obviously, this bold statement sent conflicting messages to observers and caused a great deal of confusion here in the congress where sudan has such a high priority for democrats and republicans alike. implementing this comprehensive strategy will advance respect for democracy, human rights and religious freedom throughout sudan. it will address internal and regional security while combating islamic extremism. and by advancing regional security and cooperation it will eliminate cross-border support for armed insurgents and it will shut down safe havens for extremists who pose a threat to the national security of the united states and its allies. . it became clear there is universal agreement on both sides of the aisle that the united states needs a coordinated comprehensive strategy for sudan which balances the united states' imperatives in darfur and in southern sudan. this amendment simply goes one

step further by giving the current administration the opportunity to resolve any outstanding issues with regard to the united states' policy towards sudan by formulating such a strategy and reporting this strategy back to the united states congress. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does anyone seek time? for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. berman: mr. chairman, i rise to take the opposition even though i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: mr. chairman, the gentleman's amendment encourages the administration to create a comprehensive interagency strategy and implementation plan for sudan. i have spoken with mr. mccaul about his proposal and agree that developing a coherent approach to this situation in

sudan is critical. the united states must make every effort to address the ongoing and interrelated crises in sudan. the u.s. should work toward a stable and lasting peace in the region that has seen so many tragedies in recent years. i have no objection to this amendment. i look forward to working with mr. mccaul on this provision as the bill moves through the process, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. berman: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i urge support of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. berman: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield the remaining time to the gentleman from california, mr. farr. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. farr: thank you. mr. berman: before i yield may i ask how much time the gentleman has? the chair: the gentleman has 4 1/4 minutes. mr. farr: thank you, chairman

berman, and ranking member, ileana ros-lehtinen. i want to rise not on this amendment but to make a comment on the peace corps because i was just thinking as i was hearing about the amendment that had we fulfilled john f. kennedy's dream in the 1960's to have 100,000 peace corps volunteers serving overseas throughout the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's this decade we might have avoided this disaster in sudan. i want to commend the committee because they have on the anniversary of the 50th anniversary of the peace corps which is 2011, we now have only 6,000 volunteers serving in 78 countries. and the price tag of that is less than weapons system. it's a drop in the bucket. $350 million for that incredible service that we are having from our country. what i want to commend the

committee on and all of them is the strong support for strengthening u.s. diplomacy. with a consistent new vision for a global engagement. i think that's the global engagement that president obama has promised this country and is now seeing delivered. with that this bill authorizes an increase in peace corps funding. and will allow the peace corps to build to the point where we have 20 countries that are asking for peace corps volunteers. we have about 12,000 people a year that volunteer to go in the peace corps that sign up. and we can only take 4,000. that's all we can afford. so all these 20 countries have been waiting in line and haven't been able to get attention to adding peace corps. what's interesting is that as i have sort of dealt with some other issues here for example on food hunger in sub-saharan africa, i just recently read a report by the chicago council on global affairs t. called for 300

to 600 new volunteers in sub-saharan africa to work on agriculture as a step toward america reasserting global leadership in the fight against hunger and food insecurity. the point was the only way you are going to really deliver that effort is by getting people who are going to live in the community, going to live on the ground and work with people in the fields. the only organization we have that does that in our federal government is the u.s. peace corps. i don't know if you sauted but what the committee did in strengthening this provision of the bill, the new rwanda president wrote a piece, the president of the republic of rwanda, and i'll just paraphrase parts of his letter. we view the return of the peace corps as a significant event in rwanda's recovery. these young men and women represent what is good about america. i have met former volunteers who have run major aid programs

here, invested in our businesses, and even count them among my friends and close advisors. he goes on to say, while some consider development mostly in terms of infusion of capital, budgets, and head counts, we in rwanda place equal importance on relationships between peoples who have a passion to learn from one another, preparing the next generation of teachers, administrators, and c.e.o.'s to see the exchange of values and ideas as the way to build competencies of our people and to create prosperous nation. we will do this because we see the only investment with the possibility of infinite returns is in our children. and because after a couple of years in rwanda, working and learning with our people, these peace corps volunteers will be our sons and daughters, too. there is no more loved organization in the world than the united states peace corps. and at this time when american

image abroad has been suffering in many ways, it keeps growing in this particular service. so as a return peace corps volunteer, i'm very thankful and delighted this committee grew the peace corps to the demand out there in a world and among americans who want to serve. i want to thank you for that and i would like to submit the president's statement in the record. the chair: without objection. mr. farr: thank you very much. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayings have it -- the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on this amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part c of house report 111-143.

