Opening Statement by Rep. Bart Gordon House Science Committee Hearing: Implementing the Vision for Space Exploration: Development of the CEV

September 28, 2006

Good afternoon. I’d like to join the Chairman in welcoming the witnesses to today’s hearing.

First, let me be clear about what this hearing is not. It is not a hearing about whether or not the nation should build a Crew Exploration Vehicle. It is not a hearing about whether or not the right contractor team won the CEV contract. And it is not a hearing about whether or not the U.S. should return to the Moon.

Instead, this hearing is to examine whether or not NASA is pursuing the right acquisition strategy for the CEV, whether it has adequately planned for the challenges inherent in the program, and whether it has budgeted sufficient funds to complete the CEV.

The last question is particularly important, because if there is cost growth in the CEV program, it has the potential to do serious damage to NASA’s other programs as well as to other parts of the exploration initiative.

I don’t want to see that happen. I want to see the CEV program succeed. That is why I was very concerned when the GAO reported to Chairman Boehlert and me in late July that: “NASA’s current acquisition strategy for the CEV places the project at risk of significant cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance shortfalls…”

Equally troubling were GAO’s findings on the issue of whether NASA’s overall exploration architecture cost estimates fit within the agency’s projected available budgets. To again quote GAO: “…there are years when NASA does not have sufficient funding to implement the architecture. Some yearly shortfalls exceed $1 billion, while in other years the funding available exceeds needed resources…”

And, “NASA preliminarily projects multibillion-dollar shortfalls for [NASA’s] Exploration System Mission Directorate in all fiscal years from 2014 to 2020.”

In other words, we may be seeing another example of lofty goals being set without those proposing them identifying where the resources needed to achieve those goals will be coming from in future years.

I want to note, of course, that NASA “non-concurred” with the GAO’s findings and believes that it has a good plan for both the CEV acquisition and the overall exploration program. I would caution, however, that those are words we have heard before.

I would remind my colleagues that some 18 months ago, NASA testified before this Committee about its plans for acquiring the CEV, indicating that it had a well-thought-out approach to the CEV program.

Let me offer a quote from NASA’s February 16, 2005 testimony: “[The CEV] will be developed in a ‘spiral’ approach, wherein early demonstrations and prototypes are used to demonstrate capabilities, validate technologies, and mitigate risk, all along an evolutionary path toward a mature design. The first spiral development planned will provide the capability to deliver humans to orbit in a CEV by 2014.”

As you will recall, last year’s approach was going to maintain a competition between two contractor teams until 2008 when there would be a competitive “flyoff” prior to award of the CEV development contract.

NASA also assured the Congress last year that its CEV and CLV acquisition plan came with a budget that would meet its 2014 timetable.

It’s now 2006. NASA has eliminated the spiral development approach, has decided not to maintain the competitive flyoff, and has added almost $7 billion to the CEV and CLV program relative to what last year’s five-year funding plan said would be needed. And after all of that, NASA is indicating that the CEV still will not enter operational service until 2014 due to budgetary constraints.

My intent in reciting this history is not to embarrass NASA—it is simply to make the point that we have received assurances from this agency in the past that “everything is under control” and we have had other painful reminders in recent months of large-scale acquisition programs in other agencies under our jurisdiction going off course. We can not afford to have that happen again.

Today’s hearing will provide an opportunity for the Committee to hear from both GAO and NASA on these issues. I look forward to their testimony.