UK, July 1994; Honorary PhD, Wheeling Jesuit University (to be conferred May 2002). 

15. Published writings: Keeping the Edge: Managing Defense for the Future, contributing author, edited by Ashton B. Carter and John P. White. MIT Press, October 

2000; The Defense Industry in the Post-Cold War Era; Corporate Strategies and Public Policy Perspectives, with Dr. Gerald Susman, Elsevier Science. Oxford, UK, January 1999; Breaking the Market or Preventing Market Breakdown: The Technology 

Reinvestment Program, with Dr. Volker Franke. Maxwell-SAIS National Security 

Studies Case number 1197-05, November 1997; An Analysis of the Technology Reinvestment Program as a Method of Defense Conversion and Industrial Policy and its 

Affect on Shareholder Wealth, Smeah College of Business Administration, Pennsylvania State University, April 1996; The Orange County Financial Crisis: The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, case file, October 

1997; A World Lit by Lightning, Proceedings, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 

Maryland, January 1995; Planning Without a Plan: A Review of the Fiscal Year 

1994 Clinton Defense Budget, American Defense Annual, Mershon Center Ohio 

State University, Lexington, Books, New York, New York, February 1994; Clinton’s 

Stealth Weapon: The Federal Budget, The Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California, February 21, 1994; The Alpha and the Omega, Vital Speeches of the Day, Volume LIX, No. 11, Random House Publishing, New York, New York, March 15, 1993; 

On Tailhook, Drop the Other Shoe, The Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California, 

March 1, 1993; Despite Tailhook, Navy on Path to Gender-Neutrality, The Times Picayune, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 27, 1993; The Port of Heaven, Vital Speeches 

of the Day, Volume LIX, No. 2, Random House Publishing, New York, NY, November 1, 1992; From the Sea: Preparing the Naval Service for the 21st Century, Proceedings, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, November 1992. 

16. Speeches: Testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, April 2001, 

on the fiscal year 2002 NASA Budget request and before the House Science Committee, November 2001, on the report of the International Space Station Independence Cost and Management Task Force. 

17. Selection: (a) Do you know why you were chosen for this nomination by the 

President? Yes. Based on my previous Federal experience and understanding of the 

President’s and Vice President’s policy agenda, I am Honored by the President’s confidence to be entrusted with this important management portfolio should the Senate 

advise and consent affirmatively in the President’s nomination. 

(b) What do you believe in your background or employment experience affirmatively qualifies you for this particular appointment? While NASA is a preeminent 

technical, engineering and scientific exploration agency, the challenges to be confronted are management oriented—management of large scale systems integration 

projects, high-tech infrastructure and complex research and development projects, 

and leadership of high technology professionals are the primary areas which should 

demand the NASA Administrator’s attention. My prior experience at the Defense 

Department, particularly as Secretary of the Navy, and practical as well as academic research into the challenges of teclulology management are most preparatory 

for the NASA post. My current capacity at the Office of Management and Budget 

provides a close familiarity with the President’s Management Agenda which can and 

should be implemented at NASA at the earliest opportunity. 

B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS

1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers, business firms, 

business associations or business organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? 

Yes, all business relationships have been severed. However, I have been granted a 

leave of absence from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University as the Louis A. Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy 

which I may resume at the conclusion of my public service. 

22

2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service with the government? If 

so, explain. No. 

3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after completing government service to resume employment, affiliation or practice with your previous employer, business firm, association or organization? Yes. I have been granted a leave 

of absence from the Syracuse University Maxwell School to resume a faculty appointment as the Louis A. Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy 

upon conclusion of public service. 

4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any capacity after 

you leave government service? No, aside from the aforementioned leave of absence 

from Syracuse University. 

5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? Presidential appointment orders specifically qualify service at the pleasure of the President ‘‘for the time being.’’ As such, 

the President’s preference will determine the duration of my service should I be confirmed. 

C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and 

other continuing dealings with business associates, clients or customers. None. 

2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which 

could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been 

nominated. None that I am aware of. 

3. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you 

have had during the last 10 years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or 

acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict 

of interest in the position to which you have been nominated. In my official public 

service capacity as Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the Departinent of 

Defense, Secretary of the Navy, and currently OMB Deputy Director, I have been 

routinely involved in the disposition of legislation affecting the administration and 

execution of public policy. 

Since departing the public service in 1993, I had no material involvement in the 

disposition of legislation. In the part-time public service capacity as Counselor to the 

Secretary of Defense Commission on Quality of Life and as Vice Chair of the Base 

Closure and Realignment-Pennsylvania Action Committee (previously listed) my involvement in such matters has been peripheral and indirect. 

In my capacity as the Chairman of the National Academy of Public Administration study of Military Investigative Practices, the panel recommended, among other 

things, a change of law to permit arrest authority to officers of the military criminal 

investigative organizations. I had several discussions with members of the House 

Armed Services Committee who requested further information on the panel’s findings in this regard. The fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Act included the expanded arrest authority provision. To the best of my knowledge, this is not likely 

to pose a conflict of interest. 

In my capacity as a member of the Board of Directors or consultant to corporations, I did not represent their interests before any Federal agency or department 

officials and know of now conflict of interest. 

To my knowledge, there have been no issues which have posed a conflict of interest during my tenure as Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have engaged for 

the purpose of directly or, indirectly influencing the passage, defeat or modification 

of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public policy. None, other than in previously aforementioned public service capacities. 

5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any 

that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. (Please provide a copy 

of any trust or other agreements.) I do not anticipate the requirement to resolve conflicts of interest, but to the extent that any matter were to emerge which may call 

into question my objectivity, I would recuse myself from consideration and decision 

of any alternatives or options which could affect the outcome of the issue and delegate the matter to the next level of management responsibility. This was routinely 

my practice in each public service capacity I was privileged to hold previously. The 

Department of Defense General Counsel has retained all previous correspondence 

to this effect in my prior capacities, and the General Counsel at OMB has current 

recusal correspondence. 

6. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you are nominated and by the 

23

Office of Government Ethics concerning; potential conflicts of interest or any legal 

impediments to your serving in this position? Yes. 

D. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics for unprofessional 

conduct by, or been the subject of a compliant to any court, administrative agency, 

professional association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, 

provide details. I have never been disciplined or cited and have not been the subject 

of a complaint to the best of my knowledge. 

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by any Federal, 

State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of any Federal, State, county, 

or municipal law, regulation or ordinance, other than a minor traffic offense? If so, 

provide details. Yes. In July 1977, I was arrested in New Orleans, Louisiana outside 

a neighborhood tavern, along with a dozen others, for violating a local ordinance 

against ‘‘obstructing a sidewalk.’’ I was released within hours, the charge was 

dropped a few days later, the case never raised before the municipal judicial authorities, and no fine levied or rendered. This incident has been detailed in every 

security clearance, personal background investigation, and appointment background 

review l have ever completed over the past 24 years! 

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer ever been involved as a party in interest in an administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details. As an outside, non-management Director of J. Ray 

McDermott, S.A., I was named in a class action suit of investors/shareholders of the 

company attendant to a proposal to merge J. Ray McDermott, S.A. with another 

company. The merger was completed in August 1999 and the civil action was 

dropped with no further action or settlement required. 

4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) of 

any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? No. 

5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in connection with your nomination. 

None. 

E. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with deadlines set by 

congressional committees for information? Yes. 

2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can to protect 

congressional witnesses and whistleblowers from reprisal for their testimony and 

disclosures? Yes. 

3. Will you cooperate in providing the committee with requested witnesses, to include technical experts and career employees with firsthand knowledge of matters 

of interest to the committee? Yes. 

4. Please explain how you will review regulations issued by your department/

agency, and work closely with Congress, to ensure that such regulations comply 

with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress. Regulations are the means to implement the administrative expression of statutory objectives. As such, regulations 

should capture the legislative intent in the ideal circumstances. It is with this philosophy that I would endeavor to promulgate applicable regulations, if confirmed by 

the Senate. 

5. Describe your department/agency’s current mission, major programs, and major 

operational objectives. Preparation of advice and options attendant to the development of the annual President’s budget; promulgation of general management policy 

and procedures; and review of administrative regulations on behalf of the Executive 

Office of the President. 

6. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of 

the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so? Yes. 

F. GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS AND VIEWS

1. How have your previous professional experience and education qualifies you for 

the position for which you have been nominated. My previous service as Secretary 

of the Navy and prior to that, as the Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the 

Department of Defense provided experience in managing larger organizations with 

strong internal cultures, as well as dealing with complex budgetary and financial 

management systems. 

My current capacity as OMB Deputy Director provides a government-wide perspective and understanding of the President’s Management Agenda which will be 

implemented at NASA as well as other agencies and departments. 

24

Previous academic postings, most recently as a Professor of Business and Government Policy at Syracuse University provided opportunities to reflect on managing 

innovation and professionals in high-technology enterprises. 

2. Why do you wish to serve in the position, for which you have been nominated? 

The challenge of leading NASA at this point in its extraordinary history is one of 

instilling management excellence worthy of its technical excellence and of helping 

NASA regain a reputation for credible cost control and risk management to enable 

it to take on future challenges as well as complete its current tasks. This is an opportunity of a lifetime. 

3. What goals have you established for your first 2 years in this position, if confirmed? As an overall vision for NASA, two elements are dominant: program operations at NASA must be science-driven; and programs should enable human exploration beyond Earth orbit and the Solar System. 

But first, we must reform and strengthen NASA to be able to take on new challenges after the International Space Station and the Shuttle. 

We must also: Ensure a sound financial management system and supporting culture for the International Space Station program that enables it to be a world-class 

research facility with strong international participation; Ensure that NASA enterprises are truly science-driven and that science requirements are established and 

used as the basis for making sometimes difficult budgetary choices; Move toward 

reducing the magnitude of fixed costs, such as institutional overhead, in the NASA 

budget and increase the amount of discretionary funds available for pursuing scientific opportunity; Seek to establish closer cooperation with the Department of Defense and civil agencies to enhance the public benefits of NASA research programs. 

4. What skills do you believe you may be lacking which may be necessary to successfully carry out this position? What steps can be taken to obtain those skills? It 

is most important to reinforce a strong teclulical and aerospace engineering staff to 

assist in the day-to-day operations. NASA has a strong internal culture and persons 

of integrity to help reform and strengthen NASA will be required. 

In my past professional experience, I have often had to draw on wide sources of 

expertise to deal with complex technical and management problems. I am comfortable working in new, rapidly changing environments and believe I will be able 

to find and attract persons with the skills needed to be effective. 

5. Who are the stakeholders in the work of this agency? The ultimate stakeholders 

in NASA are the American people, and we, as citizens deserve the very best effort 

to explore the reaches of cutting edge aeronautical engineering and the reaches of 

space. 

As an agency of the Executive Branch, NASA’s principal stakeholders are the 

President and the Vice President who have the responsibility and authority to provide NASA’s guidance and direction, and to whom the Agency must be ultimately 

accountable. The Congressional representatives of the people serve to reflect and 

focus their interests in the course of authorizations, oversight and appropriations of 

NASA’s programs and budget, as requested by the President. Members of Congress—especially those on the committee jurisdiction, have a particular oversight responsibility for NASA programs and activities on behalf of the American people. 

Additional important stakeholders are the communities in which NASA Centers 

are located and their Federal, State and local elected and community leadership 

who have interests and concerns in local viability. 

Equally important stakeholders are the employees of NASA and their families, 

who have a direct stake in the success of NASA, its mission and programs. NASA 

conducts the bulk of its programmatic work through contractors who also have a 

stake in NASA programs. There are numerous private organizations that have a 

particular focus on aspects of space exploration, and express their views through a 

variety of venues, including conferences and member communications directed to 

the President and Vice President, Members of Congress, and NASA officials as well 

as others in the Administration. 

6. What is the proper relationship between your position, if confirmed, and the 

stakeholders identified in question No. 10? The NASA Administrator must first be 

accountable to the President and responsive to his guidance and direction. The Administrator must be able to provide input to the President on NASA’s needs and 

programmatic alternatives, through consultation and through the budget submission 

process. The Congress should also expect accountability from the NASA Administrator. The Senate, of course, must advise and consent to the nomination of the Administrator, and the Congress as a whole has the ultimate responsibility to determine NASA’s budget and to oversee how that budget is put to use by the Agency. 

It is essential that the appropriate information about NASA programs and activities 

be given to both the President and the Congress in the most complete and accurate 

manner to inform their respective decisionmaking processes. 

25

The Administrator must be accessible to hear the concerns and views of all of the 

Agency’s stakeholders, and to take them into account in making decisions that impact their interests, whether they be individual Members of Congress, State and 

local officials and community leaders, Agency employees, contractor representatives 

or interested organizations. Having received inputs from interested parties, the Administrator must then be responsible for making those decisions within the purview 

of the office and, when appropriate, forwarding recommendations to the President. 

for consideration and decision or, as necessary, as proposals by the Administration 

to the Congress. 

7. The Chief Financial Officers Act requires all government departments and 

agencies to develop sound financial management practices similar to those practiced 

in the private sector. (a) What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, 

to ensure that your agency has proper management and accounting controls? Financial management controls that link budgets and expenditures to results are fundamental to the ability of the Administrator to manage. It is essential that the financial system improvements currently underway are brought on line at the earliest 

possible opportunity. Since the Administrator is, quite rightly, held accountable for 

the performance of the agency, he is directly responsible for ensuring the agency has 

proper management and accounting controls to support decisionmaking. In particular, this responsibility includes ensuring the selection of an outstanding Chief 

Financial Officer and a Comptroller. They, in turn, are tasked with ensuring NASA 

enterprises are held financially accountable, that major decisions are brought to the 

Administrator in a timely manner, and that they all have reliable facts to work 

with. 

(b) What experience do you have in managing a large organization? I am currently 

Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget and previously served as 

Secretary of the Navy after serving as the Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer 

of the Department of Defense. During my faculty tenure at Syracuse University’s 

Maxwell School, I also served on boards of directors of corporations which managed 

complex programs. Collectively, these experiences have provided a perspective on 

managing large, complex organizations which frequently conduct large-scale systems 

integration work. 

8. The Government Performance and Results Act requires all government departments and agencies to identify measurable performance goals and to report to Congress on their success in achieving these goals. (a) Please discuss what you believe 

to be the benefits of identifying performance goals and reporting on your progress 

in achieving those goals. The President’s Management Agenda seeks to implement 

the tools of GPRA to establish performance goals and expected outcomes for all Federal programs. NASA programs lend themselves to measurement against such goal 

oriented management techniques. 

In refining the NASA goals and expected outcomes in accord with the President’s 

management objectives, three points should be emphasized: goals need to be quantified against a known baseline; goals need to be subject to independent review; 

goals drive management decisionmaking at all levels of the organization to improve 

accountability. 

(b) What steps should Congress consider taking when an agency fails to achieve 

its performance goals? Should these steps include the elimination, privatization, 

downsizing or consolidation of departments and/or programs? These management 

techniques should not be used as ‘‘punishment’’—rather each of these methods have 

merit depending on the mission and goals of the agency. Such steps are means to 

achieve a desired outcome; not ends in themselves. The NASA Administrator should 

be able to use these tools to meet performance, cost, and risk goals with the support 

of the Administration and Congress. 

(c) What performance goals do you believe should be applicable to your personal 

performance, if confirmed? I would judge myself against this criteria: Safety is the 

No. 1 priority for all human spaceflight activities; A financial management system 

and culture must be established within NASA to produce reliable information for 

the President and the Administrator to make informed decisions and to permit necessary Congressional oversight; NASA enterprises should be truly science-driven; 

The agency must have a balanced portfolio of cutting-edge, peer-reviewed scientific 

research and technological accomplishment; NASA must rationalize the institutional 

infrastructure and endeavor to increase the research opportunities with a wider 

range of university and industry communities; Other agencies should have such 

high confidence that they often turn to NASA for technical leadership in areas of 

core competencies. 

9. Please describe your philosophy of supervisor/employee relationships. Generally, what supervisory model do you follow? Have any employee complaints been 

brought against you? In a high-technology organization such as NASA, there needs 

26

to be a focus on its strategic goals, and the organizational integrity and cohesion 

expected of a Federal agency. At the same time, NASA’s missions require adaptability and flexibility. 

To achieve these objectives, decisionmaking should be as close as possible to 

sources of uncertainty and interdependence which therefore augers in favor of a 

very collaborative management relationship. As such, management should promote 

an atmosphere of creativity, specify broad performance goals, and maintain a broad 

based portfolio strategy. 

