Sam Brownback

I don't believe, is that we can achieve this goal by promulgating national carbon emission regulation.

I support the goals you both have laid out in your written testimony.

It simply would be unconscionable to allow the mullahs to acquire nuclear weapons.

Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism worldwide, the foremost exporter of extremist ideology, and the primary source of instability in the Middle East.

This allows State and local units of government to divest from investments associated with Iranian companies.

It is clearly enabling, because what we are doing is allowing State and local pension funds to divest.

Iran's Sanctions Enabling Act, S. 1065, currently has 33 bipartisan cosponsors of it.

It simply, in my estimation, would be unconscionable to allow the mullahs to acquire nuclear weapons.

The Iranian Government is the leading state sponsor of terrorism worldwide.

Wouldn't we be better off to be very narrow and focused on incremental movement and getting our entitlement spending under control?

I believe the President's price tag on the proposal was--I thought he said last night around $900 billion over 10; is that correct?

The President used a figure, I think he said 30 million, and he said that the program will not cover illegal aliens.

I presume you are going to try to make it up on the other end of it as a proposal, but I wonder if you are going to really end up with a better system than if you would go incrementally at these pieces where we are now.

He does not believe that the plan should add to the deficit, $1 to the deficit.

I would hope that we would look at this whole health care debate as one we would want to go at incrementally.

I think it is important if we can get at what is the actual universe and the number.

I am concerned about the way that the Federal government is addressing the economic downturn and, in particular, the lack of focus on jobs.

Thus far, the stimulus has failed on all three fronts: funds have not been spent in a timely manner; spending has not been targeted to employment and foreclosure prevention.

The stimulus was not adequately targeted towards job creation and foreclosure prevention which are weighing heavily on the economy.

We are going into next year with a higher unemployment rate next year as unemployment trails economic recovery.

I think that we have to get through this storm.

Unemployment is going to be the key figure for us to be watching from this point on forward.

It seems like that was the dynamite cap, a big one, and it has exploded the rest of it.

I wish to thank Chair Maloney for arranging today's hearing and to thank today's expert panel on home foreclosures and foreclosure mitigation.

I hope we can focus on what we need to do to get that unemployment rate down.