Aaron Schock

Mr. SCHOCK

Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree, based on the current climate here in our country, it is always a good time to invest in our small businesses but especially now with unemployment at an all- time high. Once again, I appreciate the work of Members on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would yield to my other good friend from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for such time as he may consume.

Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for such time as he may consume.

Mr. SCHOCK. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the cooperation of our members on this committee on this important piece of legislation. With unemployment at an all-time high, it is now more than ever important for us to invest in our SBDCs, to support our small businesses, to expand their access to credit and capital, thus allowing them to keep their doors open and invest and expand their businesses, employing more Americans. Now more than ever it is important to pass H.R. 1845, and I urge passage and a ``yes'' vote by all Members. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHOCK

Mr. SCHOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Bob Larson, a true community leader in my hometown of Peoria, Illinois. People in Central Illinois know Bob very well from his work as a WMBD 31 News anchor and his efforts in community service. This Friday, November 6th, Easter Seals of Central Illinois is honoring Mr. Larson at its 19th Annual Tribute Dinner. Each year Easter Seals recognizes individuals who have served the Central Illinois community in extraordinary ways. Past honorees include Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and Congressman Bob Michel. Bob Larson began his work in the community at a very early age. When the owner of WRMI Radio in Morris, Illinois heard Bob's voice, he offered him a job and soon the once shy 16-year-old boy was on the air and his passion for broadcasting began. Larson eventually went on to Texas Christian University and graduated in 1971. Upon graduation, Bob returned home to Illinois and began his career at WMBD in Peoria, which was then both a television and an AM/FM radio station. In his 38 years at WMBD, Bob served as a movie host, weatherman, reporter, and anchor. He has been honored by the Associated Press for Best Downstate Radio Newscast and Best Downstate TV Newscast, as well as being named ``Best News Anchor'' by the Illinois Broadcasters Association. However, Central Illinois residents don't only have to turn on their televisions to see Bob Larson at work. When he joined the Peoria community, Bob made a commitment to dedicate his time and skills to dozens of local charities and events. He began volunteering for the Easter Seals telethon in the 1970s, and in 1981 when the usual hosts unexpectedly could not attend, it was Bob who rose to the occasion and hosted the program. He was such a great host that in 1993 he was designated as one of the official emcees, a role he has filled ever since. Each year Bob and WMBD produce preview stories about the children of Easter Seals. Over the years he has watched these children grow and make their own positive contributions to the community. Bob is also an active supporter of the American Heart Association, a cause he became involved with after a news story he was working on ended up saving his life. As part of the story, Larson allowed himself to be scanned by a new piece of equipment at Methodist Medical Center in Peoria, Illinois. A simple demonstration became a life-changing moment when doctors discovered Larson had a dangerous blockage of his heart. The story turned into a three-part series following Larson through the whole experience and inspiring men who were watching at home to get their own hearts checked. Larson also volunteers for St. Jude, the Salvation Army, the Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Cancer Center for Health Living, and Junior Achievement. He hosts the annual telethon of the Muscular Dystrophy Association and has emceed the annual Santa Claus parade since 1974. In summary, Madam Speaker, Bob Larson is an exceptional example to all Americans of what the phrase ``service to community'' truly means. In these challenging times for America, it's folks like Bob Larson who illustrate the best of our country. I wish to sincerely thank Mr. Larson for all he has done for the people of Peoria and beyond, and congratulate him on his much deserved honors.

Mr. SCHOCK

Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, last night, I hosted a town hall back in my district with over 1,000 of my constituents in attendance. I felt that was a better use of my time than was rushing back to this Chamber to vote on resolutions honoring dogs. The final question of the night last night came from a 9-year-old constituent in my district named Joshua who asked me a very simple question: Do you support what President Obama wants to do with health care? I told Joshua that I spent the first 9 months of my term in office trying to figure out exactly what it is the President wants to do on the issue of health care. It is precisely this confusion of goals, of conflicting messages and this lack of communication from the majority which has all Americans still trying to figure out what exactly the President wants versus the Speaker of the House's bill before Congress. We need to do this right. It's too important to get it wrong, and Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and the American people deserve to be in the room.