for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. larsen: i have an amendment made in order by the rule and i ask for its immediate consideration. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in part c of house report number 111-143, offered by mr. larsen of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 522, the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. larsen: mr. chairman, this amendment will protect intellectual property rights or i.p.r. for american businesses by ensuring robust compliance with international legal i.p.r. requirements and the enforcement of those requirements related to energy and environmental technologies. congressman kirk, macaulay from illinois and i recently returned from china where we met both with chinese leadership and american companies doing business in china. you first, there is a great deal

of enthusiasm regarding the interest in energy and climate change cooperation between the u.s. and china. second, however, is a concern that the intellectual property rights owned by those companies selling their clean energy technologies in china and other parts of the world will not be protected. and the green jobs that could be created here at home will be lost. according to the international energy agency, the world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in the coming decades to have -- to cut in half greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. to meet that goal, clean technology innovation must increase by 100 to 1,000%. the global market for environmental products and services is projected to double from $1.37 trillion per year at present to $2.74 trillion by 2020. according to the american solar energy society by 2030, industries and green collar jobs could provide up to 40 million american jobs and generate up to

4.53 trillion in revenue. i.p.r. protection gives companies the competence to invest in critical research and development efforts to meet the growing demand for clean energy technology. er for this reason congressman kirk and i have offered this amendment to h.r. 2410 to protect the i.p.r. of these clean technologies and ensure these green jobs stay right here in the united states. it is critical these investments that american companies are making in clean energy technology are protected, protecting intellectual property rights will help us reward innovation instead of penalizing it. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment to h.r. 2410. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. kirk: claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kirk: thank you. mr. speaker, i want to yield two minutes to my colleague, marsha blackburn. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the gentleman. and also representative larsen for allowing me to work with them on this to help ensure our

american innovators intellectual property is protected as we move forward in this international community transition to green economics. american innovators hold 50% of the world's patents granted between 2002 and 2008 in the clean energy field and will i note that tennesseans alone hold 1% of those worldwide patents in the hybrid electric vehicle market. it's serious business for our american patent holders. they have invested a lot of time, passion, effort, energy, and economic capital in developing these technologies. it's therefore incumbent upon us in congress to protect what they have created. the draft u.n. framework convention on climate change, for example, includes language supported by extreme carbon emitting nations like india and china, calling for a multilateral technology climate fund. housed inside the u.n. this new fund would require noncommercial transfers of patent protected technologies as

a price for developing nation's participation in any new international agreement to reducing global emissions. these demands would lead to outright theft of of our american intellectual property and indirectly benefit the world's most prominent co-2 emitters. our amendment which is supported by the u.s. chamber of commerce, the emergency committee for american trade, would protect american intellectual property rights and help block any patent transfer to a new multilateral fund. in the context of any international framework that deals with energy and environment technology, the amendment declares that it is official american policy to defend the rights of our creators. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the sponsor of the amendment for yielding. it's really an excellent

amendment. if we want to encourage the international cooperation that's needed in this area, i'm telling you you got to ensure that the entrepreneurs and the innovators know that their cutting-edge breakthroughs and innovations are protected. this isn't even as much about fair return for the inventors as it is ensuring that people will keep innovating and researching and advancing the technologies because they know that ultimately they will be compensated. so it's a sim by yotic relationship -- symbo -- symbyotic relationship. last year the united nations reported that the global market for environmental technologies could double to $2.74 trillion by 2020 from the $1.37 trillion

