I think what you have said, a 5-year authorization bill, would be very, very well received in the aerospace community.

I assure you NASA is and will be if, I am around, not only bipartisan, but nonpartisan, and it will continue that way.

Our seed corn is research and development. We do not want to ever give that up, and that is the mission of NASA.

It will fly supersonic but its design is such a radical design, that instead of pushing the bow wave going through the atmosphere, as you go from subsonic to supersonic, which causes that audible sound that goes 'boom, boom,' it will…

NASA clearly has a vested interest in attracting, engaging, and preparing its future STEM professionals.

It is characterizing the orbit that eventually our Gateway or space station will go in.

The X-59, which is this extraordinarily super designed needle-nosed aircraft is going to fly at the end of this year.

We cannot operate our science agencies on the cheap, and we should not operate them without clear, multi-year direction.

The Stennis Space Center is a very valuable national asset because it is the location that, when we are developing exquisite new engines, we have to go to test them.

Is there a market out there to cut that almost in half? And I suspect there is.

We are sucking air when it comes to the needs of infrastructure.