Mr. SCHOCK

Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to thank Chairwoman Velazquez for her work on this very important bill and the bipartisan way in which she has carried the work of this committee out. I am truly grateful for her efforts, as well as Ranking Member Graves for his leadership on our side of the aisle to incorporate Members' ideas into this bill. This legislation here today is intended to increase credit options for small business owners in America. I rise today to offer a simple amendment to this important legislation which will help small businesses across the country have greater access to necessary capital. Such support is needed, not only to sustain their operations but also for these small businesses to be able to expand their production capabilities and profits, and ultimately to lead to more jobs and opportunities for our citizens. It is no secret that small businesses are the engine that drive the American economy. Currently creating seven out of the 10 new jobs in America, increasing lending options and capital for small business is vital to leading our country out of this current economic downturn. I am glad today that this body is taking the necessary steps to help our small businesses grow, finally recognizing the significant role that small businesses will play in any economic recovery. It is no secret that one of the greatest disappointments my colleagues on this side of the aisle had in the so-called ``stimulus'' legislation was that it did not do enough for small businesses. Here today we are trying to rectify that. That said, I am offering this simple amendment, which is backed by both the American Banking Association as well as those small independent community bankers, which I believe will help incentivize increased SBA-backed lending to small businesses from more and more banks across this country. The legislation before us sets up important guidelines to the National Lender Training Program for banks to follow if they would like to be considered preferred lenders, thus obtaining easier access to carry SBA-guaranteed loans. While the significance of establishing such a unified training program for lenders to follow cannot be understated, it is equally important that we reward those who complete such training with the true guarantee from the SBA on the loans that they offer to businesses. As is, the SBA currently fails to pay on claims of somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of the loans they guarantee, therefore causing fear in the minds of lenders who would otherwise offer a loan. This amendment will ensure that the SBA will pay out on a guarantee to any lender who can demonstrate that they followed the prescribed training under the National Lender Training Program. If the SBA refuses to pay on such a claim, they must present clear and convincing evidence as to how the lender failed to meet any requirements of the training program. With this type of assurance of lender compensation for SBA- guaranteed loans in default, banks across this country will be more likely to lend to small businesses, ultimately helping to loosen credit markets, get capital flowing again, and put people back to work. While I appreciate this legislation's efforts to extend loan guarantees from the SBA, it is equally important that we ensure the SBA pays out on those guarantees should such loans go into default. Removing the ambiguity of the SBA to decide which lenders get paid on guarantees and which do not will result in more banks being willing to participate in these programs and, ultimately, more loans being made to our Nation's small businesses. I urge adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer one more additional change to this important legislation which I believe will help obtain some of its intended goals. While H.R. 3854 has several initiatives aimed at increasing capital access for small businesses, it additionally makes several SBA programmatic changes. One such change is intended to increase small business and small manufacturer participation in renewable fuels and green industries through an overhaul of the already established Renewable Energy Capital Investment Program. Less than 1 month ago, the Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology held a hearing where one of my constituents from Peoria, Illinois, Dr. Peter Johnsen, testified. Dr. Johnsen shared with that committee the difficulty he was having in finding capital investments or loans for the further development of the crop known as pennycress, a winter cover crop which yields potentially as much as 115 gallons of biodiesel per acre as compared to the current 59 gallons from traditional soy-based diesel, nearly twice as much output. I'm optimistic that operating at full potential, the Renewable Energy Capital Investment Program with its matching grant contributions would be of great assistance to agricultural entrepreneurs across our country like Mr. Johnsen. Established in 2007, the Renewable Energy Capital Investment Program, formerly known as the Renewable Fuel Capital Investment Program, has been a shadow of its promised self. In fact, to date, the SBA Administrator has failed to even issue any rules or regulations for small business participation in the program despite its establishment nearly 2 years ago. This amendment would first place specific emphasis on requiring the SBA to release regulations for program participation within 180 days of enactment of this legislation. Additionally, the underlying legislation allows for a yearly progress report from the SBA concerning this important program. Unfortunately, this program is too important and its potential too great for Congress to simply sit by for a year and wait for the SBA to act. This amendment will require quarterly progress reports concerning the status of the Renewable Energy Capital Investment Program, what steps the SBA is taking to encourage and promote participation, and, finally, how this program is being utilized by the small business community. No longer is the renewable fuels market dominated by those with deep research and development pockets backed by larger corporations. This important program will help ensure small businesses get equal opportunity to participate in the effort to make our country more energy efficient while also establishing new renewable fuel sources. For these reasons, I urge adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHOCK. Once again, I thank Chairman Velazquez for her bipartisan work on this and her leadership, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHOCK

