Richard Shelby

Dodd-Frank has needlessly, I believe, created widespread uncertainty about the regulation of derivatives and threatens to impose huge costs on Main Street businesses as well as on our overall economy.

The irony is that the proponents of Dodd-Frank told us that the new law would bring certainty to the market and stimulate economic growth.

One of the most results-driven aspects of our entire Federal budget.

Treatment choices should be made between doctors and patients, rather than by folks in Washington, DC.

To ensure that the Congress has the necessary information to make informed decisions about the implementation of the new law going forward, Madam Secretary, would you commit--and have you committed before--to have your Department respond…

However, some of my colleagues on the HELP authorizing committee, specifically Senator Enzi and Senator Hatch have talked to me, and have many outstanding requests for information from your Department.

So you are basically committing to be responsive to their requests.

One of the major concerns I have heard from constituents about the new health law is that it will lead to government control and rationing.

It would be irresponsible to ignore the concerns about the CLASS program's long-term sustainability in its current form.

I am concerned that the new chronic disease grant program will create a scenario where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

In other words, it is taxpayers' money you are asking for here. Right? $120 million.

In this austere economic environment, Congress is struggling with difficult budget decisions.

I am disappointed that the administration has not significantly reduced healthcare spending.

Federal housing policies must be adequately assessed, and proper homework must be done before action is taken.

I mean, you know, if you are getting a big loan, say $700,000 or $650,000, that is a pretty good size loan for the average American, whether it is in Alabama, South Dakota, or Montana, or maybe not in certain areas of California or New…

I think that market should be supported by the private sector. It is $720,000--you are talking about a $900,000 house. I do not believe that is a house that should be subsidized by taxpayers.

Because we are thinking about the taxpayers right now.

I thought for a long time, before it was all abuse and misused, that securitization was good for America.

How do we bring back an appetite in the private market for mortgage-backed securities?

I think we are interested in providing opportunities for home ownership. It will not be for everybody.

So you are not advocating here that you want a Government guarantee for everything in the real estate industry bills, are you?

But it has not come yet, has it?

Our once dynamic and innovative housing market is now stagnant and damaged, crippled by regulatory uncertainty.

The mortgage finance system should be, quote, "capitalized sufficiently to withstand losses on defaulting mortgages that would result if house prices declined by, say, 25 percent."

But Secretary Geithner basically says that any Federal guarantee should be priced according to the risk, without any political considerations.