today because of growth in areas like energy efficient technologies, sustainable transport systems, and water supply and efficiencies markets. this is a very important amendment. again i think it is essential to the development and deployment of these new technologies and i urge its adoption. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. kirk: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kirk: mr. chairman, on may 19 the united nations framework convention on climate change released a draft negotiating text. the draft in part calls for the removal of, quote, barriers to development and transfer of technologies from developed to developing countries arising from intellectual property rights protection, including compulsory licensing for specific patented technologies. the american people need to know that those were code words like compulsory licensing and

technology transfer that really mean allowing other countries to steal the american patents, copyrights, and trademarks for anything related to climate change, efficiency, or energy under the draft climate change treaty. . if the united states had agreed to a climate change treaty that would allow countries to seize u.s. intellectual property in this country, green collar jobs would be devastated. american inventors now hold 50% of the world's patents on clean energy, nearly half of the world's wind patents, 46 of the world's solar patents and 40% of the world's patents on hybrid and electric vehicle markets. by 2030 industries with green-collared jobs could provide 40 million american

jobs and generate up to $4.5 trillion in annual revenue. but none of that would happen if a climate change treaty, specifically allows compullsary licensing so that chinese competitors, for example could steal the intellectual property of a key u.s. green-collar manufacturer. now, one leading american innovator told me, quote, if we lose intellectual property rights, capital markets die. this industry needs all the innovation we can muster to deliver on what the world and the u.s. needs. shorting that will guarantee no investments or break throughs for green-collar jobs. now this innovator was none other than greg paterson, the c.e.o. of p.v. power, the largest solar power technology. many of us remember this photo when then candidate senator obama visited mr. paterson last year promising future green jobs and a green economy at his

factory. now, mr. chairman, these jobs will not be created if we do not protect the intellectual property of american inventors and manufacturers. so far the state department has been very silent on this issue. but countries like china and india now put it at the top of their list for negotiations in copenhagen to, quote, relax intellectual property rights. that means steal the innovations of americans in green-collar areas. now, this amendment lays down a marker and it says if copenhagen produces a treaty that allows the theft of u.s. intellectual property under the weakening of i.p.r. the u.s. will not sign on. now the larsen-kirk amendment is supported by the national association of manufacturers, the chamber of commerce. i really want to thank chairman berman, chairman waxman, ranking member ros-lehtinen and

chairman rangel for supporting this very commonsense piece of legislation. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd again ask my colleagues to support this important amendment to h.r. 2410 and appreciate everyone's support and making it happen and bringing it to the floor today and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. mr. larsen: mr. chairman, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in part c of house report 111-143. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. sessions: thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8

printed in part c of house report 111-143 offered by mr. sessions of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 522, the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today in support of my amendment to the foreign relations re-authorization act. my amendment would affirm the united states complete support for israel's absolute right to defend itself from imminent or military nuclear threat from iran, terrorist organizations or nations that harbor them. israel is currently being threatened on three fronts, hamas in the south, hezbollah in the north, and from iran which provides financial and material support to both these terrorist organizations. this threat culminated on may 20 when iran successfully tested a surface-to-surface missile with a range of 1,500

miles. iranian leaders continue to express their hatred for israel and refuse to acknowledge its right of existence. their incendiary words and actions are a threat to israel and the entire region. no nation should be subjected to these continued threats. israel has demonstrated tremendous restraint in the face of these dangers despite being continually questioned by some in the global community regarding its approach to dealing with these threats and terrorism to its citizens. israel has been and remains one of the united states of america's strongest allies. israel seeks only peace with its neighbors and a homeland secure for its people. but if an attack from iran or a terrorist organization becomes

imminent, this congress should declare that israel, like the united states should reserve for itself, the inalienable right to defend itself and protect its people. i encourage my colleagues to demonstrate their strong support for israel by supporting this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. berman: yes, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to this amendment although i am not opposed to it. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i don't know that we needed to say this but i'm glad we are saying it. it goes almost without saying that any sovereign country has an inalienable right to defend itself in the face of an imminent nuclear or military attack or threat. and nothing in this amendment