Mr. SCHOCK. Correct. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Look, shortly after I was born, which was in the 1980s, much of Latin America and Central America was struggling with the issue of democracy. Through much of that decade, it was the goal of the administration and the goal of this country to promote and to transition to democracies in that region. So, through much of my life, I have watched these countries continue to grow, to continue to strengthen their relationships with the United States, to continue to be friends and allies to the United States. That was my understanding of that region of the country. Now, I'm not an attorney. I'm not a constitutional law expert. I certainly do not know the Honduran Constitution chapter and verse. So when the events took place on June 28 and when our State Department and this administration quickly said, Well, this was a coup d'etat and that what occurred there was wrong and that what occurred there was a violation of their Constitution, and when they began demanding that the Honduran people and the government there turn back on the decisions they had made, I didn't know what to think. Before jumping to conclusions, before getting on board with our State Department's position or opposing our State Department's position, I enlisted the support of the many resources that we have as elected Members of Congress, namely, the Congressional Research Service. In July, I wrote to the Congressional Research Service, and I asked them to look into the events that had occurred in Honduras. I asked them to look at the Honduran Constitution and to tell me chapter and verse whether or not what occurred there in Honduras was, in fact, in keeping with Honduran law or whether or not it was a violation of their Constitution. The Congressional Research Service then reached out to the law library--to the Library of Congress--and I patiently waited for over 2 months for them to generate this report. In September, they provided this report on Honduras and on the constitutional law issues that we had raised about this situation. They did a very thorough analysis, and they went through, basically, chapter and verse of the Honduran Constitution and on what had occurred in Honduras. Basically, they came to the conclusion that what had occurred there was in keeping with the Honduran Constitution, that the Congress and the Supreme Court have the authority to hold their elected representatives accountable, that they have the authority to vote and to take action when they believe that the leaders of their country are dilatory in their duties and to ask that they be removed. However, the report also found that the expulsion of Mr. Zelaya from the country was a violation of their Constitution, and they cited the portion of the Constitution that clearly says, even if you violate Honduran law, you are to be prosecuted, and you can be imprisoned, but you cannot be expelled from the country. Now, it's pretty clear to me what was legal and what wasn't legal. In stepping back and in looking at the current State Department's position, I kind of scratched my head, and wondered, Well, where is their justification? Where is their chapter and verse? Where is their black-and-white outline of justifying their position which says that what occurred there was not legal? Other than to say, well, we don't like what happened, that we don't like the tone, that we don't like the precedent, and that we don't like the way it looks, I haven't seen a counterpoint. I haven't seen a counter report from the State Department that has gone through chapter and verse and has given a legal opinion on why this was a violation of the Honduran Constitution. Furthermore, we can all have a debate here tonight about what should happen with those issues which we all agree should not have occurred, namely, the expulsion of Mr. Zelaya from the country, but what I want to say is this: First of all, we as a country must uphold the rule of law, and we as a country must respect other countries' constitutions. Whether they're the way we would write the constitutions or whether we like the way the constitutions are written really is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, for us to suggest otherwise--for us to suggest, well, your constitution has to look like our Constitution, and your process has to look like our process--really is giving us the symbol of the ugly American, if you will, in the world, that somehow we believe everyone should look like the United States of America in all of our forms, including in our Constitution. What is important, however, is that the constitution is written by the local citizens, that it is respected and that the rule of law is upheld. I have to think back to just a year ago at about this time. Prior to my being in Congress, I was in the statehouse in Illinois. In December of last year, our legislature, of which I was a member, started a process according to our constitution in the State of Illinois to remove our duly elected leader--our Governor. Now, our Governor had not been convicted of any crime. He had not been indicted for any crime. He had not been brought to trial for any crime, but our constitution clearly said, in the State of Illinois, when a majority of the legislature deems that the Governor is dilatory in his duties, it can have him removed, and our legislature followed that constitution, and had him removed. I'm going to tell you right now that not everybody in the State of Illinois agreed. Certainly, not everyone in this country agreed with removing a sitting officeholder from office, namely, a Governor, prior to a conviction. However, it was allowed for in the constitution. You saw no one in the Federal Government, certainly not our President of this United States, who happens to come from Illinois, call out and say that this would somehow fly in the face of democracy or that some great injustice had occurred. A few years earlier, in the same decade, the citizens of California decided that their Governor was dilatory in his duties and that their Governor, who was duly elected, who had not been convicted of any crime, and who had not gone to trial for any malfeasance, should be removed from office. However, their constitution required that his removal be done by a different process--through voter referendum and through a recall provision. Now, the reason I point this out is that we have 50 States in the Union, and every State has a different constitution. Every State has a different process. Each process is different, and each process is unique. What is important is not that each process is the same but that the rule of law is upheld. I would argue, Madam Speaker, that the same is true in Honduras. The Honduran people have a different Constitution. However, based on the findings of this law review and based on the findings of many legal experts, what occurred there up until the point of Mr. Zelaya's expulsion was in keeping with the Honduran Constitution. What is important in moving forward is not necessarily whether or not Mr. Zelaya is held in the Brazilian Embassy or whether he is brought to trial or whether he gets amnesty or whatever. What is important is that we continue to promote democracy and that we continue to promote free and fair elections around the world, specifically in Honduras. I can't help but think that, as we start to celebrate the elections that are upcoming in Afghanistan, which will take place in less than 2 weeks and where men and women from our Armed Forces have fought and died, much the similar in Iraq, we would look to a friend of the United States for over 30 years, a democracy in Central America, and say to them, You know what? Because of this issue with the removal of your president, we're not going to uphold democracy in your country. We're not going to seek free and fair elections in your country. It seems preposterous, and so I really, tonight, am asking the State Department, show us your plan. What is the end game for Honduras? What is the end game for democracy in that region? My friends who join me here tonight, we only see one solution to continuing to promote democracy in that region, and it's free and fair and open elections in Honduras. Six candidates were nominated by their parties in May. Six candidates have campaigned for this position for nearly a year, and six candidates will be the options for the Honduran people to vote on on November 29. Whomever the Honduran people vote for, the candidates for office we met with made it very clear they will support the outcome of the election. The interim President Micheletti made it very clear upon those elections he looks forward to surrendering the power to the incoming President and going back to his duties in the Congress. The end of the game that I see is we need to be pushing for free and fair elections. We need to be pushing for the rule of law and democracy in Honduras and making sure that the will of the Honduran people is respected on November 29. We, as the United States of America, promoters of freedom around the world, send election observers, send the resources and the support necessary to ensure that free and fair elections occur on November 29 in Honduras.

