I am alarmed by this disparity because the decline in funding for the physical sciences has put our Nation's capabilities for leading the world in scientific innovation at risk.

NSF must lead the way in developing new technologies to strengthen our national security and our economic security.

America needs to be safer, stronger, and smarter.

There is no national framework that even comes close to addressing the national needs.

One of the things that I think we both admire about NASA is not only the exploration of what's out there, but the invention of technology, the new ideas that then lead to new products, that also benefit the larger American community.

So no matter what, because in the Gehman letter, he says this, the bottom line, says Admiral Gehman, shuttle risks are dangerous, and we should fly the minimum number necessary to complete mission.

There are a lot of questions to be asked here, and I look forward to engaging in a conversation with you about this.

Given the problems that we are having in the Nation, I don't think this is the time to be cutting back on that investment.

I believe all work is honorable.

The strategic Federal investment in scientific research, and particularly the funding support at NSF, has directly led to innovative developments.

I believe that funding for NSF should keep pace with funding for NIH.

The National Science Foundation is critical to our economy. Future technologies and future jobs depend upon NSF research.

I support that while you have a CFO and a COO, we believe in today's modern world you do particularly when you are also managing such a diverse set of grantees.

I oppose earmarking the AmeriCorps account.

Why mid-size?

What I would like to know is, what are the consequences of some of these decisions, and then look at what we need to do.

No Child Left Behind is having a very troubled history now, as it is implemented.

I am very troubled by this, and the fact that the $80 million they leave behind does not stay in education.