I am pleased that NASA appears to be moving forward with the development of the Space Launch System.

In other words, we're concerned, and I hope there's not a lot of ground for it, about SLS, the rocket itself, not the component.

This sounds like a great arrangement for the companies but I don't believe it is a great arrangement for the taxpayer.

Will you furnish some details on all this to the subcommittee?

NASA is one of the most publicly-recognized agencies in the Federal Government and an inspiration to young people around the world.

NASA has used Space Act Agreements rather than traditional Federal Government contracts to execute the commercial cargo and crew programs.

But, General, my emphasis is on the rocket itself, specifically, not all the ancillary things, the components.

I want to work with you on that.

I'm concerned, General Bolden, that the budget before us is an example of chasing the next great idea while sacrificing current investments.

I believe that with some direction and some accountability, NASA's endeavors can be successful and inspire future generations.

That's a large swing in the cost model that raises questions, I think, whether the difference is attributed to cost savings or is it a lack of commitment to the mission?

I have long been a supporter of public-private partnerships that use Federal dollars to leverage private resources.