Mr. SCHOCK

Mr. SCHOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor COL Gene Blade, a great American who is retiring today after 55 years of service to his country and community. Colonel Blade started his 40-year military career in 1954, when he joined the Illinois National Guard in Monmouth, Illinois. His first job in the Army was as a radio operator and Jeep driver for the Battery Commander. As his military career advanced, Colonel Blade served in numerous other positions, including Fire Support Officer and eventually Battery Commander. In fact, Colonel Blade held every key staff position in the infantry and artillery battalions, including Infantry Battalion Commander of the 1st Regiment, 123rd Infantry Battalion. Colonel Blade continued to perform his duties even when no one expected him to do so. In one specific instance, Gene was hospitalized with pneumonia, but a group of top military personnel were scheduled to visit his post to view a demonstration of a nuclear spotter round. The weapons used for this exercise required very specific calculations, and Gene's expertise was needed for the test. Even with pneumonia, Colonel Blade decided to take part in the test and was transported via ambulance to the testing area so he could commence the demonstration. The event occurred without any problems, in fact, it was performed quicker than any previous test. After the demonstration, Gene was transported via ambulance back to the hospital. Gene's commitment to the Army was so evident, that the Army Chief of Staff personally thanked him for going above and beyond the call of duty. After serving 40 years in the Army, Colonel Blade retired as a United States Property and Fiscal Officer for the Illinois National Guard and joined Hanson Professional Services Inc. as a special consultant, working with Department of Defense clients. Even in the private sector, Gene continued to serve his country. Using his skills and knowledge, he provided consulting services for 15 years and worked on several notable projects for the Illinois, Indiana, Florida, and Missouri National Guards. Additionally, Colonel Blade has served on the U.S. Department of Defense's Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) for military bases in Illinois, and he continues to serve on the Governor's post- BRAC commission for future economic development efforts. He is also an active member and an employer outreach representative for the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve program. Throughout his life and career, Gene's dedication and achievements have made a positive impact on the U.S. military, the State of Illinois, and our great Nation. Today, at 75 years of age, Colonel Blade will celebrate his retirement from Hanson. I'm told he looks forward to spending time golfing, traveling, woodworking, and also writing a book of his memoirs. I thank him for his service, and wish him the very best.

