Brad Sherman

Do you agree that allowing Iranian access to SWIFT undermines U.S. national security objectives?

I want to commend you on everything you have done to keep short and long interest rates as low as possible.

But other than that, I haven't heard anybody in the room come up with a reason why that $1.3 billion is helping the United States.

Are any of you aware of any treaty ratified by the Senate that commits us to spend over $1 billion a year in aid to the Egyptian military?

A lot of companies come before Congress and wrap their agenda in jobs or the national interest.

When we transfer manufacturing technology, we transfer our most valuable secrets, how to make the materials involved.

I introduced, with Don Manzullo, the Defense Trade Controls Improvement Act of 2009.

We found that the State Department had too few licensing officers.

It is up to us to open the markets, to make sure that access to U.S. markets is contingent upon our access to theirs.

I think it would have much less of an effect, in that I think they could sell it elsewhere.

Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Brad Sherman

If the pipeline was to U.S. markets in the Middle West we wouldn't have this issue.

The effect of energy on our national security cannot be overstated.

We have a shortage of housing for the homeless. We have an incredible shortage of money here in the Federal Government.

Is there any way that we can use the housing stock that has already been constructed to meet these needs?

We may have expensive homes, but we do pay our mortgages.

I assure you, it is smaller and the people who live in it are more working class than those in the $250,000 houses in much of North Carolina.

A 15 percent decline in home values nationwide would do more to increase the Federal deficit than anything I can think of.

It is very easy for him to vote against a bill that would prevent a major recession from hitting Los Angeles.

Another thing I think we all agree on is we want the Federal Government to take as little risk as possible and the private sector to take as much of that risk as possible.

One thing I think we tend to agree on here is we want to give consumers as much choice as possible.

I am waiting for my Republican colleagues to convert to Democrats. It is not that hard.

When I talk to everybody in my district, they want jobs, small businesses want capital.

What does it do to the value of homes in this country if for the vast majority of buyers, the interest rate is three-quarters of a point higher than it would be otherwise?

How much higher is that going to be without the government guarantee?