Greg Ganske: “I rise, not surprisingly, since I have cosponsored this amendment, in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this…”

“I rise, not surprisingly, since I have cosponsored this amendment, in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this should not be an annual rite of spring. We should eliminate this funding. James van Allen, a respected scientist at the University of Iowa, and many other scientists have said that we will get much more bang for our buck by funding unmanned scientific explorations. The space station's spending is already $43 million over budget, or, as NASA would say, the expenses have experienced cost growth. Despite these higher expenditures, NASA has fallen behind in the construction schedule. According to the GAO, we will sink $94 billion into this orbiting erector set before it is over, if NASA does not go any further over budget. Our share of the price tag is not the only problem. The space station is supposed to be international, so let me speak to comments made by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin. The memoranda of understanding between NASA and the space agencies of our partners has not been finalized. We have no definitive agreements with any of our partners, whose contributions are necessary for the completion of this space station. NASA insists that Russia has made commitments to the project. However, none of these agreements are in writing. NASA must know something that Russia does not know. For example, NASA states that an American will always be in command of the space station.”