Mr. SCHOCK

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We come together tonight to talk about a very important issue and a very important relationship that we enjoy with our only true democratic ally in the Middle East, the State of Israel. We've seen in the last week this issue come to light with the instability in that region, with the new facility that was just discovered and made public on Friday by the United States, Great Britain and her allies. This just reinforces in the minds of many of us in Congress the importance of us remaining steadfast in making sure that the State of Iran, that country, does not receive a nuclear weapon and that we do all that we can to support our ally, the State of Israel, and peace in that region. I was fortunate to be a part of a delegation that traveled to Israel. In fact, there were 25 Members who traveled the first week of August to Israel on a fact-finding trip; 25 Republicans, which was the largest delegation of Republicans ever to visit the State of Israel at once. The Republican delegation was led by our whip, Eric Cantor. The following week the Democrats were led by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and my understanding was there were over 30 Democrat Members who went on that trip, which is the largest number of Democratic Members to travel to Israel all at one time. If you do the math, that's over 50 Members, which is well over 10 percent of the Congress traveling to that region within a 2-week period and I think underscores the importance that this Congress believes that relationship is and the need for us to press for peace and the need for us to support our allies. I want to take some time to reflect on my views of what I learned on that trip and some reflections of what I learned on that trip. Also here tonight, I have one of my good friends and allies who has joined me to share his experiences as well. I would like to take this time to yield to my good friend, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. SCHOCK. Well, thank you for your insights, and obviously I share those observations and would like to take the opportunity to share some of my own. First, let me say that I thought the trip to Israel reinforced what I had already known and that was that the Israeli citizens want peace. I saw this message on the faces of young soldiers. I've heard a passionate thoughtful cry for peace in Prime Minister Netanyahu's words, and I even prayed for peace with Israelis as they ended their prayers on Shabbat. Furthermore, I found that like every nation in this world, Israel is a nation of contrasts. Specifically, it is a land hemmed by unambiguous borders, yet filled with lines that have been blurred beyond recognition. New and old, the archeological and the militarily strategic, the political and the religious were all indistinguishably bundled together until each lost its own identity and had become part of the same interwoven fabric. Each day's itinerary was packed with life-changing events; the oppressive heat that hit me every time I stepped off the bus also seemed to also challenge all of my preconceived ideas about Israel. And while I found our agenda to be filled with the study of distorted lines, there were always those stark borders which clearly separated Israel from her neighbors and delineated fact from fiction. I found this truth as we toured the Western Wall. As I watched old rabbis press their heads against the blocks of Herod's Temple, I found no ambiguous lines. I was clearly standing at the foundation of modern Israel. Conversely, I did not hear Israel's genesis in the echo of my footsteps through the solemn corridors of Yad Vashem. True, I heard an irrefutable argument against the unforgettable atrocities that happened when the world's Jewry does not have a land to call its own. While important, Yad Vashem's lesson does not speak to Israel's birthright. Plainly, Israel does not exist because of the Holocaust. Unfortunately, I believe President Obama crossed this unmistakable border in his Cairo speech, linking the history of Israel not to the Western Wall or Masada but to the actions of a mad man. President Obama implied that Israel was thrown together to ease the guilt of a post- World War II Europe. I find this absurd. One can easily trace the tenacity of Masada straight through 2,000 years of history to the weary resolution on the faces of David Rubinger's famous photo ``Paratroopers at the Western Wall.'' Israel does not date to the instability caused by Adolf Hitler, but to the stability engendered by Abraham. Additionally, the President spoke of mutual respect but failed to show the Israelis the same respect he displayed to Palestinians. He spoke of the daily humiliations endured by Palestinians, but did not mention the daily fears endured by the residents of Sderot as they go about their lives tethered to bomb shelters. The President also crossed the border between fact and fiction when he put settlement construction on a pedestal as the principal bargaining chip for peace, thereby providing cover for Palestinian leaders to harden their opposition to all construction in the settlements. This misstep was completely unnecessary. It is well known that Israel has no intention of building new settlements. However, the nation also has no intention of stopping normal life in the settlements; and, unfortunately, the President inadvertently called for the latter. Admittedly, this is a difficult topic for us to understand, and it was only on my trip that I realized the line between Israeli parents and grown children is much more blurred than it is here in the United States. I love my mother dearly, yet I do not wish to have her live right next door to me. However, many Israelis want exactly that. They want to walk to their father's house for Shabbat and employ their mother as a readily available and reliable baby sitter. Settlements need what is referred to as natural growth, but this term is a misnomer. The settlements have no intention of growing the geographic size of their settlements. Instead, they want a natural