In my current and previous professional experiences, no employee complaints 

have been brought against me that I am aware of. 

10. Describe your working relationship, if any, with the Congress. Does your professional experience include working with committees of Congress? If yes, please describe. In my current capacity, I have testified before the Congress on several occasions, and have maintained frequent communications and dialog with Committees 

and Members of Congress regarding budgetary and general Federal management 

matters. In my previous positions within the Department of Defense, I maintained 

extensive interaction with the Congress and testified on numerous occasions before 

Committees of the Congress. In addition to my experience in dealing with and appearing before the Congress, my professional experience includes service for 8 years 

on the Senate Committee on Appropriations staff. 

11. Please explain what you believe to be the proper relationship between yourself, if confirmed, and the Inspector General of your department/agency. I believe 

it is important that the Inspector General retain ultimate independence in examining NASA activities for waste, fraud and abuse, as prescribed in the enabling legislation creating Inspectors General. The identification of areas of needed reform 

and improvement is a goal that both the Administrator and Inspector General 

should share. I believe honest and open communications, except where proscribed 

by investigative activities, should be the rule in the relationship between these two 

statutory officials. 

12. Please explain how you will work with this Committee and other stakeholders 

to ensure that regulations issued by your department/agency comply with the spirit 

of the laws passed by Congress. Fundamental to the internal review of proposed regulations, or any other policy-implementing instrument, should be a review of both 

legislative language and legislative intent. I will ensure that such reviews are thorough and exhaustive and when questions or uncertainties arise, seek to determine 

the Congressional intent through communications with the cognizant Committees, 

Members and staff. 

13. In the areas under, the department/agency’s jurisdiction, what legislative action(s) should Congress consider as priorities? Please state your personal views. 

There are a number of possible legislative initiatives within the realm of NASA’s 

activities that, in my view, should be considered priorities. The first among those 

are the President’s ‘‘Freedom to Manage’’ legislative; proposals: These initiatives address, across the Federal Government, a number of issues that are of particular importance to NASA. Principal among them are the personnel authorities the President seeks to export ‘‘best practices’’ across the Federal spectrum. NASA has spent 

most of the past 8 years under a hiring freeze, and has undertaken several ‘‘buyout’’ initiatives to reduce its workforce. Unfortunately, such measures have an unpredictable impact on the agency’s skill mix. NASA has serious workforce-related 

issues that need to be addressed, and the legislative authority, requested by the 

President will effectively address some of these pressing challenges. 

Another area of potential legislative action revolves around the President’s initiative to competitively select sources for commercial activities. David Walker, the 

Comptroller General of the United States, has convened a panel charged by Congress to streamline government performance and contracting for commercial activities. The results of the panel effort is expected by spring 2002. These tools to improve commercial practices could have substantial bearing on NASA programs. Legislative proposals may emerge from this initiative. 

14. Within your area of control, will you pledge to develop and implement a system that allocates discretionary spending based on national priorities determined in 

an open fashion on a set of established criteria? If not, please state why. If yes, 

please state what steps you intend to take and a timeframe for their implementation. Yes. The President’s budget development and Congress’ consideration thereof, 

is the primary system to allocate discretionary spending based on national priorities 

determined in an open fashion on a set of established criteria. If confirmed, I would 

plan to be an active participant in this process.

Senator WYDEN. Mr. O’Keefe, thank you. As you know, our colleagues will have a number of questions. 

27

Mr. O’Keefe, let me begin by saying that whether it is misspent 

dollars or layers of bureaucracy fat at NASA, is not protective padding. That waste takes precious resources away from the scientific 

breakthroughs that the American people feel so strongly about and 

that you have heard my colleagues speak passionately about this 

morning. So my first question to you is how long is it going to take 

to drain the financial and managerial swamp at NASA, and what 

measures will you use to determine when the job is done? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Well sir, I think there are two factors that have 

to be considered in trying to reach a conclusion about how soon can 

we get the visibility that you are referring to. First one is that 

there is, I am told, a financial system that has been begun to be 

employed at NASA over the course of the last year-and-a-half. This 

is a third attempt, as I gather, to modernize the financial systems 

there and this one, by all accounts by some of the best talent that 

I know in this town, financial management arena have declared 

this to be the best chance that the agency has of finally establishing a total cost visibility. That is due to be online here within 

the next 6 months and phased in over the next several years. 

My objective will be to achieve that at the earliest possible opportunities. Until we know that, until we have some confidence in 

what the total cost is of projects that have that kind of cost visibility, I do not know how to answer your questions in terms of 

what the long-term prospects are. 

The earliest phase that we can have this particular effort introduced and the financial systems overall employed and online we 

will be able to respond to that I think more accurately. 

Second factor, though, that I mentioned is the development, I 

think of a larger strategic set of objectives. As soon as we can begin 

the process of following what some of the Young Commission reports suggested of trying to line up what the science-driven objectives and technology-driven enterprises should be organizationally. 

I think they are referred to more specifically as it pertained to the 

Space Station, but certainly has applications across the entire 

agency. We will soon begin to prioritize those enterprises and objectives. That is going to be able to respond to the question more accurately, because you can then scope what the size and magnitude of 

the financial resources, as well as other assets, people, capabilities 

may require in order to achieve those objectives. 

Senator WYDEN. Your reputation is one of being a strong fiscal 

watchdog. I and others have said we are not looking for sound financial management as an end in itself. It is really the underpinning for NASA to use the existing Federal funds to get back to its 

original goals: research and scientific exploration of space. So we 

would very much like to see you lay out your scientific vision for 

NASA, and particularly with regard to the agency’s science and exploration goals. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I appreciate that. That is among the very first orders of business should I be fortunate enough to be confirmed and 

appointed to the position would be to organize that particular effort. I talked to Tom Young very specifically about reassembling 

elements of his Commission that were representatives, or Nobel 

laureates and science advisors, that were very helpful to him who 

has part of their recommendations as pertained in the Space StaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 19, 2004 Jkt 082425 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87606.TXT JIMC
28

tion, but again to identify what those priorities should be and get 

some advice from them, but ask each of the 10 directors as well as 

the range of technical and engineering professionals throughout the 

organization to begin to line up what those priorities ought to be. 

It ought to be, the agenda, overall strategic objectives of the organization should be driven by science as well as technology enterprise. 

Senator WYDEN. What would be your research priority? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I guess in a larger context I would say that which 

reaches back to the origins, the beginnings of the agency itself, 

which is to be entrepreneurial, to focus on the far edge of the technology, to press that envelope as far as we can go, and to take the 

risks that would otherwise be not easy for many other institutions 

to even contemplate now. Not because there is not considered to be 

a potential payoff there, but because there is not a capacity to take 

on those kinds of challenges after all. This is really a unique institution, one which really if it is not performed and aptly summarized by Members of the Committee here, if NASA doesn’t take on 

some of these challenges, they won’t be approached. 

As a consequence of that, research agenda should be as far leading edge as we can reach it and focus more on that objective and 

focusing on the capability to perform those tasks. 

Senator WYDEN. Your predecessor, Mr. Goldin, was at NASA for 

nearly 10 years and led the call for what was known as the faster, 

better, cheaper approach at NASA. How will the Sean O’Keefe era 

differ from the Dan Goldin era at NASA? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I guess first and foremost, I think, I hope it will 

be characterized in the very near term is let us get back to basics. 

Let us get back to fundamentals of what it takes to manage an extraordinary research enterprise that has the capacity to do things 

that simply would not be attainable anywhere else were it not for 

the amazing capabilities at NASA. Get back to those fundamentals. 

Second is to reinvigorate again the entrepreneurial spirit that 

motivated the greatness of the organization from its very beginning 

days, to think very specifically about what those technology-driven 

enterprises ought to be and to be focused about how we go about 

those tasks. And that we infuse, as far as that first objective as 

well, prudent management in order to take on selectively those 

tasks with the hopes of success, but at the same time recognizing 

the risks are going to be significant. So that is what I would hope 

would be at least the early characterization. 

Senator WYDEN. We are going to have several rounds of questioning given the interest of Senators. 

I want to recognize next Senator Allen. 

Senator ALLEN. Mr. O’Keefe, I would very much like the final answer that you were giving to the Chairman here. The efforts of 

NASA, in particular in aeronautics, has always been for NASA to 

be involved in some of these high-risk research ventures. Some of 

those that the private sector could never do, but in collaboration 

with the government, it is very important. And let me first ask you, 

do you consider aeronautics research still a core function of NASA? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Sure. Absolutely. 

Senator ALLEN. Do you believe that investment in aeronautics in 

the future, you are talking about entrepreneurial spirit, do you 

think that investments in that research will produce positive reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 19, 2004 Jkt 082425 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87606.TXT JIMC
29

sults for our country and aeronautics generally? In commercial 

aviation as well as military sectors? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. It has certainly been the history of the technology 

within the aerospace technology so far and I have no reason to expect it will be limited in the future. 

Senator ALLEN. Now, during this period of declining funding for 

NASA, and I have mentioned this in my opening statement, our 

European competitors, as well as the Japanese, have been increasing their aeronautics research and development funding, and the 

European Commissions announced a new plan to significantly further increase their government funding for aeronautical research. 

They have estimated funding, public and private that could exceed 

$100 billion U.S. dollars over the next 2 decades. 

In spite of this, there have been proposed significant reductions 

in NASA’s aeronautical research budget in fiscal year 2002. Now, 

I know this is argumentative question, but I want to hear what 

your principles are, but do you believe that it is in our best interests as a Nation to allow our aeronautical and aviation capabilities 

to wither in the face of this competition, or if you say that we can 

have a huge positive impact in the future, how do we turn that 

around and face that competition? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Senator, I appreciate the spirit of the question, and 

intend to look at the technology overall and again to expand on the 

risk that should be assumed in these kinds of circumstances given 

this capability in large measure wouldn’t be faced otherwise. Having said that, I guess my bias is that there is a mindset in every 

Federal program that if there is more money the year later, then 

that is definitionally good. If there is less, it is definitionally bad. 

It becomes an incremental argument. 

Success is driven by single digits as in less than the number on 

one hand of an increase, and that has been celebrated. Reductions 

of the same magnitude is a collossal disaster of the time. I think 

what the President’s commitment has been, what I find most challenging about the opportunity and I am looking forward to is the 

opportunity to implement the President’s management agenda at 

an organization like NASA, which is frankly not a little agency. 

This is an organization that is 4 times the size of the EPA, and the 

largest single independent agency of the Federal Government, and 

so as a consequence the opportunity to do some things that focus 

on President’s management agenda, emphasizing performance, 

looking at outcomes, and determining not necessarily percentages 

of increase or decrease, but what’s the best solution set of an option 

to pursue that gain the maximum return. 

That is what we are going to be about, I hope, at NASA, and that 

is going to be the focus that I think could be emphasized in a way 

that would respond to your question, intent, and the spirit of it as 

a reinvigoration of our involvement and that of partnering with industry to expand the edges of what we could do in the aeronautics 

business in a way that has not so far been achieved as well, because we have been focused on increments, not only objectives of 

performance. 

In the end, that is not a specific answer that says yes, there will 

be an increase or decrease, but one that I hope is an expression of 

commitment to you that I’d like to be able to demonstrate after 

30

some period of time in tenure—if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed—that demonstrates indeed there is a quantum performance 

improvement that we can lend in this particular enterprise. 

Senator ALLEN. Let me follow up on specifics. I thank you for the 

intent expressed in that answer. The NASA aeronautical research 

centers work closely with FAA and policies affecting flight safety 

or the airline system capacity which everyone on this Committee 

knows has to be done and it is a wonderment that everyone knows 

it needs to be done. But we are not going to do it now and we are 

going to wait a few years. NASA works in partnership with the Department of Defense as far as military aviation. Do you see NASA 

expanding in these particular collaborative partnerships with other 

government agencies. Have you had a chance to review those particular ones? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Yes, sir. I think we all come to capacities in whatever it is we endeavor. We simply cannot afford to maintain a 

chance for severability between the civil and national security related operations that have centered upon them. I hope to emphasize, to seek out those opportunities of greater collaboration with 

capacity and the Defense Department arena, to have resident and 

in NASA could partner. 

Senator WYDEN. The time of my colleague has expired. 

The Senator from Florida. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. O’Keefe, I enjoyed our in-depth discussion yesterday. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. As did I, Senator. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you for your time. What I would like to 

do today is to expand that discussion, and there will be some repetition, because I would like to get it as part of the record, but I 

would like to give you an opportunity for expanding and expounding your ideas. 

First of all, let us talk about the Young Report. It is my understanding from your comment yesterday that you support the Young 

Report. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. Are there any particular parts of the Young Report that you disagree with? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Again, as we discussed, I view as a good strategic 

framework that an extraordinary group of very diverse professionals that I am still stunned that Tom Young is able to get to 

concur in any single set of objectives yet did it in a way that was 

concise and I think very straightforward, that as we approach 

those strategic frameworks, there are going to be implementation 

issues, as we discussed and the very specifics of each of those implementation issues I would like to defer the opportunity to be 

more elaborative on at this stage until such time we can figure out 

what’s going to take these particular elements. I think he is right 

on the mark, focused on the problems. The Commission focused on 

the problems that are most essential. 

As a template and a blueprint, that is the first start, and between that and the President’s management, those are the two documents that will be, I hope, viewed as required reading throughout 

the organization. 

31

Senator NELSON. I too think that one of the great public servants, particularly in the aerospace field, has been Tom Young. 

There are troubling parts to me of Young, one of which we discussed yesterday, that because of NASA’s financial situation that 

you would possibly lower the number of annual launches of the 

Space Shuttle to four. That has some enormous consequences, because if we suddenly then had to robustly increase and a lot of all 

of this expertise had been laid off in the process, then in having 

to rehire, you lose a lot of that corporate memory that has been so 

valuable to NASA, why do not you comment on that? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I do not know what the exact number of flights 

should be. I think it first and foremost—and I am sure I am very 

hopeful, Senator, that you would concur on this view—that it ought 

to be driven largely by payload requirements, the science driven objectives, the technology enterprises that we seek to launch that will 

be conducted in that unique atmosphere literally or environment 

that the Space Shuttle provides and its linkage with our International Space Station. That ought to be a facing factor. I concur 

with you that in and of itself an artificial limitation based on some 

notional view of what numbers of dollars ought to be appropriate 

is not convincing either, so I do not know what that number ought 

to be. I think what the Young Commission did that was extremely 

helpful was they stayed within a parameter. 

They did not venture off and say let us assume that resources 

are unlimited, which would be the propensity of many Commissions faced with the same charge they were. Instead, they were realistic and were of the mind that suggested no, let us take the 

tougher task. What if we restricted to where we are, because I 

think everyone has an idea how to build the Endeavor, how to expand the skill of a project or program. 

I have never found anybody with difficulty trying to find difficulty how to add money to this town. That is very unique. What 

is difficult, and I think Tom Young and his membership took over, 

was the difficult challenge of trying to figure out how to maintain 

within a limited parameter and therefore what would be those 

tradeoffs, so I will have to take those as one of the consequences 

that he would assess and one of the impacts that we live with that 

underlying assumption and I am not sure that that underlying assumption is going to absolutely come to pass, so over time, we will 

determine what the right answer is going to be driven by those 

other objectives that I like to think that you and I agree to which 

are the science driven and technology driven enterprise and to the 

extent that you have the capability to achieve that, that is the 

point. That is the larger objective. 

Senator NELSON. This is just a beginning, so whenever you want 

me to stop and pass it on, I am just going to continue as you will 

permit. Let me, before we send it on to Senator Burns, say that the 

Young Commission report in and of itself is a good document. But 

when you put it into the context that NASA has been a bad boy, 

and that NASA must be punished, and so that we are going to find 

a way to redirect funds within NASA, that is when I start to get 

concerned. 

Now, no less a space giant than Chris Kraft has written a letter, 

an open letter concerning the recent report of the task force chaired 

32

by Tom Young. This is what Chris Kraft says. He says: ‘‘First it 

is difficult to perceive that such a formidable group’’—talking about 

the Young Commission—‘‘would present such a narrow view. You 

would think that many members of the task force knew the past 

history of NASA Space Station activity and given that premise had 

to realize that today’s financial status was almost preordained. 

‘‘The overruns—or more poignantly, the total cost of the ISS—resulted from a continuous change in direction of the program which 

was beyond the control of those who were required to build the 

Space Station.’’ He continues, ‘‘if you take into account the sordid 

history of the Space Station, you will find that the people in NASA 

who were saddled with making a program work which was almost 

unmanageable in the first place, have done a miraculous job to 

bring the program to the point it is at today for the money that 

they had to do it with. 

