Richard Shelby

The President has said that he would take no deal over a bad deal.

Iranian behavior is concerning on a number of fronts and in a number of locations.

Many insurers, as you well know, hold assets to match long-term liabilities. They argue that measuring the day-to-day fluctuations in those assets through a capital regime would create harmful volatility and inaccurately measure solvency.

It would be unfortunate, I believe, if the Fed uses the QIS process solely to buy time for international insurance capital standards.

Dodd-Frank drastically altered the regulatory landscape for insurers.

An international regulatory regime, I believe, should not dictate how U.S. regulators supervise American or U.S.-based companies.

A long-term reauthorization bill will provide certainty and stability to communities and their citizens as well as business and industry.

The President's fiscal year 2016 budget request for RDT&E is $69.6 billion, $6.1 billion over fiscal year 2015 enacted.

I understand that there may be a six-year gap in guaranteed access to space, under the fiscal year 2015 NDAA Section 1608 restrictions.

Federal policies, I believe, should encourage private investment in transportation infrastructure in order to better leverage Federal investments and to increase economic growth.

You need some uniformity when it comes to safety. We know that.

Dodd-Frank's stated intent is to protect consumers, but some of the regulations promulgated in response to the law have gone so far, they may actually prevent qualified consumers from owning a home.

It is incumbent upon this subcommittee, as Senator Mikulski has said many times, that we are accountable to the American people and to our colleagues, and you are accountable to us.

It appears NASA is already purchasing its own insurance policy in case the crew providers are not ready.

Will they meet their obligations?

Is it even possible to operate as you know it the space station without the Russian segments should we choose to operate the station on our own?

Instead, NASA's budget cuts funding to Orion and the Space Launch System, or SLS, limit our reach in human exploration.

This budget could have been an opportunity, I believe, for NASA to boldly support human exploration after years of budget requests, in which I believe it was short changed.

It is my understanding that in the Commercial Crew Program, NASA initially decided to spread, General, the limited funding resources across five companies.

The bottom line is you need more money; is that right?

The space station was never constructed to be there in perpetuity, was it?

However, NASA continues to blame Congress for lack of resources, when it was NASA that chose to spend nearly $2 billion on a competition.

What is the level of commitment from some of our other international partners to operate the space station beyond 2020?

The Russians have indicated that their intent is to separate their portion of the station in 2024.

I cannot agree more with GAO's assessment of NASA's inadequate funding proposal.