Richard Shelby

What happens if Congress rejects the deal? How would we maintain effective enforcement of our sanctions?

Iran remains the world's leading state sponsor of terror.

It remains a serious risk to the national security interests of the United States.

We have an unusually grave and historic responsibility to assess the consequences, without partisan rancor, without any partisan attacks, to assess the consequences of this agreement.

This is one of the most significant national security issues Congress will face in a generation.

This should not be subject to partisan attacks and political ad wars, even though it has been.

The export ban on crude oil was from the very beginning a deeply perverse policy implemented in a futile attempt to mitigate the perverse effects of other Government policies.

Lifting the ban would also send a very powerful signal of the United States' commitment to free trade and open markets.

Today I find it strange that the United States is the only advanced country that bans crude oil exports.

Lifting the ban on U.S. exports of crude oil could give us a real boost in terms of our national security.

Both of these bills lift the ban on oil exports while at the same time preserving the energy authority of the President.

The deal that the Administration has presented us concerning Iran's nuclear program will entail the lifting of sanctions against Iranian oil.

Oil exports is an opportunity--this is another particular, Mr. Chairman, to become an energy superpower.

I called for 2014 to be the year of the report, and, boy, did they do the reports.

In my view the flawed process by which MetLife was designated as a SIFI illustrates the need to impose more intellectual rigor on the SIFI designation process.

The change would reduce some of the current pathologies in bank regulation that Dodd-Frank created.

The proposal in the bill under consideration would inject a degree of intellectual rigor into the SIFI designation process that is currently lacking.

The Federal Reserve issued a white paper last week that contemplates replacing the $50 billion asset size threshold

Size alone is not the best proxy for an institution's contribution to systemic risk

The new approach to SIFI designation reflected in the statute would make the regulatory system more fair.

I support this new approach for five reasons.

The hearing will come to order.

We are trying to give you a lot of power--you already have a lot of power--and some discretion, but none of us wants to weaken the banking system.

It is a question of is it going to be legal or illegal.

We do not want to drive the small, marginal consumer underground where there is no regulation.