‘‘As usual, the working level people get blamed for the horrible 

mess created by the people who did not have to do the job.’’ And 

he concludes, ‘‘the Space Station has been through at least five different phases since its inception. Each phase caused increases in 

schedule, cost, and complexity.’’

To then take that sordid history of which has produced some remarkable technology that has been a symbol with remarkable 

adaptability to make it work, and it is. It is an incredible structure 

up there that is working. We have got to make it better. I do not 

want us to focus just on what went wrong. I want us to get that 

corrected, but I do not want to use that as an excuse to punish 

NASA, to penalize the people, to knock the Space Shuttle program 

down to almost nothing, and then not have a talented capable 

workforce that when we need to surge in the future, and thereby 

a time to surge in the future, then all of that base is gone. 

Senator WYDEN. The time of my colleague on this round has expired. I know my colleague has strong views on these matters. We 

are going to have a number of rounds of questioning. We want to 

make sure all our colleagues get a chance to respond. 

Mr. O’Keefe, why do not you respond to the Senator from Florida 

and we will recognize Mr. Burns. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Thank you. Senator, since January 20th, the President has directed us to view all matters as looking forward. Do not 

look past. Look behind us. What was the origin. And as a consequence, he was very correct about this. 

This is no exception. Nothing since that time has been punitive 

or intended to punish anything. My intent is not to begin—if I am 

fortunate enough to be confirmed and have the opportunity to take 

on this leadership challenge—my intent will not be to try to unearth what led to the circumstance or where we are today. It is 

where we are. As a consequence, one of the points in responding 

to Senator Allen is get back to basics. 

Let us start there and move ahead on how we are going to define 

the requirements for the overall objectives and mission of NASA, 

how do we use this extraordinary capability that you and I concur 

is a technological marvel. It rivals the most elaborate, most difficult, most complex systems integration endeavor I ever saw in my 

experience in the defense establishment or any other corporate acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 19, 2004 Jkt 082425 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87606.TXT JIMC
33

tivity that I was involved in thereafter. This is really quite amazing. 

So as a consequence, I am going to build on what’s there. 

Put the baseline in place so that we can expand and utilize that 

capability to its greatest extent possible driven by the technologydriven enterprise and the science objectives that should be the 

principal mission of this extraordinary research institution that is 

NASA, and proceed from there. Do not look behind. Let us move 

forward and figure out how we can press on that. I think on that 

point we are in agreement. 

Senator WYDEN. The Senator from Montana. 

Senator BURNS. My staff informs me I have said since 1952—

1992. Or 1972, it should be. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. One of the three I am sure, Senator. 

Senator BURNS. Actually, at this point it is multiple choice. You 

all are better at figures than I am. 

Senator WYDEN. I am not going to get into this. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I am not really much of a numbers guy. 

Senator BURNS. I am going to leave that to you. Us auctioneers, 

we can count money. And rather rapidly. Mr. O’Keefe, there are 

two areas of which I am specifically interested, probably three 

areas. The outreach on EPSCOR. It has been a launchpad for many 

smaller universities and colleges in their research and R&D work 

that has allowed them to participate in the national agenda of 

NASA, and some good things have come from that by the way that 

they weren’t all found at MITs and this type thing. 

Also, the commercialization. I think it is one of those ongoing 

things that we have to strive for a little imagination for the entrepreneurial community and how they can participate in this and derive benefits from it that benefit us all, and then I think when we 

look at the infrastructure and our mission ahead and into the vision of things and dealing with dollars to complete those missions, 

I think we shouldn’t shortchange the work that has been done and 

the work yet to do on unmanned reusables. 

We are talking about the Shuttle and the orbiter that we have 

now that is getting along in years, no doubt about it. Going to have 

to be some thought for the future there, but some of these trips 

could be made by unmanned reusables at a cost savings. And I 

think we should continue to explore the challenges that we have 

in developing a single launch, a vehicle, in other words. It is just 

a vehicle that can get into orbit and deliver the goods and then 

come back to earth without a pilot, to move some of the material 

that we are going to have to move in space. 

I was interested in your comments of R&D as far as it is to the 

aeronautics industry. If there is one thing that we have in this government right now that we have 2 or 3 agencies that are doing the 

same thing. Redundancy does not serve us well, and when we start 

talking about a limited amount of funds that we have to use. 

Some of the work that is being done at NASA is also being done 

in the FAA, and other areas, and I think it is time to take a look 

on how we can bring those programs together and maybe streamline that and not have the redundancy that seems like it occurs. 

I am always struck by the work that goes on at NIH, and I am also 

struck by the amount of money that we spend in the Veterans AdVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 19, 2004 Jkt 082425 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87606.TXT JIMC
34

ministration to do some of the things that NIH does, and I do not 

know why everybody has to have their own turf or whatever in 

R&D. 

So those are the areas where I will generally be interested and 

we will visit about that. I do not have any specific questions this 

morning. I am really impressed with this appointment. Not to diminish the job that the previous director did, because I think he 

has done a lot of things in unseen places that was of little notice, 

but had high impact as far as the support of what we do in space. 

We know that it is going to be a long time before everything that 

we do and all the benefits is realized by the society that pays the 

bills, but nonetheless, I think right now, NASA doesn’t owe this society a lot right now. I think we have profited in many, many ways 

that are untold and they are not the sexy above-the-fold type 

issues. 

So those are the areas that I continue to be very much interested 

in, and I think the reusables is just one of those areas where we 

have to take a very serious look at that and how we maneuver and 

how we will move materiel in space to complete the infrastructure 

for the mission that is ahead. 

I thank the Chairman for this hearing. I will support you wholeheartedly and I am sure we will have discussions and conversations in the future, and a very pleasant holiday to you and your 

family. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your comments. 

If I could just comment very briefly on a couple of points. 

As we discussed, education is one of the areas that you and Dan 

Goldin I think did an extraordinary job emphasizing what kind of 

capacity and capability could be brought to bear in the education 

field at NASA and had resident right in the organization. I would 

view that as one of the primary areas we need to look at harder, 

how we could effortlessly make that available to members of institutions. I have three members of my home board sitting behind me. 

My strongest critics are my three kids looking at the website saying why is not it more interesting than this. The second one, I 

agree it is an objective you can reach back to the founding of the 

organization and say that is one of the real points that led to its 

development as early as the vision that was created. 

Having said that, what we need to do is develop a means within 

the capacity within NASA I think to become as agile as the industry is today. If you do not have a semiconductor chip that is ready 

for introduction at the same time you were introducing or beginning the development of another one, in 18 months, the company 

will be out of business. That is the cycle we are on right now. Electronics, it is no more than a half-life of 18 to 24 months. In the 

oil and gas business, exploration is a tenth of what it used to be 

15 years ago. 

These are the kinds of trends we see in technology that we are 

not of exactly the same agility, we are not adding to that potential 

commercialization. If anything, we may be drawing it behind, and 

so as a consequence, that is a real objective to keep up with. 

How do you stay in that cutting edge? How do you take the risk 

of those opportunities that will in turn produce those spinoff commercial activities? And the last point that you made I agree with 

35

you entirely of looking at things like unmanned vehicles, is an opportunity to really collaborate extensively with the Defense Department in ways that could be very constructive for civil aviation, as 

well as military use. 

I think you have hit on three critical points and ones that wholeheartedly agree with. 

Senator BURNS. There have been three inventions that have completely changed our lives, and it changed the way we think and the 

way we do business. And those three inventions were the silicon 

chip, before that, think what the invention of the transistor has 

done. It has been absolutely revolutionary as far as electronics are 

concerned, and of course, the jet engine. They all changed our lives, 

the way we look at things. 

I got a big kick of sitting next to a guy on an airplane and we 

were 5 minutes late getting into Minneapolis and the only thing he 

could do is complain about being late and here we are whipping 

through the air at 550 miles an hour and he is worried about 5 

minutes. My gosh. Unbelievable. 

But those things have revolutionized the way we think and how 

we do things. And it is very important, so again, thank you very 

much and thank you for this hearing. 

Senator WYDEN. The gentleman’s 5 minutes has expired. 

I recognize the Senator from Texas. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for 

having to leave, but I wanted to return, because I wanted to ask 

you to address the issue of the 3-member crew as a long-term permanent goal, or is your long-term permanent goal to increase the 

number in the crew so that we can do the research and how you 

plan to make the changes that would allow that to happen if it is 

your goal. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. As it pertains to, again this International Space 

Station core complete objective now is to achieve that 3-person astronaut capacity. Over time, I think with the Young Report, what 

it laid out was a path that suggests as a strategic objective to get 

that right, get the fundamentals correct, make sure that we understand what that is going to take in order to do that properly day 

in-and day-out, and then in turn, look at what the expansion opportunities may be, and at the end, that will dictate what the number 

will be, whether 6, 7, 5, whatever the number is that is going to 

be driven by what the science agenda, the science priorities as well 

as the technology driven enterprise will demonstrate as being the 

necessity for that case then we will have to sort through it. 

As soon as we get the basics of what we have right now in place 

and being able to cover it responsibly in terms of all resources, people, assets, as well as dollars, that is going to be the first objective 

and then let us look at the expansion opportunities. We are going 

to do that. The strategic objectives or at least the larger glide path 

of the Young Commission laid out was something that really requires that we make that assessment within the next 12 to 24 

months. 

It is going to be an ambitious agenda. I hope to come back to you 

to say yes, that expansion is feasible, because we have gotten that 

house in order and there is the following opportunities that would 

support that goal. 

36

Senator HUTCHISON. Is it your goal to have something beyond 

core complete for the long-term future? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I think to maintain what we have right now is an 

absolute bare minimum and calls to question what the point is. So 

as a consequence, it would be my fondest hope that we would expand beyond that, but only after such time as we demonstrate that 

we can do what we have in place right now. 

And I am not satisfied that is the case yet based on the data and 

the information we have all received from that Commission and 

also the forecast in estimating the costs we do not know. We just 

do not know. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I am reminded of an old series called ‘‘Yes, 

Minister,’’ that was on BBC, and one of the series was about a 

wonderful new hospital and the Prime Minister visited the hospital 

and he was shown around and this new hospital had all of the 

state-of-the-art equipment and it was a fabulous hospital. And the 

Prime Minister said, ‘‘this is wonderful. But where are the patients?’’ And the answer was, ‘‘Patients? Well, we do not have patients. That would just mess everything up.’’

Now, when I am talking to you about NASA, and all the money 

in the Shuttle program and 3-member crew at the station, 21⁄2 of 

whom are necessary to do the running of the station, I am left with 

the feeling that we are going to have an operation that is there to 

service the operation. And that we could lose sight of the purpose 

of all of this, which is science and the research. 

So tell me that you are committed to making sure that we do not 

get into a situation where patients are just an extraneous luxury. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Yes, Senator. 

Absolutely. You are absolutely right. It is a case, what worries 

me more than anything else. I think just looking at the numbers 

and the way this has all rolled out in the past year, is if we are 

not careful, the capability costs, the infrastructure costs of the institution that is NASA will become the primary purpose. And that 

will be a tragedy. 

That doesn’t fulfill what I think the President and Vice President’s objectives are which is to really have a leading edge research, technology-driven enterprise that will take the risks necessary to carry out these extraordinary capabilities. 

So my view is that that is unacceptable condition if what we 

have at the end of the day is nothing more than the capability to 

demonstrate that we continue to have the capability. It becomes operations to support themselves as a self-sustaining purpose. That 

is not the point. 

If anything, looking at the overall, and this is just kind of a 

rough order of magnitude, I would say roughly two-thirds of everything, every dollar that is dedicated to NASA now is designed to 

support infrastructure and capability. 

The other third at most goes toward the science-driven objectives, the technology-driven objectives. As a percentage, that 

doesn’t overwhelm me. It is not wildly off the mark, because in the 

electronics business, in the aerospace business, those direct, indirect ratios are not terribly off. 

It costs the aerospace industry about half of their expense to actually maintain capacity and capability to conduct business, and 

37

the balance of it is the cost of actual production of assets and 

things that are for sale. 

In this context, it is a little more than that, but uncomfortably 

so, because I can’t look at those numbers and say that is an exacting percentage of it, but it is at least that two-thirds, at least, and 

that is something that grows beyond that. We have got real problems. In my mind, I want to be able to come back to you and say 

no, indeed, we are not going to be in a situation in which the infrastructure ends up consuming everything that is the resource. 

Senator HUTCHISON. If I could just say, I think you have gotten 

the message from everyone that I have heard speak this morning 

that we are looking to you to be the person who has the capability 

to implement a program that assures that the science and technology and experimentation is preserved and enhanced for NASA. 

I will look forward to working with you. I know all of us are going 

to be vitally interested in this, because we believe that NASA is a 

premiere success story for America, and it is the place where our 

new scientists have a capability to create. It is a huge task and if 

you are successful, you will be my hero. And if not, I will be all 

over you. 

Senator WYDEN. You knew this job wouldn’t be for the fainthearted. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Aspiration at least for the former. 

Senator WYDEN. We are going to have a number of additional 

rounds, because of the interest of my colleagues. 

The Senator from Florida asked if he could ask a question then 

we will go back to the regular order. 

Senator NELSON. As a follow-up to the Senator from Texas, and 

again my hat is off to you for offering yourself to public service in 

this capacity, because it is a very tough assignment. And the fact 

that you have a personal relationship with the Vice President is 

considerably to your advantage, as well as to the advantage of 

NASA. So that you would have a direct pipeline to the White 

House. That is a strength that I think is substantial. 

But I want to follow up Senator Hutchison’s question, because 

the answer that you gave did not sound like the answer that you 

gave on November 7th to the House Science Committee, in which 

you said that you did not favor a 10 to 15 percent increase in ISS 

funding to enable a 7 person crew until the cost considered as read 

credibility is regained. Yet you agree that you want an increased 

level of scientific productivity that could be accomplished later in 

the decade. I do not see how if you keep a 3 person crew today, 

and that will stay with us at least through 2006, how that is not 

going to severely limit—as Senator Hutchison has suggested, for 

the immediate future—that is another 4 years, the scientific activity on the station. Then once you regain the cost credibility that 

you are looking for, then it is going to take another 4-5 years to 

develop a 7-person crew return vehicle, and so the concern that I 

have as a follow-up is doesn’t that push us off until about 2010 in 

order to get any significant science up there on the Space Station? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Senator, I do not have the transcript before me of 

what was said on November 7th, but my recollection of the debate 

and discussion of Mr. Boehlert’s Committee that day was that I do 

not, the fundamental premise, fundamental matter I think immeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 19, 2004 Jkt 082425 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87606.TXT JIMC
38

diately before or immediately after that commentary was I do not 

have any reliability or confidence that 10 or 15 percent is it either. 

I do not know what that number is. Not a clue. The mere factor 

over the course of the last 12 to 14 months that the estimates for 

the program, and again, I think many Members have said this very 

aptly, this is a high-tech program for which anyone who thinks or 

pretends that there is a precision in cost estimating for something 

of this complex nature is kidding themselves to begin with. This 

mirrors just the very most high end systems integration program 

that I have ever seen. You are absolutely right. There is just no 

question. That is a fiction. But to be off by an order of magnitude 

of 20 to 25 percent over the last year after maintaining a consistent 

position over the course of the last 5 years that was attested to, 

this is going to be the cost for the program attempted to speak 

some level of certainty that was never present. Therefore, I do not 

know that number 10, working assumption of the question that you 

extracted is that you would have certainty to achieve an expanded 

capability for International Space Station with a 10 to 15 percent 

increase. I do not know that working assumption to be true. 

Senator NELSON. What about the crew? 

Senator WYDEN. I think we want to have multiple rounds of 

questions and have a chance to pursue this with each Senator getting 5 minutes. If you want to ask one additional question at this 

point, then we will go back to the regular order. 

Senator NELSON. I will do it however you want, but I do not 

want to break a train of thought, Mr. Chairman. So my question 

was what do you think about the 3-man crew and how can you do 

the science and when do you want to change that 3-man crew? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I want to remain consistent with the commentary, 

because I positively do not want to suggest there is a different 

thought in looking at this a month ago to now. 

Again, it is the same proposition which is let us get the house 

in order, the basics in order, let us get the fundamental baseline 

for International Space Station and we will submit that is an unknown. I concur entirely with Senator Hutchison’s view, and the 

view you and I expressed separately when we were meeting yesterday. In and of itself to maintain capacity as core complete as we 

just discussed, you and I discussed yesterday that in and of itself 

to maintain just the operational capacity demonstrates that you 

have the operational capacity is not the objective. It is not what we 

had in mind when we started this program, and not what I think 

our understandings are with international partners involved. 

