Richard Shelby

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

If you're the one that's paying the bill and they're doing it, it looks to me like you should be in control of the destiny of that to a point, through the contract system.

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

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.

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?

This budget focuses too heavily on maintaining the fiction of privately funded commercial cargo and crew vehicles.

This country has finite resources to invest and while we are committed to NASA's mission, subjecting mission critical activities to shoestring budgets because a more exciting idea has come along is not wise.

I have serious doubts about NASA's dedication to truly developing a heavy launch capability.

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

I strongly believe that this country must continue to push the science and engineering envelope while maintaining focus on current investments.

In its fiscal year 2014 budget, the Navy chose to terminate funding for the Reentry Systems Application Program (RSAP).

The Navy's joint high speed vessel, as you are familiar with, I think is a valuable addition to the Navy.

We have so much confidence in Senator Durbin and Senator Cochran to chair this subcommittee.

So, you see, where there is a will, we found the wallet, and we found that we could govern with sensibility, affordability, and a sense of civility on the floor.

I would tell the distinguished Senator and my friend from West Virginia, for whom I have a lot of respect, that I totally disagree. This is the first step in the erosion of our rights under the Second Amendment. That is why I oppose this…

Is it true--we have a record here--that there are fewer and fewer foreclosures in multifamily apartments as opposed to single?

I applaud your work. You have been an extraordinary person in this job, despite what some people would say.

I think that is important as far as Fannie and Freddie are concerned.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are under a conservatorship of the U.S. Government, is that right?

Your commitment to protecting both taxpayers and homeowners has served our Nation well, and we are finally beginning to see signs of recovery.

But it seems to me that it makes no sense for Fannie and Freddie, in other words, the implied guarantee of the taxpayer, to have 100 percent, or close to it, of the mortgages in today's market.

In other words, they are sitting in the lap of the taxpayer.

I remain concerned that prioritizing funding increases and new funding for programs distributed competitively rather than formula funded programs results in the redirection of critical Federal funds from rural States to urban areas.

Will this give them a leg up on maybe accessing some of our intellectual property that we have? Is that not always dangerous?

I am concerned that much of the plan is contingent upon additional changes and engagement with the Chinese to access their data.