prohibits or constrains the -- israel or the united states from discussing the nature of the threat, the logic of the timing, the nature of the response. so i find this amendment a useful contribution. in a way it states the obvious but sometimes stating the obvious is worth doing. and i plan to support the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i want to thank the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, mr. berman, for his words of support. in fact, this member sees the need to make sure that not only the people of israel but the people of our country understand that it should be the expressed purpose and policy of the united states of

america to yield to other nations, yes, those that we call dear friends, to make sure that they are very clear in understanding our support for them and that they should reserve the same right that we do to protect this country. notwithstanding that we've had a change of administrations, notwithstanding that we've had many, many, many people who are supportive -- supporters of israel come and speak to me personally about just the question as it might occur -- where does the united states stand in its support of israel? today is a great day. today is the bill that's very appropriate to make sure that we understand that the united states' support of israel is strong and we stand behind israel and we understand that it is them, mr. chairman, that are just miles away from

imminent threat through missile attack.  i believe it's the right thing to do. i appreciate the gentleman's feedback. i hope we vote for this. i hope it's accepted and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by -- mr. berman: i'm sorry. i thought i reserved the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? mr. berman: to reclaim the time that i should have never yielded back. yes. mr. sessions: i would ask three additional minutes to close as a result of the gentleman's request. i would ask unanimous consent. the chair: without objection. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i thank you. what is the situation now? if i might ask the chair. the chair: the gentleman from california has four minutes.

and actually the gentleman from california now has seven minutes. the gentleman from texas has three minutes. i apologize. the gentleman from texas has four minutes. the gentleman from california has seven minutes. mr. sessions: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: it's my understanding that the gentleman, mr. berman, indicated that he had no further speakers and based upon that -- he has the close. i allowed myself to close also. he's now saying he wants additional time. all i'm asking is the same in reverse. mr. berman: could i ask unanimous consent that we go to the status quo ante. you didn't yield back your time. you get the remaineding -- remaining time. we don't prolong the time of the debate beyond what the rule provided. we just use the -- you made an assumption that --

the chair: for purpose of -- mr. sessions: i assume you were through with your speakers and i closed. all i would ask, mr. chairman, is that the gentleman be allowed to use his time and if i can have my time and he will close. the chair: that scenario with unanimous consent, the gentleman from california would have four minutes. the gentleman from texas would have one. mr. sessions: i thank the gentleman. the chair: is there objection? hearing none, the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a member of the foreign affairs committee, my friend, the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you very much, mr. chairman, for yielding. and let me just rise to oppose this amendment and just very briefly say why. every country has a right under international law, under their own laws to defend their own sovereignty, their own country, protect their country from attacks. israel certainly has that right already and should exercise

that right. we all recognize the security of israel in terms of being essential. in any foreign policy that we develop as it relates to a peace process that is really so critical to the security of israel. i just have to say with regard to this amendment, however, i'm very reluctant to support it and i'll just say why very briefly. if you remember right after the horrific attacks of 9/11 we passed a resolution that i opposed and i opposed it for many, many reasons. one of which was that the resolution was in essence a blank check to use force against any nation that harbored, and this is in this language here, terrorist organizations. and i tell you, i believe that that casts a blank check once again in terms of allowing for

an attack against any country. it could be pakistan, any country which harbors terrorists who could or may not be responsible for -- for any unfortunate attacks. for those reasons i think this amendment is not necessary. israel and other countries have a right and should defend themselves from any threat from iran, terrorist organizations or any country. but any country that harbors terrorists or those who want to do harm to israel to me provides for an opening which unfortunately i did not believe was correct for our own country nor do i believe we should give that authority or that rubber stamp to any country to allow for an attack. it's just a broad blank check. and for those reasons i oppose this.

the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, i thank you very much and i appreciate the gentleman, mr. berman, and the gentlewoman, ms. lee, for speaking today. mr. chairman, we live in a dangerous world and there are some of our friends and our allies that live perhaps in a more dangerous neighborhood than we do in the united states. and i believe that this amendment is one we should support because it makes sure unequivocally that the world understands where the united states of america is in our support of a not only friendly nation but a democracy, one of the few democracies in the region. and the united states, this house of representatives, and united states policy should be to support openly, to make sure the world understands, not maybe where, oh, i thought we had done that. ankn