As a consequence, my fondest hope would be we could establish 

the fundamentals here, get this rebaseline, get the basics down and 

then start talking ambitiously about what the larger capabilities 

are going to have to be in order to make this the useful objectives 

we had when we started down this road years ago. 

Senator WYDEN. Let me tell my colleagues again, there will be 

plenty of rounds of questions. 

Mr. O’Keefe, I want to note for the record, I think Senator 

Hutchison wasn’t here, you basically said in 6 months, you are 

going to be in a position to have your arms around some of the 

tough financial issue. We do not have the 10-year kind of period. 

Mr. Goldin was there a long time, and this is going to be important 

39

that you get your arms around these financial issues to be able to 

respond to the questions that my colleagues are asking and that is 

why I asked it at the outset and I appreciate your candor. 

Let me ask you a question that has been central to this debate 

about how you strike a balance between pruning the fat and waste 

and at the same time, having scientific breakthroughs. If you look 

at the histories of the agency, it is often asserted when somebody 

comes in and goes after the financial and managerial mismanagement, it is asserted that you are threatening safety. That this is 

going to put at risk lives and that people will be hurt. Nobody 

wants that. That is why I said in my opening statement that I do 

not happen to believe that ensuring safety and shortening the 

timelines and having the breakthrough research that the country 

wants, I don’t believe those things are mutually exclusive. I would 

be interested in your reaction to that comment that I have made, 

and how you would go about putting a focus at the agency on ensuring the research and maintaining safety. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that very thoughtful 

question. I concur entirely with your assessment that they are not 

mutually exclusive objectives indeed. They can become very compatible. My bias, we are all a victim of whatever our institutional 

upbringing or backgrounds are. 

Mine is in having been raised by a nuclear engineer, I have been 

hearing about these issues since sitting around the dinner table to 

the point I have been wrestling with these questions as Secretary 

of the Navy with nuclear Navy concerns, that is a record of 

achievement that is flawless. In the course of 50 years, a remarkable capacity to not only maintain perfect safety standards, but 

also to stretch the technology from the earliest Nautilus days in 

which a reactor half-life was 18 months to the point now where 

every single reactor that goes to sea on a brand new ship is the 

size of a trash can and never needs to be refueled. That is a remarkable technological achievement in the power generation business. Absolutely stunning. 

As a result, in the same time, it maintained zealots, absolute 

complete zealots over the proposition of maintaining a perfect safety record and had done so. This can be a mutually compatible reinforcing set of objectives and it is one I think we could take some 

lessons not only from the experiences NASA has learned so painfully since 1986, but also to develop that cooperative kind of 

partnering arrangement, Defense Department in this deal as well. 

That is a bias I hoped you would bring to it. 

Senator WYDEN. For this round I am going to ask one question 

about the Space Station, core complete design eliminates habitation 

model and crew rescue vehicle making our astronauts dependent 

on Russian partners for critical needs. How can NASA effectively 

manage its work on the Space Station given dependence on international partners? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Again, I think in the dialog with Senator 

Hutchison we have to move from just simply capacity or to demonstrate our operational capacity or to continue the operational capacity. Where we are at this point and I think our international allies expect, that there will be some understanding of what the 

original capability is going to be. 

40

We need to assure them, though, that we need to continue this 

program in a way that is responsible from a safety standpoint, 

from management standpoint, from fiscal standpoint and indeed we 

can establish the larger operational capacity and capabilities that 

were envisioned when these programs came down the road. 

Until then, the international alliance partnership will be looking 

for answers to those. I expect we have to provide them those solutions. In the meantime, my understanding from Dan Goldin is the 

relationships have never been better in terms of understanding 

precisely what the risks are. 

Senator WYDEN. You believe we will comply with our international agreements? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. My intention will be to work very closely with Secretary Powell, and to work with them to assure that we very carefully respond to those international alliance agreements and that 

we work together mutually between NASA and the State Department to assure we reach the complete alliance that we have had 

all along. 

Senator WYDEN. When you are confirmed, and I am going to assure there is a rapid confirmation, when will you go to NASA and 

assume your administrative duties? I will tell you why. 

There is a great deal of speculation that when you are confirmed, 

you go through another budget round, people concerned about cuts 

will say ‘‘he is going to slash us then go on down.’’ When you are 

confirmed, will you head over there immediately? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Again, I can’t foresee what the action of the Senate 

will be. My commitment to the President is at the earliest opportunity to assume whatever responsibilities he appoints me to upon 

the advise and consent of the Senate, so my hope would be as soon 

or as close to the beginning of the next year, the new year that I 

can be there within a month, but that entirely turns on the willingness of the U.S. Senate and your colleagues to consider the matter 

expeditiously and I will refer you jointly on that matter. 

Senator WYDEN. I asked it that way for a reason. I am very impressed with your credentials. When you assume your duties, that 

in a sense may send a message. 

Senator Allen. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. O’Keefe, NASA is currently working on a number of technologies, and some of the things we are talking about are important. You were talking about the commercial application of some of 

these technologies and this research and development. And some of 

these technologies certainly could help improve either the safety or 

the efficiency of aviation, including, for example, an economically 

viable and environmentally friendly supersonic airliner which 

would be used in transoceanic flights. 

They are working on advanced flight cockpits with synthetic vision which would enable pilots to fly in fog conditions or for safety 

in the darkness. They have improvements in air traffic management systems. All of these things are being developed, being researched. How would you see us working with you and those who 

have been formulating and actually getting these ideas into place 

that could actually have some commercial application? It is wonderful to have all these ideas and have these wonderful aircraft or 

41

these cockpits or these better systems for safety or efficiency. How 

would you envision us, let us say a Senator in the house, working 

with you so that we can benefit from them? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Again, my sense of the challenges of technology 

transfer which is really what this is about, because in the end of 

the day, if there is any opportunity for commercial enterprise, to 

develop any asset, any capability, anything that they think can be 

sold for profit, then we certainly should do everything we possibly 

can to encourage the industry to do that, and not just simply to 

perform it. 

In this context, it is a technology transfer policy that I think 

ought to dominate by the notion we talked about a little bit earlier, 

which is that the sooner we adopt the same view in the public sector, and within research institutions, again, an asset elsewhere, defense, research, projects, as an absolute core that we are at least 

going to parallel, if not exceed, the technology advances that have 

characterized the aerospace and electronics industry in recent decades, last 10 years. Until that time where we consider that as an 

absolute, we are not going to have much to transfer, or to the extent we had a transfer, we looked at it saying it is mighty fine previous generation assets or capabilities. I think that is essentially 

one of the problems that your point raised is we have had such a 

recent technology regime or framework as a policy that typically 

what’s occurred is about time we are prepared to release it, the industry has moved past it and it no longer has the ability to have 

drawn that much from it. 

The philosophy where we can work together most in the area of 

technology transfer is try to break down those barriers that would 

otherwise be in place that would impede the transfer of technology 

at the earliest possible opportunity to the extent it is cutting edge 

and desirable on the part of the aerospace electronics industry. 

Senator ALLEN. These ones that I specifically mentioned are far 

ahead of where they are at this moment and we are going to have 

to find ways for them to upgrade. Obviously some of those decisions 

by the commercial sector will be determined by their own bottom 

lines and what they can do to upgrade their own systems and how 

it makes a difference in their bottom line as far as more passengers 

or greater safety for their planes. 

I just wanted to conclude, Mr. O’Keefe by saying I have enjoyed 

listening to you and hearing your ideas. I think the best thing that 

I have learned from this hearing which you cannot read from answering questionnaires or reading articles, is that you have a sense 

of humor. I always think it is important for people to have common 

sense and that they keep their promises, but it is also important 

in addition to having thick skin and a sense of humor. You are 

going to be needing that sense of humor. I hope, Mr. Chairman, we 

act on this nomination as soon as possible. This is an agency that 

has been led by Mr. Goldin for many years. I think an agency like 

this needs leadership. Lapses in leadership do not help. 

All that does is create uncertainty amongst this dedicated group 

we have across the country. I look forward to working with you in 

the years to come. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. The Senator from Florida. 

42

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly yield to 

the Senator from Texas. Please. You go ahead. 

Senator WYDEN. The gentleman is completing his second round, 

then we will go to you. 

Senator NELSON. If you are in a time constraint, please feel free. 

Senator HUTCHISON. If I could, I appreciate that so much. 

Senator NELSON. Absolutely. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I wanted to follow up on a couple of questions that the Chairman asked. First, on the Russian vehicle as a 

lifeboat. The Chairman pointed out that that is our lifeboat and we 

are relying on the Russian Soyuz today. 

NASA has had plans for its own rescue vehicle which would require us going beyond core complete, and I want to ask you how 

important a priority it is for you to determine how safe it is and, 

to rely on the Russian Soyuz and to determine if we need to move 

forward on our own crew rescue vehicle as a top priority? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I appreciate that, Senator. I think that is going to 

be among the first order of magnitude questions that really have 

to be wrestled to the ground. Once again, International Space Station program fundamentals are restored or re-baselined. I think 

that is a real tough one. I do not know the answer to that question. 

I am not sure exactly. 

Senator HUTCHISON. But it will be a priority for you to get right 

to it, because if you determined that it needs to be a priority moved 

up, then you can put that in your budget submissions and, because 

it is important to me to know that you have looked at that and 

made the determination here to go forward with our own crew rescue vehicle or that Soyuz is safe for the time being. 

I just wanted to follow up again on the Chairman’s point and 

then I will let Senator Nelson go forward, because I appreciate his 

deference. I wanted to clarify your answer to the Chairman on 

when you would take control of NASA once the Senate has confirmed you. Did you say that it would be no longer than 1 month 

after confirmation that you would expect to be at the helm of 

NASA? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. No. It would be my fondest hope that I would be 

there as soon after the new year as conceivably possible. The board 

of directors sitting behind me, I have an expectation of leaving 

town between Christmas and New Year’s and anticipating the Senate action. 

Senator HUTCHISON. If the Senate acted before we leave next 

week and you have a well-deserved family vacation, then would it 

be your intention to immediately go to NASA and take control? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Yes, Senator. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. I want to follow up Senator Hutchison’s questions about the lifeboat of the Soyuz, and there is some talk that 

in doing the delays on an American lifeboat that you might employ 

the Soyuz. What’s your thinking on that? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I don’t know, sir. It again, has to be among the top 

things we have to consider in the applications after we get back to 

basics and the fundamentals of the International Space Station already established. 

43

Senator NELSON. What about this report in the Orlando Sentinel

that they are threatening to pull out, because of the propensity to 

scale back the lab. They are obviously being put in a very difficult 

situation, so what is your thinking at this point about how we go 

about assuring our international partners that they will have the 

full utilization and at the same time to handle all in your management of cost? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. My first order of business on this very question is 

to consult with Secretary Powell, and my good friend, Deputy Secretary Armitage and to determine what our appropriate alliance response to be to them in working through this. But beyond that, just 

running aground this latest development, which I am not familiar 

with the details of, other than having read the press reports or 

heard them as well, and find out what the nuance of them are all 

about. I would not want to do this in isolation from the very sound 

judgment that I am certain my friend Secretary Powell and the 

Deputy Secretary use. 

Senator NELSON. This report is the latest reflection of considerable agitation among our international partners, of which there has 

been circulated in the NASA community a letter from the Canadian government, which is at least a month old, stating that the 

United States has breached its agreement. How do you, other than 

conferring with Secretary Powell and Secretary Armitage, how do 

you go about solving a problem if you have not got room for them 

to get up there on the station unless, in fact, you move to develop 

the technology to allow to you have more than 3 on a station? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Thank you for that very thoughtful question, Senator. Beyond the opportunity to consult with those seasoned diplomats which you have just now dismissed as an opportunity I have 

got to start with, but I do intend to agree with that. I have got to 

be careful how we work our way through this. Because my understanding of the international agreement says that we sought to establish a set of objectives to be achieved by the year, I believe, 

2006. 

Now, if that is the essence of it, and that is a challenge, and I 

think we need to take it on, that over the next 5 years to achieve 

those results that we signed up to as I understand it, and that is 

a limited understanding of those complex international agreements, 

I have really got to be guided by diplomatic counsel from those two 

folks I trust a lot in these matters, and I think they understand 

those in a way that I do not. I do not want to give you a misleading 

response to that. I have given you the barest fundamentals of my 

appreciate and would not want to be construed as committing beyond anything I am just not aware of at this point. Thank you for 

the question, Senator. 

Senator NELSON. Since our role constitutionally is to advise before we consent, may I respectfully advise you that the two gentlemen that you mention happen to be two of the finest appointments 

in the Administration. I have had the capacity as a member of the 

Foreign Relations Committee to get to know them. I have enormous respect for them, but they are not going to answer your question. 

The question is going to have to be answered as a management 

decision by NASA. Of whether or not you are going to move to a 

44

position of whether you can have more than 3 and set a goal of 

when it is going to be and then work it out with your international 

partners. That is going to be the solution to the international partners’ agitation. And that is why I asked you the question about 

whether or not as an interim solution do you buy a second Soyuz 

and try to fix it some way up there where it is docked if you cannot 

spend the money to do the 7-man lifeboat. So those are hard 

choices you are going to have to make. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague. A few additional areas 

that I want to focus on. One that I think we just need to be a bit 

clearer on is the research agenda and how it is going to be determined. What are the processes, the structure that you are going to 

follow for making decisions about the research agenda, for example, 

who are you going to seek input from with respect to research. We 

have touched on it throughout the morning, but I would like to 

come back to that and have you set out clearly how you are going 

to pursue this. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. In the very near term, the two primary sources, I 

think, of advice or what that research initiative should look like or 

what its priorities should be proposed of will first and foremost 

come from a review that is ongoing and is about to be completed 

here in the early part of the next calendar year. That is going to 

summarize, I think, the objectives and understandings of the 10 

centers of excellence that have focused their research priorities in 

ways that are being accomplished today, as well as future aspiration. 

Second one again is, I really want to take advantage—to be blunt 

about it—the opportunity to avail ourselves to the public of the expertise of the Nobel laureates that Tom Young amazingly managed 

to attract to his Commission. And they have been willing and volunteered to make themselves available to opine and offer thoughts 

about what the priorities and the feasibility, as well as the practical capacity of the research agenda and what those priorities are 

going to look like to us in that context. I am hopeful to take both 

of those institutional and more formal arrangement as well as a 

more informal one. 

I am confident there are going to be more foreign intrigues that 

will be offered as well. Those are the two I can think of, though. 

Senator WYDEN. Human space flight is certainly the most visible 

of the programs. Obviously, there are other programs in science 

and technology and aeronautics. How would you go about striking 

the balance between human space flight and the other responsibilities at NASA? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I think the difficulty that I see right now is that 

decision may be preordained if we are not careful in the management of the current programs, because as the continued efforts on 

International Space Station and the increases unfold, to the extent 

that there is not a commensurate resource adjustment either by 

adding resources which are scarce, or within the capabilities of the 

overall scientific agenda that the national agenda pursues, we can 

end up with a preordained conclusion of what that is and that 

won’t be all that valuable to what would occur if the increases per 

system as we regard continues to consume a larger and larger perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 19, 2004 Jkt 082425 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87606.TXT JIMC
45

centage than what’s involved. So we will end up with a mathematical result that is not guided by any management choice, but 

more by consequence. That is the area I fear most. 

On my fondest hope, Mr. Chairman, is the opportunity to come 

back to you at some stage in the very near future and be able to 

say yes, we think we have got some fix on what the overall resource demands are of all dimensions of the NASA portfolio, and 

now let us talk about what that priority distribution ought to be. 

Until then I kind of feel like we are getting driven or riding the 

crest of this wave that we have no control over at this point. 

Senator WYDEN. I am not completely clear, either where you believe human biological science fits as part of the Space Station 

project either. Could you set out clearly where you stand on that? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Again it is a hunch. It is not informed judgment 

or decision. Let me just offer again personal bias of what I think 

is capability here. The limited amount that I know and have read 

and understand to be some of the remarkable discoveries as a consequence of conduct of experiments of a medical nature and health 

focus, on Space Station and in that atmosphere, that unique environment that we could not feasibly do under any other circumstances were it not for the capacity we have, have been remarkable, astounding to those who are informed within that scientific community. And that is enough to impress the likes of people like me to say yes, indeed, that has to be then viewed as a focus 

or priority that if we can achieve those kinds of outcomes that can 

advance and provide the leap ahead breakthroughs in that field, 

that that is something you want to advance on, and it meets the 

criteria I talked about in the opening statement. You refer to it in 

your covenants, I think there has been a general consensus on that 

says that is where we are going to be focusing our attention as this 

leap ahead rather than linear incremental kind of advances that 

are in the corporate process. 