filling in of the existing land. They want their son to be able to build a house on the vacant lot next to their home. To deprive settlers of this ability is to deprive them of living the Israeli lifestyle. I wish President Obama had toured the Alfei Menashe settlement with us so he could have learned this lesson himself. The President also needs to learn that the world cannot preach from on high to Israel. When the President tours U.S. cities, he does not encounter bus stops that double as bomb shelters. When he sees groups of crowded students around the White House, he does not see assault rifles slung over the chaperone's shoulders. He does not live in fear. And due to these facts, the President does not have the capability to lecture Israel on what she must do to keep peace or to make her citizens safe. Finally, I turn my attention to the largest topic facing Israel, the Iranian threat. Using more than 7,000 centrifuges, Tehran has amassed enough uranium to produce a nuclear device. At their current pace, Iran would be able to produce two more atomic weapons each year, provided they find ways to further enrich this fuel. Never before--not India, not Pakistan, not even North Korea--has a group of criminals so defiant of international law had such destructive capability; and as the people of Iran have become more vocal in their pleas for responsible leadership, the ayatollahs have become more erratic and unpredictable. As such, we must quickly and decisively act to end this danger. Without a doubt, the United States has failed to do enough to stop Iran from becoming a proud owner of the bomb. It is true, Congress has taken a multitude of votes on this issue. However, the majority of these were simply press releases disguised as legislation. To right this wrong, I have added my name in support of multiple bills this year to strengthen sanctions against Iran. By no means are these pieces of legislation sufficient. The United States must use every unilateral and multilateral tool it has at its disposal to cut off Iran economically, diplomatically, and politically until this shadow of a state abandons its diabolical goals. These actions can only help Iran make the decisions sooner. Iran must see it can stand with peace, prosperity, and the international community, or it can continue to live in squalor and obscurity, relegated to the trash heap of the international community with the other juntas, regimes, and cabals. When I think about the threat of Iran, I am reminded of the saying that those who do not study history are destined to repeat it. I'm reminded of my tour of Yad Vashem. I recall an eerily similar declaration to annihilate Jews. I remember a leader who perverted a religion to justify his actions. And I am reminded of the famous British Parliamentarian Edmund Burke, who once said, ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,'' which is exactly what too many Christian leaders did in that day: nothing. This eerie similarity exists today, not with a leader who quotes the Bible but with one who quotes the Koran. His comments echo those of Hitler's; his stated goal is the same. So what is necessary for peace? I would contend that there will be no peace until leaders around the world regardless of faiths denounce such comments, until leaders within the Muslim community reject this rhetoric, and until leaders of the Islamic states shun such hate speak within their borders. Whether someone builds a second garage or a second home within a defined community is not what stands between war and peace. A community of citizens who pervert a religion to justify hate and murder are what stand in the way of peace. This is precisely what we should all fear. It was radical Islamic terrorists who attacked the United States on September the 11th, who blew up subways in the UK. This ideology is the true barrier to peace. I am reminded of a note that was left by the terrorists in Spain during the Madrid bombings. They said, ``We will win and you will lose. Because you love life, and we seek death.'' Therein lies the real problem with Iran. Unlike the threat of mutual destruction during the Cold War with Russia and the U.S., both knowing that if one attacked, the other would retaliate, we are now dealing with a regime that is not a socialist state like Russia but a religious state, whose leader espouses no fear of death but rather a clearly defined goal to destroy the state of Israel. This threat must be at the center of our President's and Congress's attention for the sake of Israel's security but also for the sake of our own. Settlements, the West Bank, and a President who seems more interested in giving dictation rather than providing assistance--when spoken aloud, these problems seem rather insurmountable. I believe they are not. There is a path to peace which is as clear as the border formed by the security barrier. We only need to have the courage to take the first step on this path by ensuring Israel has our undeniable support. Fortunately, we are not alone. The vast majority of Americans support Israel. We recognize that Israel stands as a lone beachhead of democracy in the Middle East. We know that we take our security for granted and do not judge those who are not afforded this luxury. In short, regardless of the muted lines within Israel, we know where the stark borders between our supporters and detractors are in the Middle East. During our meeting with Shimon Peres, he said, ``Israel and her neighbors seem to be able to live in peace. We just have a problem writing it down.'' Focusing on the real threats to peace and democracy around the world, requiring leadership on the part of the Arab states to root out terrorists within their borders, and continuing to support and stand by our ally in the region, as, Mr. Netanyahu definitively stated, ``With God's help, we will know no more war. We will know peace.'' With that I yield to my good friend from the state of Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, for his impressions of his trip to Israel and the state of the region there in the Middle East.

