It's been a long time since I chaired one of these Space Subcommittee hearings.

It seems that that language that sets up the process you just described is a little vague.

So, it's 2009.

if the U.S. does not sustain an active space exploration program, other nations will--and are preparing to--step into that vacuum.

You all do us proud.

Do you think that NASA will pass its audits this year?

And according to your answer on AMS, the same would be true of the Deep Space Climate Observatory?

Well, then, that's newfound money, isn't it? That would go into the Shuttle account.

I can assure you that we are absolutely not, and will not, restrict the ability of anybody working at NASA to express their technical opinion.

What are the strategic implications of this 4-year-plus gap in our Nation's ability to send humans into space?

I believe those decisions have forced Dr. Griffin to make the kinds of painful choices we are hearing about from the scientific community.

This Committee isn't going to wait around very long, because of information that we have received ex parte about the subject of this investigation.

And that is that you are going to pick up some efficiencies by virtue of the fact that your selection of the contractor for the CEV is going to have some savings.

Is the Administration's FY 2008 budget request sufficient to support full implementation of the missions recommended by the National Academy's decadal survey in Earth science?

If successful, would that be a source of a ride for DSCOVR or for AMS?

It was. It was engineered to go in the payload bay. In fact, it is a completed spacecraft.

Are your figures calculating that you're going to be reimbursed for the money that you spent on hurricane repairs?

I am disappointed that the appropriations for FY 2007 were so far below even the amount requested.