Senator WYDEN. Let me ask you about one other area. I want to 

recognize my colleague. As you can see, he and I have a number 

of areas we want to explore, and I pledged that we wouldn’t bring 

in the corn flakes for breakfast. We have a few more areas we want 

to look at. 

One additional that is been important to me is understanding 

how the Bush Administration is going to approach overall space 

policy from the military, civil and commercial side of this discussion. The Administration has stated how important it views a 

space-based national missile defense, for example. President Eisenhower’s desire to separate military and civilian space activities led 

to the creation of the agency, but the Defense Department retaining control over military space programs. 

Tell us, if you would, what is the Administration’s overall space 

policy for military, civil, and commercial space and who in the Administration is going to go about coordinating these various areas? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. First of all, this is not going to be a news flash. 

I am not going to create new Administration policy. What I can tell 

you, though, and what I am committed to as a personal bias is a 

much closer collaboration of partnership with the Defense Department on the larger national security agendas in places in which we 

can utilize infrastructure that neither department would have to 

46

duplicate. I don’t see that as terribly efficient to have redundant 

capacity for this really unique set of capabilities, and there are 

ways I think we can capitalize on those advantages without breaching the spirit of the divisions that were fought in the Eisenhower 

era. 

As far as how we are going to refine this, I have had the opportunity to talk with a good friend on the National Security Council 

staff where we lamented that, prior to September 11, we were 

heading toward a series of definitions of what the Administration 

space policy in this regard would be, commerce and military applications, it was completely short circuited as a consequence of 9/11 

and held in abeyance. I have tremendous enthusiasm and great familiarity with the NSC staff, as well as principles involved in that 

to regenerate that, reinvigorate that debate, bring it to the floor, 

put it on the front burner as soon as we can as soon as we start 

working the day-in and day-out challenges. 

Senator WYDEN. You said it is going to be a closer relationship. 

What do you think are the proper relationships between aerospace 

and defense? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. In development it is essential in terms of working 

out requirements for capability and need that lift capacity. I think 

you and I talked a little bit privately the other day about the history that I think I find really unsettling, of conflict between the Air 

Force and NASA that existed on the order of about 15 years ago, 

at the time the Shuttle was developing in a large way and viewed 

at that time as being a potentially commercially cost-efficient effort 

that would also be confounded and cost competitive with heavy lift 

as well as expendable launch vehicle capacity the Air Force maintained. It created an enormous rift between those two institutions 

as a consequence of modest design changes in order to avoid accommodating the other institution. 

I found that to be really objectionable and something we ended 

up as taxpayers, I think, paying a lot more for redundant capacity 

that had there been a closer cooperation would not have been as 

attractable as it was. That is an area where we can avoid problems 

and do those things together, especially with the strategic launch 

initiative at NASA as well as comparable efforts at Defense in its 

formative phases right now. 

Senator WYDEN. Do you foresee the Administration, Mr. O’Keefe, 

formally issuing a new space policy, and if the answer is yes, I 

would be interested, for example, on how that would differ from the 

Clinton Administration? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Again, I do not want to preordain that answer, because as I mentioned just very recently talking to very good longtime friend of mine from the National Security Council staff, as we 

mutually lamented the fact that prior to 9/11 we were heading toward resolution or at least debate of what would be the composition of such a policy. I think there is enthusiasm for putting that 

back on the front burner at the earliest opportunity, likely behind 

certain early summer or spring would be the period which the 

NSC, particularly through the deputy’s committee which I have 

been privileged to be a part of for the past year or so to vet through 

these issues to determine what the essence of the space policy is. 

I do not want to forecast what that outcome would be, because I 

47

frankly do not know how that is going to change in the aftermath 

of the events. 

Senator WYDEN. I will have a few additional questions. 

The Senator from Florida, you have been very patient. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, please continue on. It is just the 

two of us. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Senator Nelson, I am still here. 

Senator NELSON. Please interrupt any time, and I welcome you 

to interrupt any time. Earlier, you said that you would consider as 

a result of the Young Report, the reduction of 4 flights a year. This 

is a considerable concern, because it was at this very table that in 

September we had a hearing on Space Shuttle safety and unanimously all of the participants in the hearing, which included both 

inside and outside NASA, said if you are going to fly the Space 

Shuttle, we are going to fly it safely and that was the No. 1 priority. 

What I’d like to know is before you would make such a decision, 

will you come and report specifically to Congress and seek our advice? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Positively, Senator. Any opportunity to consult and 

discuss with you, your colleagues those that are interested in this 

program is always to the advantage of the program, the Administration, to you, and to me. I pledge to do that. That will be an objective on the regular basis to the point you will tolerate those inquiries. 

Senator NELSON. And in making such a decision, will external 

independent groups or NASA conduct an analysis on the impact? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I think it certainly would be a likely condition. I 

do not know what barriers there would be to doing that, because 

every time I turn around, I am constantly astounded by the problems that it takes in bringing in external point of view in a variety 

of decisions like this, because what really is distinctive and I think 

you’ll appreciate this about the Young Commission is they are looking in a larger strategic framework. Once you start getting into 

business case issues and the requirements for dealing with a business plan on how you would conduct something, the Competition 

Contracting Act, all kinds of neat things suddenly come into play, 

so I would not want to give you or mislead you unknowingly to 

what I think are real rigid administrative barriers for the use of 

external capabilities when you then start getting down to real implementation decisions that have contract implications. So that 

would be my intent, but be guided by what the legal limitations 

would be that typically guide such questions. 

Senator NELSON. I just want to express as part of our constitutional role of advising, if you look at this decision and the Young 

Report through the prism of a mindset of OMB, there is going to 

be considerable risk to the space program, because such a decision, 

for example, on reducing to four flights per year means that there 

would be a considerable layoff of the workforce, particularly at the 

Cape, at the Kennedy Space Center, the finest launch team in the 

world. There was a period within 12 months that they launched 8 

Shuttles. That is nothing short of miraculous and heroic. And such 

a financial decision to reduce the launches to 4 would mean a considerable layoff of that expertise and then when the time comes 

48

and it surely will, that we start to ramp up, you lose a lot of that 

ability, and you have seen that kind of hurky-jerky kind of approach in the past has not served us well. 

So as Senator Hutchison says, if you start moving in that direction, not only will she be all over you, but I will too. Because the 

bottom line is going to affect safety, and that is one of the most 

dangerous points of the whole Shuttle mission—the launch. There 

is no room for error, and when there was, we got caught. And we 

found out that the risk factor was 1-in-25. They say it is about 1-

in-450 now. And if you will do Shuttle upgrades, they can move it 

up to 1-in-1,000, significantly increasing the safety factor, but you 

cannot do that if you start reducing your flight rate to 4. 

One of the things that I think you ought to consider also in view 

of the war on terrorists is that you have to have this vehicle as reliable assured access to space to back up your expendables. An Atlas 

sits out there on the pad. Its weight is supported by its fuel. It is 

an easy target. And you could go on through a number of the other 

expendables and their launch pads that have to be operable, and 

so if you are looking at assured access to space, there cannot be 

any mistakes with regard to the Space Shuttle. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague. Let me ask one other 

question with respect to the Space Shuttle, Mr. O’Keefe. What role 

do you see the Shuttle playing for future NASA space transportation needs? We have begun to look at balancing the need for safety upgrades versus the various other needs. I think it would be 

helpful to know what role you see Shuttle playing for future space 

transportation needs. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Again, I think the original objectives as Senator 

Nelson says, he is steeped and understands very clearly what the 

greatest aspirations at what point the Shuttle was conceived and 

developed and ultimately deployed was to provide a viable commercial alternative, an opportunity in a way that would provide the 

launch capacity for satellites and electronic systems and a lot of experimentation in a range of technology-driven enterprise and 

science-driven agendas, but again, it was envisioned to be a real serious alternative. 

It hasn’t achieved that objective for a variety of reasons. I think 

there is all kinds of logic that got us there, as well as the difficulties of operations that have motivated that, but I think anything 

you can do to maximize the utility of the Shuttle operation in its 

capacity which is really quite remarkable in and of itself is to be 

desired and to be pursued. So in that respect again, that is what 

augers in favor of the closer cooperation with Defense Department, 

with a range of different agency interests that would be involved 

there, and to look at some of the other potential commercial attributes that we could establish on a more cost efficient basis. As 

soon as we could get that on footing, the closer we are and the closer we will be to answering in a more affirmative way the question 

we posed. 

Senator WYDEN. Let me turn now to the question of privatization, and particularly, privatizing the Shuttle. You, as I understand 

it, are on record as supporting the further privatization of the 

Shuttle and other programs. 

49

Privatization means different things to different people. And it 

can mean contract consolidation. It can mean giving the Shuttle 

away to one or two companies. What are the limits in your view 

of privatization? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. First of all, there are, in fact, wide ranging definitions, and my endorsement and enthusiasm for this is very much 

in the context of the President’s management agenda, the 5 essential elements, competitive sourcing is one of those 5. And so the opportunity, any opportunity to achieve competitive sourcing alternative for government operations is an essential element of what 

he expects every department and agency to be pursuing. 

Limitations I think you point to with BRACC are the industry 

configuration, how it is conducted, what you currently have is a series of important contractual commitments that are conducted 

through a partnering arrangement between corporations, how that 

all sorts out and what those limitations may portend, that is something I really have got to get greater or more in-depth legal advice 

in terms of what those applications may portend. 

Similarly, there are capacities and capabilities that Senator Nelson very appropriately points to that are resonant within the 

science and technical community within the government as part of 

our public management team need to attain, so in that regard, try 

to sort out those two really important questions and a myriad of 

other secondary points or would lead to a more informed answer 

to what are the limits to privatization or more to competitive 

sourcing, but as a generic proposition, I am there and I think it 

needs to be pursued and it is not just a case of saying well, we will 

eventually get something that says it involves answers to those 

points, but I intend to be committed to pursuing that immediately. 

Senator WYDEN. If the Shuttle is turned over to the private sector, how do you go about ensuring that NASA gets the things it 

needs at those prices? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. The answers to the first questions will flow once 

you know the answers to the second part. 

Senator WYDEN. What is your sense in the next few years with 

the Shuttle? What is likely to happen in the next few years on privatization in the Shuttle? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Again, I think we have to start this due diligence 

in the way that first looks at the legal implications of current contractual commitments between the partnering companies that 

would evolve specifically in current operations. The second is to 

look very specifically at what the implications are to the resonant 

in-house public scientific and technical community would retain. 

What alarms me very much in the spirit of Senator Nelson’s observation, better than half of the science, engineering and technical 

staff at NASA throughout the organization will be eligible to retire 

within the next 3 to 5 years, better than that. 

That tells me that we really need to be focused on the essential 

elements of the presence, management, agenda of those 5 is strategic management of human capital. 

We need to do it here. It is a case where that whole generation, 

Apollo era, entrepreneurial, innovation and creativity is about to 

retire, or it is going to be eligible to fairly soon. As a consequence, 

trying to find out how you reinvigorate that spirit through the perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 19, 2004 Jkt 082425 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87606.TXT JIMC
50

sonnel management and resources objectives, is going to be that 

second order of magnitude. Once you get through those two issues, 

it gets to the larger points. 

Senator WYDEN. One other international issue that is important 

to me. As you know, China successfully launched unmanned space 

ships in 1999 and 2001. It is our Subcommittee’s understanding 

that China is going to send a manned craft in space before 2005, 

and preparation for a mission to the Moon is underway. Should 

Americans be concerned about our continued access to space? What 

is your opinion with respect to these developments in China and 

the space area? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I am not sure what the impact or the consequences 

are to the intelligence community, to the larger security. And so 

therefore to opine or offer any thought on what those implications 

would be would be either uninformed or misinformed at best. 

Senator WYDEN. I have just a couple of additional questions. 

Does the Senator from Florida have any others? 

Senator NELSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to follow up on your 

questions about privatization. As part of our advice to you, the 

Shuttle is not an operational vehicle. It is still a research vehicle. 

Now, you say that you are in favor of privatization. I understand 

your general philosophy. Does that mean, for example, that the 

Shuttle would start launching commercial payloads? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Again, I really have to be consistent here, Senator, 

because you clearly demonstrated an interest in seeing that consistency, and failure to have transcripts in front of me, previous 

testimony, I am going to make absolutely certain I stay consistent, 

at least in this game. I have a clear understanding of what the 

President expects in his present management agenda as it pertains 

to competitive sourcing. I intend to pursue that in every degree of 

enthusiasm I have. This falls into that category as an example of 

how it may be pursued. 

There is application across every Federal department and agency 

and this lends itself very neatly to those larger objectives. The specifics of your question is something I would need to sort out to understand the implications of the 2 facets I explained previously, 

which are what the contractual implications are for the partnering 

arrangements that exist under current Shuttle operations contracts, and they are not research vehicle operations. They are Shuttle operations contracts with independent companies that I do not 

know the legal implications of and I need to be better informed of. 

Second, we need to be positively absolutely committed as part of 

the President’s larger objectives to be sure we are focused on the 

strategic management of human capital and we know what the implications will be if we choose to remove or defer capabilities that 

are currently resonant within the technical and scientific engineering. Those two, I think, need to be consulted first before I could 

ever get to the stage of responding. But as a general philosophical 

matter, those are driving principles. 

Senator NELSON. Well, so that as you would be trying to conclude 

that, let me put your initial consideration of this question of privatization in the context of what has happened in history. The Space 

Shuttle was developed to be the space transportation system. And 

51

when Challenger exploded, we realized that the mistake was that 

we were trying to make it be too many things to too many people. 

And thus the policy decision, and this was during the time of the 

Reagan Administration, was that the commercial payloads could 

best be launched on expendable booster rockets, and that you 

would save the Space Shuttle primarily where you did the human 

in the loop, thus the scientific experiments, space telescope, and 

therefore, on the manifest, any of those commercial payloads, they 

finished those, but they did not redo them. Likewise, on the DoD 

payloads, although there was still that capability as a back-up. 

What I am afraid of is that there is this preference for privatization that does not apply to a scientific vehicle, and so I raise again 

the question that you will have to consider in the future, which you 

say you cannot address now, does privatization mean a return to 

commercial vehicles? If so, that is a tremendous change in policy 

for NASA. Does it mean just commercialized research payloads? 

And if you move to the so-called privatization, well, what about 

all the ground infrastructure? Does it all get privatized? 

There is a substantial amount of expense of all of that stuff that 

goes along the space program, some of which by the way we have 

been trying to address and some of these appropriations bills, you 

know, the VAB has panels peeling off of it, Lord help us if a hurricane comes through there. We have gotten a lot of that corrosion 

that is going on down there in the Cape from years of salt spray 

and so forth. How is a private company that is going to be 

incentivized to redo all of that under a contract that they have to 

operate under specific cost, so I want you to arch your eyebrow as 

you approach what the President has given you as marching orders 

when you are dealing with a research vehicle and a research program like this, you may not have gotten this through your lens at 

OMB. 

I suspect that you would have gotten some of this from your experience as controller of DoD, and as Secretary of the Navy. And 

I think you are going to have to put on some different glasses. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague. A recent press report, Mr. 

O’Keefe said, and I will just quote here: ‘‘NASA also hopes to land 

two unmanned spacecraft on Mars, launch a number of Earth observing satellites and a new space telescope in the next couple of 

years.’’ Sounds awfully good. Awful lot of us science fans and Americans. Pick each one of them? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. First of all, as a method of fundamental management, hope is not a method. Planning on this as expectations is 

just I think we have got to demonstrate to ourselves, satisfy ourselves indeed these are achievable objectives and given the circumstances right now, I think everything has to get back to basics. 

We really have to look at the fundamentals. Again, this is not an 

overwhelming challenge. This is not something beyond the scope or 

without parallel in any other circumstance. 

There are models here. There are a variety of approaches that 

can be followed. There are management methods and approaches 

that can yield results we are looking for, but they have to be attended to and so as a consequence, they would achieve the kind of 

forecast that you are talking about, that I know is part of the 

52

fondest expectation is something I think once we look at fundamentals, get back to the basics, and determine whether or not we can 

do all of this, that will then inform what approaches we will take 

for this portfolio. 

