Our subject is the progress NASA is making in turning the Space Shuttle over to the private sector, how we're assembling and using the International Space Station, and NASA's plans to demonstrate new technologies which will enable the further exploration, development and settlement of space.

But NASA isn't doing any of those things, at least not yet, so instead we'll be talking about cost overruns on the International Space Station. We'll be talking about the Russians. Schedule delays are again on the list of issues to be discussed. And finally, we'll be talking about spending billions we don't have to keep 1970's technology around for another thirty years.

To continue Chairman Sensenbrenner's metaphor, I don't know what's going to kill us first, the icebergs or plain old seasickness. At this point drowning seems like a relief.

I don't know how much more of the International Space Station program we can stand. No matter what we do, NASA just seems to keep coming back asking for more, questioning our commitment if we raise the slightest doubts.

There wouldn't be an International Space Station without this Committee. There might not be one with this Committee if we knew five or ten years ago what we know now. I daresay former Chairman Hall wouldn't have fought so hard to save Station if he had known NASA was going to slash research. Former Science Chairman Bob Walker wouldn't have fought so hard if he knew how many commercialization opportunities NASA would reject.

But there is an International Space Station. We're stuck with making the best of a bad situation. Waiting on a President whose commitment to space is a three percent NASA cut while he gives other R&D agencies a one-time, election year boost of three percent. Waiting on a Vice President who vision for space is to use it as his ideological playtoy, whether it's putting a bankrupt government in the Station's critical path or dreaming up a $50 million politically correct screen saver.

Well, they say it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. So, Mr. Rothenberg, I'm putting you and your colleagues on notice. We're going to turn on the lights.

You want $173 million in transfer authority for FY1998.

But our support is going to come at a price. We've already put strong language in the House bill mandating a fix to the Station research program. As far as commercialization, I have written testimony here which Boeing gave to the Senate saying that there are significant near-term prospects for ISS (and Shuttle) commercialization which could very well provide needed cost-sharing not just during Station operations, but over the next six years, during development.

After all, we've all watched the Russians keep their space agency afloat making advertisements and selling rides. Maybe its time for the land of Madison Avenue and Hollywood to take a hint. So I will seek to put language into the conference authorization which will enable and mandate NASA to have its Space Flight Operations Contractor and its Space Station Prime Contractor pursue opportunities to generate commercial revenue which could reduce the taxpayers' burdens on these programs without competing with existing commercial service providers like launch companies. Hopefully this will allow us to further increase the level of scientific and technological research we're doing with the Shuttle and Station, including some long-term goals.

Whatever happens over the next year, there's no reason commercial activity can't help make the situation better. There's no reason not to restore the research accounts. So we're going to do it.