Mr. SCHOCK. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCHOCK. Okay. To your point, I think what you're suggesting is, number one, should any of these properties be, quote, given back or surrendered, but, number two, should that really be the focus of our effort towards peace. It seems to me a little disingenuous on the part of our administration to suggest that somehow what stands between the current situation and a path road to peace is the issue of settlements is really a misnomer. The reality is the State of Israel has shown throughout their history that they are the ones who have bargained in good faith and time and time again shown a willingness to give up lands as they have and only to their own peril; as you mentioned, what you saw in Sderot with the bomb shelters and the people who have suffered as a result of them giving up the Gaza Strip. But the issue of Israel willing to give up this settlement or that settlement or redraw the boundaries, you and I both heard from Netanyahu's own words that they're not wedded to any set boundary. But what we also heard was out of the lips of the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, which was his unwillingness to accept Israel as a Jewish state. Therein lies the real problem with the pathway to peace and a two- state solution: the Palestinians' unwillingness at this point to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. I would only also add that while we are talking about settlements, Iran continues to march towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. While I certainly respect this administration's plans to begin talks and to negotiate and to try and solve this diplomatically, I would remind the American people, and my colleagues here, that this is the same administration that we want to talk to that has lied to the international community and hidden from them a nuclear facility which the world was just made aware of last week. So I would only question the sincerity and the ability for us to truly negotiate with trust with this regime who up until last weekend we were not even aware of an additional nuclear facility. So it's very alarming. I will tell you, I don't know what my distinguished colleagues here feel, but we have two bills that are still in this Chamber, H.R. 2194, which is the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, and then the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which was H.R. 1327. Both of those bills have a majority of Members of Congress supporting it. And it just seems to me a shame that this body has not acted on that legislation to put another tool in the chest of President Obama as he goes forward to negotiate with Iran, the fact that these sanctions are there if and when they become necessary to use. And I would just yield back.