My fondest hope is that we get there. 

Senator WYDEN. I have one last question. I am struck that as we 

look at the scientific possibilities, the excitement always come back 

to showing that you can liberate funds from areas that are either 

low priority or administratively inefficient, and that debate certainly starts with the Space Station, but there are a lot of other 

parts to it. Perhaps what symbolizes it for me is when you came 

as Deputy Director of OMB, you told the House Appropriations 

Committee that there would be a cost overrun of $4 billion on the 

Space Station and then a few days after the hearing, NASA came 

back and said the figure was more than $800 million or more than 

that, and I assume actually would like to have you comment on, 

I assume that one of your top priorities is going to try to restore 

the credibility of NASA with respect to estimating these future cost 

questions. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Lest there be a view that there is group think that 

exists at OMB, I regret to advise that shortly after that increase, 

after having just testified to what was the scope of the increase a 

matter of weeks before, it was referred to in rather indirect terms 

as the ‘‘O’Keefe bump,’’ which was not the most amusing element 

of my career experience. 

That is for sure. But it was, in the context of saying and reminding us that we shouldn’t have any more confidence in this set of 

rules than the ones that preceded them. 

That is the part that really concerns me most, because it is, I 

think, all of our fondest hope that this is it. Having said that, there 

is nothing that raises my confidence now that suggests that is 

something we can take to the bank. As a consequence, I do not 

want to rely on that as a management informed decision until we 

can really assert to that with any confidence that we can suggest 

we should. So that is it. 

I think what that translates to in parallel we talked about a little earlier of again just kind of a thumbnail sketch of what constitutes roughly two-thirds of the current resource configuration 

dedicated to indirect costs, maintenance of capable infrastructure 

capacity and the other third, at most, is dedicated toward the pursuit of projects of excellence of technology-driven enterprise. 

If those numbers change, those percentages become more and 

more consumptive on the indirect side as a consequence of newer 

discoveries of what may be the latest estimate on overruns for the 

station. That consumes the other part of this equation, because last 

I checked, there is not an awful lot of enthusiasm here, any element of Congress saying here’s the blank check, spend it like you 

think you need it. That would be irresponsible on the part of Congress. The President certainly doesn’t endorse that. That is not a 

position we have adopted or would we encourage be adopted. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, and clearly to make the case of additional 

funds, you are going to have to show that you are making better 

use of current dollars, given they are citing one inefficiency after 

another. 

53

Mr. O’KEEFE. I consider that an enormous challenge. 

Senator WYDEN. I know Chairman Hollings feels very strongly. 

We are going to get you confirmed as quickly as we can. I think 

you have the potential to really be a man for the times and to show 

that by cutting some of the massive overhead and the inefficiency 

that you can help the agency reach the stars. I am excited about 

the possibilities on your watch. As you can see from my colleagues 

today, we had a spirited debate this morning. It is not close to 

what you are going to have when——

Mr. O’KEEFE. Once I get there. 

Senator WYDEN. It is not close to what you are going to have as 

you try to make what I call the transition back to the agency’s 

original mission. I think that is what this is all about is to take 

out the original charter for a science and research-driven kind of 

mission and then as you have described it, go out to the Senators 

and scientists and various communities that are directly affected 

by this, and then bring to Congress an agenda that we can rally 

and promoting a kind of development to breakthrough technologies 

and historical scientific developments that are so important. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I take this very much as a preview of coming attractions. There is no doubt about it. The expectations are very 

high. I think that is a great challenge, one that I look forward to. 

But I take solace in Senator Nelson’s opening statement, as a matter of fact, a few hours ago that there was one of the greatest administrators of our history, storied fabled historic place was James 

Webb and I concur entirely. I think he was just a remarkable fellow who wrestled with exactly the kind of issues we are dealing 

with here and I hope that the parallel that has greatest resonance 

is that he served as Truman’s Director of the Bureau of the Budget, predecessor at OMB from 1946 to 1949. I see his picture every 

single day. As a consequence, that is a constant reminder to me 

that there are messages and methods in management process that 

can be employed here. If I do this a fraction as well as his incredible legacy, that will be a notable achievement and it is one that 

I take as a charge, Mr. Chairman, your commentary on how to go 

about doing that. I am hopeful as well. 

Senator WYDEN. Before I turn this over to Senator Nelson, let me 

also recognize that we have had a terrific fellow come over from the 

NIST agency, Kevin Kimball. I hope his folks are watching this 

from C-SPAN. He has just done a terrific job for the Subcommittee, 

particularly on getting us ready for today’s hearing. I am going to 

turn this over to Senator Nelson and also thank him for all his expertise. I think the Senator knows, I am going to work very closely 

with them and we are going to get on these issues and put the kind 

of focus on it that allows us to promote the kind of science that the 

Senator from Florida is advocating. 

I thank you again, Mr. O’Keefe. We look forward to your rapid 

confirmation. 

Let me turn the hearing over to Senator Nelson. 

The Senator from Florida. 

Senator NELSON. We will wrap this up pretty quick, Mr. Chairman. 

Just to comment going back about the Young Report and 4 

flights a year. Not only would it have the affects of what I was 

54

talking about in all of the layoffs, but it would also have the affect 

of very likely moth-balling at least 1 of the 4 orbiters, and that is 

going backwards. That is not going forwards. 

Let me talk to you briefly about the space launch initiative. We 

discussed this last night in our conversation. The Shuttle upgrades 

funding has been minimized, and under the present plan will no 

longer be funded after 2005 based on NASA’s current plan to 

shelve the orbiter fleet by 2012, because in NASA’s budget plan we 

have about $5 billion for this thing called space launch initiative, 

which is really a development now of technology, so tell us what 

you believe about this space launch initiative as it’s currently 

planned and funded. Do you think it is going to result in the replacement of the Shuttle by 2012? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. First of all, they are going to get a lot more informed of the mechanics of the Space Shuttle. In its earliest stages 

of development, this is again a golden opportunity to reach a very 

close collaborative and cooperative arrangement with the Air Force 

specifically, with the Defense Department over how we could look 

at what those objectives are. I think your commentary as well, you 

recognize that the goals and objectives we had in mind as Americans for Shuttle and pre-1986 and for all the reasons I concur were 

not realized that you have assessed, this is a good time to go back 

and revisit some of those things, to think seriously about the kinds 

of important questions you have laid out of commercial applications, as well as a range of other alternative uses. They do not 

want to inform what it is we are really driving toward and it ought 

to be the objectives. 

So I think that is rather than articulating some bombastic vision 

of what I would hope it would be born of nothing more than fantasy, I need to give you a more informed view after looking at what 

those questions are, as well as looking back again to the period of 

time that kind of revisits what we had in mind for the Shuttle that 

we thought was an informed view and see if we can do better. 

This is the kind of maturation process, again I am sure you are 

experienced with as well, that typically goes on with any large 

scale systems integration activity. It is complex. 

Shuttling of itself is an amazing achievement of aerospace capacity in to look at how do we look at something that is a leap ahead 

from there ought to be part of our objective and it is going to take 

as long as you suggest through 2012 to really be thinking, and it 

would not be out of the ordinary with any other aerospace maturation that I have ever seen or been associated with in the Defense 

Department days. 

So as a consequence how we define this ought to be informed by 

the very important questions you have raised that asks what’s the 

objective you are really after and what technologies can you employ 

that will leap ahead. 

Senator NELSON. Let me give you a little of our advice. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Always most appreciative, too, as I had all morning 

for that opportunity. Yes. 

Senator NELSON. I fully appreciate the fact that you cannot come 

to the table knowledgeable about all of this. That is part of getting 

on the job and starting to learn. But here is the nub of the coconut. 

Basically we are going to have a system that was going to replace 

55

the Space Shuttle. It did not happen. But they still have $5 billion 

in the budget over the next several years to develop a technology 

and, because of that, they are still postponing a lot of the upgrades 

that will directly affect the safety of the Space Shuttle, so if we are 

not going to have a replacement vehicle by 2012, which we are not, 

we got to keep the present horse in good condition to get us where 

we need to get. So as I suggested to you last night, one of the 

things that you may look at since this space launch initiative is 

more toward the development of technology, see if you can get the 

Department of Defense as a partner in sharing the cost of that, because it would directly affect the Department of Defense giving you 

a little more breathing room in the NASA budget to go on and keep 

doing the Space Shuttle safety upgrades, because we just cannot afford to lose that vehicle as a reliable assured access to space. 

And then I would ask for you to consider, because this is much 

more technical stuff of RDT&E, research development testing and 

evaluation in NASA’s hardware procurements. You probably had 

some experience with this over in your position as controller in 

DoD. Do you have any particular DoD experience, by the way, that 

might be applicable to your ideas about procurement reform at 

NASA? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Yes. Having served at the department during the 

time that Don Atwood was the Deputy Secretary there, his primary 

charge to me and the organization was to develop the management 

review at that time and as a consequence, pursue the series of procurement reform initiatives, as well as larger management of infrastructure kinds of directives, logistics and arrange personnel and 

other activities that have direct applicability in this context. 

Fast-forward in that timeframe you have looked at a range of 

academic pursuit, a whole series of various performed initiatives, 

which approach do you use in those areas, specific areas of reform 

or more generically toward process innovations and I have seen, I 

think, the application of a number of them during the course of development of the presence management agenda this year. 

So having worked with as a direct context, as well as having 

thought through what some of the implications are, I think I would 

like to take the opportunity to employ best practices that fit for 

this kind of agency and test drive them, see how they work, see 

what we can come up with, but certainly is not the lack of familiarity with the variations of which approaches to use. 

Senator NELSON. Before we conclude the hearing, I’d like to give 

you an opportunity to lay out for the record what is your vision? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I think first and foremost is a reinvigoration, reinstilling the entrepreneurial system and spirit that is quintessential in definition of what has made NASA what it is today and 

characterizes its extraordinary successes, so how to go about establishing that to press the edges of what the technology can do, if we 

are looking at things that are again incremental improvements, we 

wonder why, and I am going to think more in terms of how do we 

do things in a leap ahead consideration, because if this institution 

doesn’t do it, it likely won’t occur in any span of time is going to 

be reasonable.

And that entrepreneurial spirit is essential, and in its earliest 

phases, instills that sense of entrepreneurship over time will be 

56

more process-focused, more infrastructure-focused, more capabilityfocused and less about considering things like the term sum cost, 

which in the public environment means we have already got money 

invested, so we better use it until it finally dies versus the term 

sum costs in a business context, which means you invested it, it did 

not work, write it off, do not let it be an anchor on the way you 

do business in the future.

Sum term can be defined different ways. First and foremost is vision to reinstill that entrepreneurial spirit so we can stretch the 

envelope in a way that works well for information and technology 

enterprise and science-driven agenda as opposed to capability.

Second, there would be, I think, a focus on prudent management 

principles that can inform and guide and motivate us to be selective about what those areas are because you cannot do it all, as 

much as we all would like to see lots of things pursued.

The third element would be to establish and instill a close cooperation with all other elements of this incredible Federal expanse 

that we have available in the field of research and development to 

be sure that we maximize that collaboration synergy and not duplicate efforts in that regard.

The fourth element of the vision I think would be also to pick up 

I guess on a very important theme that you have talked about a 

lot in a very passionate and very thoughtful way, which is to be 

mindful constantly of the safety considerations that the risks involved in this endeavor, while they are important and that it certainly is a noble mission objective, the risks nonetheless are higher 

and have to be considered as paramounts of objectives and to take 

a page from this history.

Navy nuclear experience that I have a familiarity with by virtue 

of superior parental review, as well as management opportunity 

that I have dealt with which is that you can achieve remarkable 

improvements in the technology and employ those improvements 

while at the same time sustaining enviable and perfect safety 

record. There is a pattern there. There is a process set of informed 

issues that are part of that history that we would be extremely well 

served to take a page from that I would like to have the opportunity to instill and I think those basic points and elements of the 

vision would put us in a position I think to take advantage of 

NASA at the crossroads at this stage as it redefines and looks at 

the new mission and strategy. I am very excited about this opportunity.

Senator NELSON. I am grateful that you are excited about it, and 

I would only conclude the hearing by saying that as part of that 

vision, that this one Senator’s vision is that we are a Nation of explorers and adventurers, and we always had a frontier. That frontier used to be westward, now that frontier is upward and inward. 

And if we ever abandon trying to challenge that frontier, we will 

become a second-rate Nation. But we won’t, because of little agencies like NASA that keep that vision alive to fulfill the character 

of the American people as adventurers and explorers.

And that is my wish for you in saying Godspeed on a very important leadership post for the United States of America.

57

The hearing is adjourned. We will keep the record open for a 

week for any further comments to be entered by our colleagues.

[The hearing adjourned at 12:50 p.m.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK,

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing for this very important nominee. The constitutional role of advise and consent is one of the most important duties we have as a body. 

Today the Senate Commerce Committee reviews the President’s nomination of 

Mr. Sean O’Keefe as Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). While I have not had the opportunity to meet Mr. O’Keefe, I am 

confident that his past experience will serve him well as he embarks upon the important mission of leading NASA into the 21st century. Mr. O’Keefe is clearly qualified to fulfill the responsibilities of this position; and I look forward to him taking 

office as soon as possible. 

Mr. O’Keefe’s experience clearly demonstrates his unique ability to live up to the 

responsibility of his new office. His experience at the Office of Management and 

Budget, as well as his extensive background in public service will serve him well 

in the effort to bring responsibility to NASA’s budget. NASA has a history of space 

science research aimed at benefiting life on Earth. However, the challenges facing 

the agency today, are more terrestrial. In order to strengthen the scientific research 

at NASA, the financial and budgetary issues must be addressed. Not only must they 

continue with their scientific research, but NASA must also do so in a fiscally responsible manner. This will be a difficult balancing act which I am confident Mr. 

O’Keefe, a former Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, can 

achieve. 

I look forward to working with Mr. O’Keefe once he is confirmed. As I am sure 

he is aware, NASA is currently in an interesting position to engage foreign countries 

in space science research. As the United States continues to pursue the war on terrorism, it is increasingly important to foster strong working relationships with our 

allies. Recently, I sent a letter to the President encouraging him to look into the 

work that NASA is pursuing with India, specifically with regard to projects that 

were set aside due to sanctions which have now been lifted. I encourage Mr. O’Keefe 

to pursue new cooperation between NASA and India. 

Finally, I would like to point out to the nominee one of his predecessor’s most important accomplishments. During his tenure as NASA Administrator, Dan Goldin 

joined me in a tour of Kansas. I take this opportunity to invite Mr. O’Keefe to follow 

in the footsteps of his predecessor and join me in Kansas. 

Again, I am looking forward to the experience and perspective that Mr. O’Keefe 

will bring to NASA. I congratulate Mr. O’Keefe on his nomination and look forward 

to expeditiously getting him into office. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA

We have before us Mr. Sean O’Keefe who is nominated to be the next Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The President has 

sent us a fine nominee—Mr. O’Keefe currently serves as Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget and has previously been confirmed by the Senate 

three times. 

Thank you, Mr. O’Keefe for being willing to take on the challenges at NASA—

and there are challenges, not the least of which is the International Space Station. 

NASA started the Station in 1984, redesigned it in 1993, and is on the verge of redesigning to ‘‘core complete’’ now. We were promised that the station would cost 

only $17.4 billion to develop but now are told that the original design could cost as 

much as $30 billion. 

Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report on NASA’s 

fiscal management of the Space Station. In its report, GAO stated that NASA was 

60

unable to provide obligation-based cost information on the Space Station nor was 

it able to provide support for the actual cost of completed Space Station elements 

and subsystems. The question I pose is: If NASA is unable to account for costs that 

have already incurred, how are we to believe its estimates for future costs? 

At the same time, we are being told that to fix the problems, we need to eliminate 

crew and scientific research. So in the end, the Station—that was sold to the Congress as a world class research facility—will only be able to accomplish 20 hours 

of research a week. So we were sold a bill of goods on which NASA failed to deliver. 

Mr. O’Keefe, as Administrator, I urge you to get NASA back to basics. The Space 

Shuttle itself is a world class research facility, and I fully support that program. 

NASA also has opportunities in Space Science and Earth Science to explore our universe and to help us more fully understand the Earth. 

I look forward to hearing from the nominee and expect his swift confirmation. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TRENT LOTT

TO SEAN O’KEEFE

Question 1. Based on the RFP, NASA’s Landsat Data Continuity Mission procurement seems headed toward yielding a satellite providing minimally useful data for 

a single customer—the government. This result would provide the least value for 

the most cost to the government. As NASA Administrator, will you ensure that the 

Landsat data procurement, as well as future remote sensing procurements, maximize the benefits and minimize the cost by sharing the cost and risk of the data 

acquisition with commercial users of remote sensing data? 

