Richard Shelby

What plans has the Missile Defense Agency made to sustain this industry, to continue to meet current deployed and future anticipated missile defense needs?

With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015.

But, that could be a lot of money, could it not?

The threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities have been slow to develop.

But, from an engineering standpoint, it looks to me, from what I've been briefed on, that that could be a probability, more than a possibility, to do this stuff.

I've expressed to the Secretary of Defense, not to you yet, as well as this subcommittee, my grave concerns regarding the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars for Mi-17s, based on what we believe are false assumptions, a total lack of requirements…

The commanders have told us, time and time again--and I just got back from my 15th visit to Iraq and 4th to Afghanistan--that they like and value this platform.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, while there are signs of improvement in the economy, conditions remain weak, especially in labor markets.

As our financial markets began to show signs of improvement, many of the Fed's temporary lending facilities have been allowed to expire, and monetary policy has begun to normalize.

This morning I am interested in hearing, Mr. Chairman, plans for reducing the size of the Fed's balance sheet, withdrawing extraordinary liquidity support from the banking system, and continuing the normalization of monetary policy.

Thank you. Chairman Bernanke, this Committee continues, as you well know, to wrestle with financial reform and the role of the Fed has been a significant part of that debate.

His office insists the tactic is not about pork-barrel spending in his state. Instead, the issue is national security, specifically getting a new Air Force aerial refueling tanker and building a forensic facility to examine L.A. -- IEDs…

He says give me my pork, or I will bring the government to a halt.

The manner in which the President introduced these new ideas is not conducive to developing thoughtful, comprehensive reform legislation.

If we basically all agree--and I hope we do--that nothing is too big to fail, and if we have sound regulation, the power, that regulators have the tools to regulate and do their job, safety and soundness trumps.

If they have the authority, then it is a question of do they have the will to use their authority. Is that right?

Do you believe that regulators presently have the ability to restrict a firm's activities, including their proprietary trading, if they deem this not to be a safe and sound practice?

I remain willing to consider any proposal that will strengthen our regulatory framework and help our economy.

Can the regulator deal with that now under the safety and soundness, in your judgment?

The stated objective of the Administration's newest proposals is to enhance the safety of the banking system. I certainly agree with that.

The spirit of the Volcker Rule, I think, is a good idea.

I think it is absolutely critical that that be clear in the legislation.

I believe our main goal today in regulatory reform must be to eliminate taxpayer exposure to private risk.

I don't believe myself that being big is necessarily bad. But I do believe that being big and thinking the government is going to bail you out is bad.