There is simply no good reason to oppose the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.

I believe myself that the market ought to set it, not the Government, because it is price fixing.

$50 million for the IMLS Office of Museum Services

I believe that the core mission of NASA is to build cutting-edge systems that will allow us to expand our knowledge of the universe.

Funding for the NIH lays the foundation for drug and device discoveries over the next 10 years.

What about that kind of percentage?

So you're not saying you're going to cap it?

This administration, I believe, seems to think that NASA's job is to use taxpayer money as venture capital to support speculative commercial companies.

But isn't some of the program, it seems to a lot of people, to be a march away from NASA--in other words, into the private sector and vendors--rather than what NASA has proven over many years to have?

Is it not possible that the answer to your budget issues is to fund fewer vendors?

When is this administration going to get the message that the Congress, I believe, is not willing to subsidize so-called commercial vendors at the expense of NASA's core mission?

When the NIH requests $30 billion or more in taxpayer dollars for biomedical research, which I think is not enough, shouldn't reproducibility, replication of these studies, be a part of the foundation by which the research is judged?