Answer: It is important to ensure that the Landsat data procurement, as well as 

future remote sensing procurements, seek to minimize costs and maximize benefits 

by partnering with commercial providers and uses of remote sensing data and products wherever possible. One of the key principles underlying the President’s vision 

of government reform is that it be market-based and actively promote innovation 

through competition. Meeting government needs from competitive, commercial 

sources is one of the most effective means of accomplishing this. In order for the 

LDCM to be of greatest value, private sector firms must have the full freedom to 

offer data and data products, beyond those needed to fulfill the strict terms of 

Landsat data continuity, to a broader global market.

Question 2. Do you agree that NASA’s remote sensing data needs should be fulfilled, to the greatest extent possible, through commercial data buys, and not 

through the construction and operation of Government-use only satellites? Wouldn’t 

a FAR Part 12 procurement be better suited for such data buys than a Part 15 procurement? 

Answer: Purchase of commercial data can be competitive and preferable to the 

construction and operation of government-only satellites where there is a market for 

such data beyond the government. NASA needs to continually engage in extensive 

dialog with the scientific community and industry to determine whether there are 

prospects for U.S.-based commercial data products. In some cases, e.g., planetary exploration, the prospects for commercial data products may be negligible in the near 

term due to the capital costs and risks involved. In other cases, such as land remotesensing, there are already some commercial data products that are used by NASA. 

The FAR Part 12 and the portion of the Commercial Space Act dealing with remote 

sensing assume the availability of commercial products. I would like to ensure that 

NASA engages with industry in constructive ways to enable more, rather than 

fewer, viable commercial procurements in the future. Whether use of FAR Part 12 

would be superior to the use of FAR Part 15 would depend on the specific facts of 

a particular case.

Question 3. Many of NASA’s facilities associated with the human space flight program, including the Stennis Space Center’s rocket engine test facilities, were established and built 30-40 years ago, and are showing their age. While NASA’s budget 

requests have focused on direct mission expenditures, its investment in maintaining 

and updating its facilities and equipment has lagged. As NASA Administrator, will 

you ensure that NASA’s budget requests include adequate investments in maintaining and upgrading its facilities? 

Answer: The high performance that we expect from the human space flight programs requires great facilities as well as great people. However, currently approximately two-thirds of NASA’s annual budget is spent on indirect and overhead activities, which include facilities and equipment, while only one-third goes to the actual 

conduct of scientific research and technology development. The President’s Management Agenda calls for greater use of competitive sourcing across the Federal Government. As part of this agenda, NASA has undertaken a Strategic Requirements 

61

Review to assess opportunities for outsourcing, streamlining and consolidation. I 

have not personally gone over the details of NASA’s review yet, but I expect the 

review to identify actions that can significantly reduce NASA’s institutional and 

overhead burden. If such actions are successful, more resources will be available to 

direct toward science, technology and exploration activities at NASA and to address 

NASA’s high-priority institutional needs like facility modernization. I would ask for 

your help in getting NASA back to basics and rebalancing the ratio of research to 

institution at NASA.

Question 4. You will need to take full advantage of a range of available budgetary 

tools if you are going to move NASA forward. Throughout this past year, you had 

the opportunity to reacquaint your self with how many of these tools, such as advanced procurement, forward funding, and advance appropriations, are, or are not, 

being used by various agencies and departments. Do you believe that the use of advance procurement, forward funding, or advance appropriations would be appropriate for NASA? 

Answer: The Administration supports careful and selective use of advance appropriations, advance procurement, and forward funding in high-priority areas where 

such funding mechanisms can provide managerial benefits or cost savings. However, 

the Administration does not support widespread use of these funding mechanisms 

across the Federal Government, especially when they are used to circumvent normal 

budgetary controls. For example, for a small number of large capital development 

projects, advance appropriations may be appropriate to give incentives to managers 

to better control costs. Similarly, for certain projects, advance procurements may be 

appropriate if cost savings can be achieved. I will need to review NASA’s programs 

to see if any of these funding mechanisms would benefit high-priority NASA programs. Under any circumstances, great care must be exercised in using any of these 

approaches lest we lose total cost visibility. The recent cost overrun revelations on 

International Space Station serves as a stark example of the hazards of incremental 

funding methods.

Question 5. We have talked at length about budgetary alternatives for other 

issues of great importance to our Nation. The one in particular that I view with the 

greatest concern is the continued decline of our Navy’s fleet. Since 1990, we have 

watched our Navy fleet shrink from 550 ships to the 317 ships it has today, and 

we’ve been told in numerous hearings that we haven’t seen the bottom yet. The significance of this decline is compounded when one considers how critical a capable 

Navy is to our Nation’s ability to respond to threats such as those we are currently 

dealing with in Afghanistan. Can budgetary tools such as those we have discussed 

be used to bolster our shrinking Navy fleet? Do you support the use of advanced 

appropriations for large capital projects, including shipbuilding, provided such proposals include contractual provisions that yield cost savings for such projects? 

Answer: By letter of December 11, to Leader Lott, I described the OMB position 

on the applicability of advance appropriation principles for Navy shipbuilding. I’d 

be happy to elaborate on these comments should Senator Lott desire. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN

TO SEAN O’KEEFE

Question 1. One of the issues highlighted in the Young Report was that the final 

Station cost estimate at completion has not been a management criterion within 

NASA. The Station cap that the Congress established was on the overall development costs for the Station along with the use of the Space Shuttle. Can you elaborate on this finding and comment as how you would propose to deal with the issue? 

Answer: I believe the Independent Cost and Management Evaluation (IMCE) task 

force assessment is accurate in its finding that the strong focus of the ISS management on living within annual costs was a major factor in the development of the 

total ISS cost problem revealed in early 2001. There are a number of other contributing factors, however, that must also be addressed. I understand that NASA is now 

preparing a proposed set of management and accounting changes that address the 

IMCE findings. If confirmed, I will, of course, examine those proposals and the assumptions on which future cost estimates are based. In addition, it would be my 

intention to initiate needed changes in fiscal management for ISS—and all other 

NASA programs—to improve cost estimation, tracking and oversight procedures 

based on a total cost concept which will better account for both current and outyear expenditures. (See also my response to question 2, below.)

Question 2. The Young Report stated that a technical baseline must be developed 

that can be used as the basis for a formal cost estimate. It recommended using the 

Department of Defense cost assessment approach as model and develop a full Space 

62

Station cost estimate. Do you agree with using the Department of Defense cost assessment approach? 

Answer: I believe that NASA has a good deal more to learn from the DOD cost 

assessment approach. That will be among several tools that I intend to bring to bear 

in reforming NASA’s cost estimating capability.

Question 3. The Young Report stated that financial and project control functions 

needs to be strengthened significantly in the Space Station program office and 

NASA Headquarters. What are your thoughts on the current control systems and 

how would you propose to strengthen them? 

Answer: I believe the IMCE findings about financial and project control functions 

are among the most important in the report. Strengthening these systems is a very 

high priority, and I will initiate a systematic review of NASA’s current practices 

with a view to identifying and implementing necessary changes.

Question 4. I recognize that the Strategic Resources Review is still underway. 

However, that review may recommend some significant changes to the NASA centers. Are you prepared to implement the recommendations from the review process? 

Answer: NASA’s Strategic Resources Review is a key element of the Administration’s management reform agenda. By reducing NASA’s institutional burden and 

making greater use of capabilities in academia and industry, NASA intends to: promote innovation; open Government activities to competition; improve the depth and 

quality of R&Dcapabilities that NASA can call on; and increase NASA’s responsiveness to future directions in science, technology and exploration. The SRR process is 

a very positive and necessary exercise for NASA, and I look forward to reviewing 

the recommendations of the SRR. Implementing significant changes in the activities 

and programs at NASA’s Centers will be a difficult and challenging task, which will 

require close coordination and cooperation with the Congress to implement. It will 

be my intent to maintain a focus on the larger issue of a strong and vibrant national 

space program rather than the preservation of any specific localized status quo.

Question 5. Given all the discussion on research at NASA, I also want to ensure 

that the results of this research reach those who need it. NASA recently put together a draft commercialization plan for the International Space Station. We expressed some reservations with that plan. 

(a) What are your thoughts on commercialization at NASA? 

(b) Do you believe that NASA does a good job of working with American companies to find opportunities for the commercialization of space? 

(c) The Department of Commerce has an Office of Space Commercialization. How 

do you believe that NASA should work with this office? 

Answer: I am convinced that NASA’s commercialization efforts can be expanded, 

by ensuring that: key technologies developed using American taxpayer dollars are 

made available to U.S. industry for commercial application; and NASA buys commercially available products and services whenever possible instead of replicating 

or maintaining industry capabilities at its field centers. As I stated during the Committee’s hearing, one of my highest priority objectives is to regain a more entrepreneurial spirit within NASA, to seek immediate opportunities for transferring technology both into and out of NASA, as well as pursuing less obvious opportunities 

for commercialization. I expect that NASA will take advantage of all resources and 

knowledge throughout the Federal Government, including the Department of Commerce. I am prepared to work closely with you and the Committee to address your 

concerns and establish a unified approach to moving forward in this critically important area.

Question 6. International cooperation is the keystone of NASA’s most ambitious 

space projects. The International Space Station and Mars exploration are but two 

examples. These and any future programs can only succeed if all involved governments adhere to their commitments. How do you plan to ensure that US obligations 

to these international partners are fully honored? 

Answer: The United States, of course, takes its international commitments and 

obligations seriously and I believe they are an important and necessary feature of 

our nation’s space program. At the same time, inherent in all international agreements is the determination that adherence to its terms is also in the best interest 

of each of the signatory nations. I agree that the ISS agreements, which were initiated by the United States, continue to be important and necessary to the success 

of the ISS. I view my task as implementing the kinds of efficiencies and management changes at NASA that ensures that the U.S. can meet both its international 

commitments and its responsibility to the American taxpayer.

Question 7. In light of the high level of retirement eligibility for NASA’s civil service employees, what steps will you take to ensure that the agency is properly 

staffed? 

63

Answer: NASA and OMB have conducted a joint workforce review to identify 

areas of concern in maintaining access to critical skills and human resources. A 

number of steps have been identified to address these concerns, which are currently 

being integrated as part of NASA’s Strategic Resources Review. I view this as a very 

high priority for my attention as Administrator, if I am confirmed by the Senate. 

As these proposals mature I will consult with the Committees of the Congress to 

identify and chart a course which provides legislative authority where needed. Additionally, I will seek the Congress’s counsel and support for administrative actions 

that are suggested to address the workforce challenges. In this spirit, Congress 

could enact the President’s proposed ‘‘Managerial Flexibilities Act’’ which incorporates several personnel management authorities of great value to NASA. Creative 

application of these new authorities could help address the critical human talent 

challenges.

Question 8. Many major management decisions at NASA appear to be made without the benefit of establishing a program baseline, obtaining good cost estimates, 

and accomplishing defensible cost-benefit analyses. How would you change the way 

major program decisions are analyzed and made at NASA (and enforcement of the 

changes)? 

Answer: Your characterization of the situation is accurate, and represents a clear 

statement of some of the major challenges facing NASA at this time. It is essential 

to establish and implement an integrated financial management plan and strong 

independent cost analysis functions to address these deficiencies and provide the 

means of oversight, verification, accountability and enforcement. I view the Office 

of the Chief Financial Officer as critical to this process and will work aggressively 

to fully establish and empower that function within the NASA structure. I will require strict management accountability at all levels and, where necessary, employ 

independent assessments and validations of program budgets and plans.

Question 9. NASA’s Independent Program Assessment Office (IPAO) is currently 

located at NASA Langley. It was created to conduct independent evaluations of 

NASA programs and projects in order to keep senior management informed about 

whether programs are on schedule and within budget. The NASA Inspector General, 

building on earlier GAO reports and the 1990 Augustine Commission Report, has 

repeatedly recommended that the IPAO be made part of NASA HQ, and that it be 

used more proactively to provide senior NASA management with independent estimates of program cost and risk. Would you consider enhancing the IPAO’s role and 

stature and locating it (at least organizationally) at NASA HQ? 

Answer: If confirmed, I will carefully review the recommendations regarding the 

role and structure of the IPAO. As indicated previously, I believe a strong independent assessment capability, both within NASA and outside of NASA, is essential 

to identifying and resolving NASA’s cost and management challenges.

Question 10. The Young Report also recommended that NASA should develop an 

independent cost estimate program for the International Space Station that should 

be started immediately for FY03 and be updated biennially by a group outside of 

the ISS program office. 

(a) Do you intend to follow this recommendation? 

(b) Do you believe that this independent cost estimate can be completed by the 

FY03 budget submission? 

Answer: As I stated during the hearing on my nomination, with regard to the 

readiness of the independent cost estimate, it is scheduled to be completed by September 2002, in time for the enactment of the fiscal year 2003 appropriation and 

fiscal year 2004 budget formulation.

Question 11. NASA’s financial management system is an infamous mess. As Deputy Director of OMB, you testified that NASA had you testify about a $4 billion 

Space Station cost overrun based on a ‘‘conservative’’ estimate, and then you found 

out ‘‘within days’’ that the actual overrun was in fact $4.8 billion. How do you intend to do reform NASA’s financial system to better track costs, obtain better and 

timely cost information, and improve overall financial management? 

Answer: I was deeply troubled by the pace at which the projected cost increases 

grew early in the year, and the fact that such a serious increase could have been 

identified so late. In my responses to questions 1-3, 6, and 9-10, above, I have indicated some of the early steps I intend to take, if confirmed, to address this most 

serious issue.

Question 12. On November 23, the Chinese government announced that it will 

start manned space flights missions in 2005, with the objective of reaching the 

Moon. 

(a) How should NASA react to an energized Chinese space program? 

64

(b) What strategic implications might this announcement have for U.S. national 

security? 

Answer: NASA is continuing to work closely with the Administration concerning 

U.S. policy with regard to potential civil, space-related cooperation with China. The 

U.S. Government position remains that adherence to the MTCR and export controls 

is a prerequisite to increased civil space cooperation. Due to these continuing concerns, at the present time, NASA has very limited cooperation with China. Should 

enhanced cooperation become possible, NASA’s primary interest would be to cooperate with China in the field of Earth Science. Potential future cooperation in Earth 

science would include low technology environmental studies to examine the oceans, 

air quality and land cover and land use. Successful implementation of such cooperation could potentially serve as a basis for future cooperation in other areas of mutual interest. 

With regard to national security implications, I would defer to the National Security Council and the Department of Defense to evaluate, monitor and address those 

issues.

Question 13. According to a November 18, 2001, article in Florida Today, NASA’s 

Consolidated Space Operations Contract has hit a $500 million shortfall. The contract with Lockheed Martin was supposed to save NASA $1.4 billion over 10 years. 

Now there has been some discussion of cutting NASA’s Deep Space programs and 

even its mission to Mars in order to make up for this shortfall. 

(a) What can be done to resolve this problem? 

(b) Do you intend to cut any Deep Space programs in order to make up for this 

shortfall? 

Answer: I am aware of the concerns with NASA’s space operations consolidation 

efforts and very concerned that it may not be meeting the expectations for savings 

that were intended. If confirmed, I will carefully examine this situation, both with 

regard to the specifics of the contract performance and in the context of the broader 

issues of management and cost control discussed in my previous responses.

Question 14. An editorial in the December 3 issue of Space News chastised Congress for shirking its responsibilities ‘‘by approving a 2002 budget for NASA loaded 

down with too many pet projects designed to benefit the constituents of the Senators 

and Representatives most able to influence the budget.’’ The editorial calculates that 

the 2002 NASA appropriations bill included 136 earmarks costing $533 million, an 

increase of nearly 45 percent over last year. Could you please explain how this type 

of Congressional earmarking affects NASA’s scientific and exploratory missions? 

Answer: The Administration has expressed serious concerns about the dramatic 

growth in recent years in the number and cost of earmarks in NASA’s budget. 

Unrequested projects have grown from six projects with a total cost of $74 million 

in fiscal year 1997 to 136 projects with a total cost of $533 million in fiscal year 

2002. This practice has the effect of exacerbating funding demands for other authorized activities, as well as diminishing the NASA’s ability to make resource decisions 

and allocations across its programs. Especially troublesome are earmarks that restore funding to projects that have been canceled due to dramatic cost growth, 

which greatly hinders NASA’s ability to control costs and make sound management 

decisions. This also has an inevitable chilling effect on agency initiative and is especially detrimental to NASA, where innovation and initiative in exploration and advanced research and technology have been hallmarks of its past progress. This is 

a serious issue that I believe must be addressed in a cooperative manner with the 

Congress.

