Richard Shelby

The Department has repeatedly proposed H-2B rules that would add regulatory burdens and costs to American businesses.

Because of lack of money.

Absolutely not. We want to keep it here.

In GDP (gross domestic product) and jobs, right?

It is a huge multiplier, is it not?

I believe as a veteran member of the Appropriations Committee looking at all the aspects of the various requests for money that the NIH, I think, by far is the best investment we have made.

It's sickening. But on the Banking Committee I remember Senator Sarbanes... we worked together on this a lot.

I believe that the IED threat that we face at home or could face in the future makes the work of TEDAC probably more important than ever.

Ensuring that they're aware of the latest trends and are properly trained I think is very important.

So that bipartisan clarity needs to be offered.

The plate of threats that we face is remarkable.

The ultimate goal of any prioritization effort should be an FBI that is efficient, effective, and, more importantly, nimble for the foreseeable future.

I think we will get it.

We got into it a little earlier, and I appreciate you continuing in that vein of questioning.

I want to thank you. You weren't here when I thanked you the first time, but I am going to thank you again for all you have done in leading this subcommittee and providing appropriations for NASA.

I remember in this subcommittee years back when people were naysayers about the Hubble telescope.

What would you expect to get out of this? This is an important question.

Senator Mikulski and I have worked together for NASA, working to make sure, to the best of our ability, that NASA is well-funded.

We hope that things work out between us and Russia and the rest of the world.

We are committed to being able to carry their crew and ours to the International Space Station on American spacecraft by 2017.

We have told our partners that the President of the United States suggests that we extend the life of the International Space Station to 2024.

So you wouldn't know whether this order would impact NASA's ability to pay Russia for rides to the space station?

I thought the SLS would support a 2017 launch date, which is the current plan. Is that wrong?

But it is very important that we keep funding SLS at a confidence level, a level that they can finish their job, on time and on budget.

Could you assure the subcommittee that the funding for SLS will be consistent with Joint Confidence Levels required for all other major NASA projects?