Mr. SCHOCK. Well, I agree, and it's why it's so important that we impress on this body the importance that we take up the legislation that we mentioned earlier dealing with sanctions, but also, we raise this issue in this body. You know, we've been so focused on the issue of health care the last couple of months, and while this is an important issue that the President has made throughout the past year, the reality is we need to look no further than September 11 to know that, if this country is not safe, if your allies are not safe, and that if terrorism is allowed to breed around the world, that really nothing else matters, and that nothing can be more detrimental to our economy and our way of life than for terrorism to breed, to be successful and, ultimately, be able to attack democracy, as we saw with our markets here after September 11, the great job loss, the great tumble that it took as a result of the attacks of September 11. We need to remain vigilant in not only keeping our country safe but also supporting the allies around the world, and I think it's why my friends here tonight have spent some time talking about this important issue, which has been raised last week by the discovery of this facility, that the State of Iran has attempted to keep from the international community. And one has to ask the question: why? If their intentions are what they say they are, if their intentions are pure and simple, if their intentions are non-nuclear or non-weapons grade, if their intentions are simply to provide energy to their people, certainly that is not something that requires the dark of night or secret. That is something that you would think one would be happy for full disclosure. And our own estimates suggest that the centrifuges in that facility are not designed to produce energy-grade uranium but, rather, weapons- grade uranium. And so I think it adds to the doubt in many of our minds and the concern for our President to move rather quickly for, if not this facility, perhaps some others that we don't know about that are still out there. So I thank the gentlemen for being here tonight and sharing their perspectives of our trip to Israel and also impressing on the public the importance of us taking up the issue of Iran and dealing very swiftly with sanctions and, if not sanctions, supporting Israel's efforts to stop a nuclear Iran.

Mr. SCHOCK. I thank Dr. Fleming for being here.

Mr. SCHOCK. I thank Mr. Thompson.

Mr. SCHOCK

Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SCHOCK

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you, Ranking Member Mica, for yielding the time. I rise today to connect three dots for my colleagues: Yesterday's vote, today's vote, and a vote that this body took on February 13. Yesterday, I joined with the majority of this body in voting to extend unemployment assistance for an additional 13 weeks for American citizens. I cast this vote because unemployment in my State of Illinois is now over 10.4 percent, the highest it has been in over two decades. The transportation industry in this country has been hit even harder. In August of this year, unemployment within that industry climbed up over 16.5 percent. There were over 1 million fewer construction industry jobs this August than the prior August. Now, we took a vote on February 13 that was supposed to have alleviated this need. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, known as the stimulus bill, was supposed to create or save 3.5 million jobs and hold the U.S. unemployment rate below 8 percent. Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear to this body and also to the American people that the stimulus bill has not done its job. Then again, the stimulus has not had a chance to make improvements in the construction industry and its unemployment. In fact, only $63 billion, or 7 percent of the stimulus, was dedicated to infrastructure. Interestingly, the rest of the stimulus is not being spent. Without including the tax programs in the stimulus, only $98 billion worth of the stimulus dollars have been spent and an additional $140 billion is in the process of being spent, which means that $343 billion of the stimulus remains to be spent. Which brings me to today's vote. We vote today to delay consideration of the highway bill. Why? We take this vote because no one in this body wants to talk about how to fund the highway bill. Doing so is too politically risky. The problem, ladies and gentlemen, is that we need to find about another $140 billion in revenue to compliment existing revenues in order to fund a $450 billion highway bill, a level that most agree is reasonable. No one wants to talk about the gas tax increase that would be needed to raise such revenue. But I would submit to you this: We voted on a stimulus bill under the guise of investing in infrastructure. We voted on a stimulus bill under the guise of putting people back to work. And yet today we are about to vote on a postponement of one of the biggest job-creating bills that we have before this body.

Mr. SCHOCK. I would submit that it would be much wiser to spend the remaining $343 billion, $140 billion of that on the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund, and invest in America's infrastructure. There is nothing more expensive than deferred maintenance for this country, whether it is the bridge collapse in Minnesota, whether it is the bridge across the Illinois River in my hometown that has been downgraded from three to two lanes because of its instability. We need to invest in America's infrastructure, and rather than push bills that fly in the face of the majority of Americans, a health care bill that has failed to receive the support of the majority of Americans, the majority of Americans support a highway bill. We need to vote on a full highway bill.