Question 15. Background: NASA has experienced significant cost growth problems 

in many of its major programs, including the Space Station and the second-generation reusable launch vehicle demonstration. Many of the problems could be attributed to poor planning and program management. NASA has now initiated work on 

its Space Launch Initiative, which aims to demonstrate technologies leading to replacement of the Space Shuttle. The program is currently estimated to cost about 

$4.9 billion through fiscal year 2006. 

(a) What role do you see the private sector having in the Space Launch Initiative? 

(b) In light of NASA’s problems in controlling costs on previous programs, what 

will you do to ensure that the agency adequately defines requirements, prepares accurate program cost estimates and manages the program within established cost 

guidelines? 

I believe the private sector can and should play the fundamental role in pursuing 

the Space Launch Initiative (SLI). This program has been designed with the lessons 

of past spacecraft and launch system development activities in mind and with the 

goal of lowering cost, improving reliability, and buying launch services from comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 19, 2004 Jkt 082425 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87606.TXT JIMC
65

mercial launch providers for all of NASA’s launch needs, including human space 

flight. 

Although promising steps have been taken to ensure strong requirements and cost 

analysis on SLI, the SLI program can also be the beneficiary of the cost and management reforms growing out of the current effort to address ISS and Space Shuttle 

cost and management challenges, as discussed in previous responses.

Question 16. This summer the Committee was informed of a $218 million gap in 

funding for the Space Shuttle program. Under Director Goldin, NASA had considered canceling and deferring safety upgrades to the Space Shuttle fleet. 

(a) Should NASA delay or cancel safety upgrades to the Space Shuttle in order 

to mitigate this funding shortfall? 

(b) What factors will you consider as you decide which upgrades to cancel or 

defer? 

Answer: I believe that Shuttle upgrades that provide worthwhile safety improvements and can be implemented in a timely way should be continued. Efforts to directly improve safety in Shuttle operations should be continued, by addressing concerns in the ground infrastructure supporting operations as well as process improvements, investments in personnel and potential safety enhancements to flight systems. In an era of constrained resources, our first priority must be to sustain safe 

operations. The selection of, and funding allocated to, upgrades must not result in 

accepting risks in operational safety or foregoing other investments that yield greater safety gains.

Question 17. This Committee is concerned that not a great enough priority is put 

on the maintenance of infrastructure at NASA Centers. At a hearing before this 

Committee in September, witnesses testified that improper infrastructure maintenance was adversely affecting safety and performance of the Space Shuttle. Will infrastructure maintenance be a major focus of NASA under your tenure? 

Answer: As a general rule, if confirmed, I will seek to spend less agency resources 

on infrastructure and more on science and technology. That said, I believe it is vital 

to preserve the Nation’s investment in important national assets under NASA’s 

stewardship, and doing so will be an important priority for me, if confirmed. Additional support for infrastructure maintenance is being considered in the fiscal year 

2003 budget formulation. Any additional investments in infrastructure maintenance 

will be made in the context of the ongoing Strategic Resources Review, and will be 

consistent with future decisions on space launch.

Question 18. One general public complaint about NASA is that its ‘‘glory days’’ 

of discovery are over. The Apollo landings of the late 1960s and 1970s are considered the apex of NASA’s achievements in exploration. Do you believe that NASA 

should develop a new bold strategy for manned space exploration that will re-kindle 

the public’s interest? 

Answer: I share the enthusiasm for exploration and discovery, and I believe that 

NASA can, and should be in the forefront of this nation’s future space exploration. 

But NASA can only do so if it is able to deliver on its current programs and commitments. The immediate and sustained focus must be on demonstrating convincingly 

that NASA has the ability to effectively and efficiently meets its current challenges. 

From that success will emerge a coherent vision characterized by science-driven 

strategic objectives rather than events.

Question 19. NASA currently has planned an ambitious schedule to continue 

greater exploration of the planet Mars, including missions every other year culminating in a mission that will return to the Earth with Mars soil samples in 2011 

or 2014. 

(a) Do you believe that this program is an important asset to NASA’s science mission? 

(b) What management changes should be pursued to prevent the problems which 

occurred with the Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander missions? 

Answer: Given recent important discoveries regarding the potential for life at 

Mars and elsewhere in the solar system, NASA’s Mars Exploration Program is a 

clear priority. The success of the current Mars Odyssey mission reflects well on 

changes that have already been implemented following the failures of the Mars Climate Orbiter and Polar Lander missions. If confirmed, I will ensure the continued 

implementation of the management reforms in this area, as well as the application 

of overall cost and management reforms to ensure continued success and accountability in these important missions.

Question 20. Background: GAO has reported that NASA’s contract management 

is a continuing area of high risk, because the agency lacks effective systems and 

processes for overseeing contractor activities. For example, in a recently issued report on International Space Station cost limits, GAO found that NASA was unable 

66

to provide auditors with detailed, transaction-based data to support the dollars obligated for the Space Station, and did not have support for the actual cost of completed Space Station components—either in total or by subsystem or elements. As 

a result NASA is not able to re-examine its cost estimates for validity once costs 

have been realized. A key effort to address these weaknesses is the implementation 

of a new integrated financial management system. Implementation of the system 

and its integration with full cost accounting have been delayed for several years, 

however, because of significant development and implementation problems. NASA 

has started its third attempt at developing such a system, after having spent $180 

million over 12 years on two failed efforts. Until the new system is operational, performance assessments relying on cost data may be incomplete. 

(a) After two failed attempts, what is your expectation for fully implementing the 

Integrated Financial Management System? 

(b) What type of management attention would you provide to this effort? 

(c) Will NASA’s new financial management system fundamentally change the way 

in which NASA tracks and uses cost information for activities such as estimating 

and controlling costs, performance measurement and making economic tradeoff decisions? 

(d) What other steps would you take to enhance oversight of contract management 

activities? 

Answer: I believe that NASA can enhance the probability of successfully completing its missions and mandates on schedule and within budget by establishing 

an effective integrated financial management system. Such a system can and will 

be effectively implemented. My previous experience and background has engendered 

in me an unyielding commitment to meet cost and management challenges of the 

kind described in the GAO report, and it will be my highest priority if confirmed 

as NASA Administrator. 

As indicated in previous responses, it would be my intention to fully empower and 

utilize the office of the Chief Financial Officer to improve NASA’s oversight over 

contract cost and schedule management that underpins budget formulation activities. In addition, I will, if confirmed, employ enhanced independent assessment capabilities to ensure compliance, accountability and accuracy in program estimation 

and management.

Question 21. Background: In the early 1990s, NASA’s Administrator challenged 

the agency to design and implement projects faster, better, and cheaper. The goal 

was to shorten program development times, reduce costs, and increase scientific return by flying more and smaller missions in less time. Although NASA maintained 

a high success rate under this approach, a few significant mission failures occurred—particularly the loss of the Mars Polar Lander and Climate Orbiter spacecraft. NASA investigations of these failures as well as other program reviews raised 

concern that lessons from past experiences were not being applied to current 

projects and programs. 

(a) Do you envision continuing the faster, better, cheaper approach in light of past 

problems? 

(b) What would you do differently to avoid failures like the two Mars probes? 

(c) What steps would you take to ensure that effective lessons learning and knowledge sharing take place across the agency? 

(d) Do you see a need for more integration of NASA’s Centers as a means to foster 

knowledge sharing? 

(e) What initiatives do you think are needed to address cultural barriers that may 

inhibit collaboration and knowledge sharing among agency staff? 

(f) What would you do to retain the institutional knowledge gained from past mistakes, given that NASA anticipates significant retirements in the next 3 to 5 years? 

Answer: I believe ‘‘Faster’’ ‘‘Better’’ and ‘‘Cheaper’’ are appropriate metrics in assessing the merits of NASA missions. However, these metrics must also be balanced 

against mission risk. For example, compressed schedules and reduced costs can increase risk to unacceptable levels if not carefully measured and monitored. Accountability for cost, schedule and performance commitments, reliability and mission success—as ensured by having a clear picture of risk—are goals I would focus on, if 

confirmed as NASA Administrator. Among the early activities I would undertake as 

Administrator would be an effort to become fully informed of the lessons learned 

from recent mission successes and failures and examine the means by which those 

lessons are communicated and applied to programs across the Agency. I firmly believe that there should be one NASA, with consistent principles and appropriate balance of risks across the separate programs and Centers, and that lessons learned 

in one area are applied wherever else in the Agency they may be appropriate. It 

would be my intention to examine new methods of ensuring the ‘‘cross-fertilization’’ 

of ideas and experience across the agency and undertake such steps as staff-sharing 

67

and exchanging as a means of enhancing cooperation and communications across 

Enterprises and Centers. I further believe that an aggressive effort of successor 

planning and mentoring can help ensure that knowledge and experience is more institutionalized than personalized and available to succeeding generations of leadership.

Question 22. It was recently announced that the Consolidation Space Operations Contract (CSOC) was running about $500 million short of expected savings. Can you 

comment on how you propose to deal with this shortfall? 

Answer: (See response to question 13, above.)

Question 23. If there will be less time for science on the ISS, how do you plan 

to modify the occupancy plan with respect to the international partners? 

Answer: This is an area of obvious concern to our international partners and one 

that I would expect to address early on if confirmed as Administrator. I believe 

there is time to reach a mutually acceptable and beneficial solution with our partners on this issue. The current situation does not significantly change the previous 

occupancy plan until 2006. It would be my intention to get acquainted with our 

partners’ representatives and begin the dialog necessary to reach an accommodation 

of the interests and capabilities of all members of the international ISS partnership.

Question 24. If access to the ISS will be more limited than set forth in current 

international agreements, what plans are there for modifying scheduled visits for 

international partners? 

Answer: See my answer to question 23, above.

Question 25. If it is the Administration policy, and the widely-held view in Congress, that the severe funding challenges in the Space Station program should not 

affect programs outside the Human Space Flight area, then do you believe this view 

can be maintained given the current fiscal realities? 

Answer: I believe that both the ISS and Space Shuttle funding challenges can and 

should be addressed solely within the Human Space Flight area. NASA must maintain a balance among its respective program areas, and a lack of discipline or management failure in one area must not be allowed to negatively impact another.

Question 26. On the Mars program, there are international commitments for the 

joint exploration of Mars with partners, namely France and Italy. Last month, 

NASA confirmed the terms of this exploration with France. Can you comment on 

the likelihood that these agreements will be maintained? 

Answer: I do not yet have sufficient information regarding the specifics of these 

commitments or the prospects for the specific program elements to which they refer. 

As a matter of principle, I feel strongly that the U.S. should maintain its international commitments, but also believe that such commitments should be made in 

a manner which supports the best interests of the United States and a realistic assessment of the U.S. capability to meet its obligations under any agreement.

Question 27. What is your position on the Mars exploration program beyond 2007, 

as these missions will require extensive planning and financial obligations by each 

agency involved? 

Answer: Planning for Mars missions in the next decade is an important activity 

to understand what key investments in technology should be made today to maintain a wide set of options. However, given the uncertainty as to the scientific discoveries and technological advancements we will obtain from Mars missions and investments this decade, Mars planning for the next decade cannot be static and should 

consider a wide range of potential scientific strategies and mission options.

Question 28. Some recommendations to NASA from the General Accounting Office, the NASA Office of Inspector General, various NASA Advisory Council organizations, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, and special commissions are agreed 

to but never implemented. What steps do you intend to take to ensure that agreed 

upon recommendations and action plans are properly tracked and implemented? 

Answer: As part of the cost estimation and management reforms described in previous responses, the maintenance and tracking of externally developed findings and 

recommendations is essential. If confirmed, I would take steps to emphasize the necessity of utilizing the body of knowledge represented by the product of these reviews and couple that with assigning clear responsibility for the maintenance and 

dissemination of the material produced as the result of the reviews conducted by 

such reviewing entities.

Question 29. The California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has operated 

NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory as the sole-source contractor since 1959. Would 

you consider opening some or all of the contract to competition when it comes up 

for renewal in 2003?’’ 

Answer: I am not yet conversant with the specific terms of the Caltech contract, 

and cannot respond with specific comment. As a matter of principle, I am strongly 

68

in favor of competition as a means of minimizing cost to the government and would, 

if confirmed, carefully consider the potential for competitive offering of portions of 

that, or any other, contract.

Question 30. What are your views on contracting out and commercializing additional functions at NASA in light of the present high level of contracted activities 

in NASA, and the difficulties NASA has experienced in some of its high-profile 

outsourcing efforts (e.g., SFOC, CSOC)? 

Answer: The Administration position is clear regarding the need to maximize the 

opportunity for greater competitive sourcing and partnering efforts in the management of NASA programs, and I am a strong advocate for that position. What is essential is to identify the causal factors of the difficulties in previous and on-going 

efforts and to implement refinements and improvements to the process that can 

guard against those difficulties. I am confident that means can be found to enhance 

the effectiveness of competitive sourcing for those activities, and if confirmed would 

aggressively pursue those means.

Question 31. In recent years, the Agency has at times (e.g., the proposed launch 

of the X-37 on the Shuttle) taken a very broad view of the Commercial Space Act 

of 1998’s mandate that NASA fly payloads on commercial launch vehicles unless the 

Shuttle’s unique capabilities are required. Under your watch, what steps would you 

take to uphold the Commercial Space Act’s mandate? 

Answer: I support the intent of the Commercial Space Act to expand the use of 

commercial launch vehicles and capabilities. Given the anticipated changes in Space 

Station assembly and utilization and, potentially, a concomitant reduction in the 

Space Shuttle annual flight rate, as has been proposed by the IMCE, I believe the 

goal outlined in the Act becomes even more important. If confirmed, I would undertake steps to make the maximum effective use of the Space Shuttle’s unique capabilities. I believe a significant outcome of that effort will be an increasing focus on 

the use of commercial launch capabilities.

Question 32. NASA has outsourced the ownership and management of its desktop 

computers. As a result, the Agency lacks insight into the security of its information. 

How do you intend to balance the goals of outsourcing in the IT arena with the need 

to protect NASA systems and data? 

Answer: Activities underway by the NASA Office of Inspector General and the 

new Office of Security are addressing the IT security concerns and requirements. 

I believe it will be possible to identify and effectively implement the means of maintaining adequate security protection and realizing the savings inherent in 

outsourcing that portion of NASA’s IT environment that is appropriately managed 

through such an outsourcing arrangement. If confirmed, I will actively monitor that 

effort to ensure that both goals are being accomplished.

Question 33. The Japanese government has announced its intent to become a 

world leader in the aerospace sector, and is in final testing of its H-2A rocket. How 

a great a competitive challenge is Japan to the U.S. space launch industry? 

Answer: The Japanese have an efficient national space agency and a strong commitment to the development of their space launch industry. To the extent they are 

willing to provide governmental assistance to their private industrial base, they 

have the potential to be a serious competitor to the U.S. for launches within the 

payload capability of their launch systems. The U.S. commercial launch industry, 

in partnership with NASA and other Federal licensing and regulatory entities, 

should continue to carefully monitor the potential competitive situation in the 

worldwide launch services industry. To the extent NASA can continue in its privatization efforts and new launch vehicle and technology development efforts, such as 

the Space Launch Initiative, the agency can make an important contribution to enhancing the U.S. competitive posture within that global industry.

Question 34. There are some that say sufficient technology exists to support 

cheaper access to space. NASA needs can be met by use of current technology to 

build a low cost 2-stage reusable launch vehicle. If this is indeed the case, what are 

the merits of the Space Launch Initiative (SLI)? What are the impacts of SLI on 

small commercial startup launch companies? 

Answer: The SLI program, as currently constituted, is intended to address precisely the question of risk reduction by developing and demonstrating technological 

and systems integration capability. It is the purpose of the program to validate technologies and systems design concepts that can be eventually applied to advanced vehicle design and development. Once risks are at acceptable levels and costs are well 

understood, new systems will be developed to launch both humans and cargo to and 

from space. Some small commercial launch companies are already participating in 

the first round of SLI awardees, and it is anticipated that the number will grow 

as the program moves forward. It can also be expected that successful technology 

69

developments within the SLI program will be available to enable small startup 

launch companies an opportunity to participate in the development of alternative 

low-cost launch capabilities.

Æ