the speaker pro tempore: on this vote -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 232, the nays are 186. the joint resolution is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the payable -- is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the chair will

put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the gentleman from louisiana. >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233.

the nays are 156 with one voting present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor of h.r. 976. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at anytime on wednesday, march 25, 2015, for the speaker to declare a recess subject to the call of the chair for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting his excellency mohamed gani the president of the islamic

republic of afghanistan. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns on tuesday, march 24, 2015, it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, march 25, 2015. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan mrs. miller, seek recognition? mrs. miller: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 152, i call up resolution h. resolution 132, providing expenses of certain committees of the house of representatives in the 114th congress, and i would ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 15, house resolution 132, resolution providing for the expenses of certain committees of the house of representatives in the 114th congress.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 152, the amendment printed in the house report 114-45s is adopted and the resolution, as amended is considered as read. the gentlewoman from michigan mrs. miller, and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. brady, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from michigan mrs. miller. mrs. miller: thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.res. 132. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. miller: mr. speaker i rise in support of h.res. 132 which is a resolution setting the funding levels for each house committee. every congress it's the responsibility of the committee on house administration to establish funding levels for committees in the house so they may budget appropriately and prepare their oversight and operational responsibilities for the rest of this congress

with the full knowledge of the resources available. the committee on house administration started the consideration process out of this committee funding resolution by holding hearings to receive input from the chair and ranking members of each of our house committees. these were very productive very informative hearings and i'm certain that my partner in this effort, the ranking member of our committee, mr. brady from pennsylvania, mr. certainly share that belief. each chair and ranking member worked together in the development of their committee's budget request and in their advocacy was a true example of bipartisanship. and this funding resolution that is the product of the information developed by our hearings is also a bipartisan product which was favorably reported by our committee by unanimous voice vote. i'm very pleased that each committee reaffirmed their he commitment to hold up the equitable 1/3, 2/3. the admin has taken great care

so that the priorities of the house and the priorities of the american people are put front and center. i think it's important to note that over the past few congresses, this house the house has not only asked for fiscal responsibility across the federal government but has led by example in showing fiscal responsibility by making reductions in our own budgets, both in the individual member office's budget as well as the committee budgets. since the 110th congress, for example, mr. speaker the house has had a 15% reduction in our committee budgets, and at the same time our colleagues on the other side of the capitol did not actually reduce the funding for their committees other than what was mandated by sequestration. in fact, the other body actually increased their committee spending while the house was reducing spending until making some modest reductions in the committee budgets recently at the start of the 114th. i just point that out. we were leading by example here. additionally the executive office actually had a 30% increase in their spending since 2008, and i think given that it is the role of the

congress to conduct effective and needed oversight over the entire executive and judicial branches, i think it's very vital that we make certain that committees have the resources they need to meet this important duty. so that brings us here today, mr. speaker, in the consideration of house res. 132. after hearing from each chair and ranking member, the committee was able really to better ascertain the needs of each committee and to assure they did have adequate and proper funding. many committees, including the house -- the committee on house administration, received no funding in this resolution from what we were allocated in the 113th congress. many committees received flat funding. because of the increased oversight our legislative priorities, other committees required a very modest or targeted increase in their resources. the overall proposed increase in authorized funding for the committees is $1.63 -- 1.63% for 2015.

1.7% for 2016. again, about half the committees received no increase in funding -- level funding. the committee funding resolution also takes into account that there might be unforeseen circumstances that will pop up during the course of this congress that might require some additional resources. for instance, in the case of the judiciary committee it was testified there by the chair and the ranking member that there's a possibility of a judicial impeachment proceeding. they may have to conduct that. they may not and so to prepare for that kind of unanticipated need the committee on house administration has actually allocated $500,000 for each session in the 114th into a reserve fund which could be allocated for something like that or if there's another committee that demonstrates a real need for it of an emerging priority that perhaps they couldn't see at this point in time. i just think that that is a very fiscally prudent way to budget, not just giving money on the if come but if we do we

see it, then of course we can protect that money. if we don't need to spend it won't be spent. before authorizing any increase in funding, the committee on house administration really dove into why the increase was needed, such as a specific new priority emerging challenges that some of our committees will face this congress. some of the committees requested additional funds for urgent equipment needs and part of our responsibility, of course, is to ensure smooth operations of this institution and because of breakdown of equipment that we rely on every day to assist with the daily function of the house may lead to proceedings being severely delayed or halted. we thought that was an unacceptable responsibility. for example some of the equipment, as i say, some of the committees are looking for, we wanted to make sure we had resources there. another example is the need for additional specialized staff members to assist in the oversight functions that committee is charged with. for instance, the armed

services committee, a good example. they had great needs for additional staff to help with conducting vigorous oversight in the pursuit of major overdo reforms at the pentagon which could save the nation literally tens of billions of dollars. we thought that was a fiscally prudent use of resources. the veterans' affairs committee has immense new challenges in conducting their oversight needed to get to the bottom of the treatment -- scandalous treatment of our veterans at the v.a. hospitals across the nation. and again we thought that that was an appropriate expenditure to make sure those that served the cause of freedom get the care and benefits they've earned. again, not only do we believe it's a prudent use of additional resources but an imperative duty. other committees have expressed the desire for more field hearings across the country. our committee was very supportive of this because we really believe that getting out of washington, if you will and conducting these field hearings talking to the american people really allowing members and committees to

gather firsthand knowledge of how the federal programs are functioning and the impact on our nation was a very important thing. so i would say this, i think it's important to note that while there's a very small overall increase in authorized committee spending, this funding resolution does not require any new spending. does not require any new spending within the house's overall budget. this funding resolution only redirects already appropriated resources to new priorities and in summary, mr. speaker we are proposing modest targeted increases to meet the house committee's oversight and operational needs and i hope each member of the house will concur with the priorities set forth in this funding resolution, allow each of our committees to continue their important work. this was important work for our committee and i certainly want to thank all of our members, both republican and democrat, particularly the distinguished ranking member mr. brady from pennsylvania, for his cooperation, the participation in the process and the ideas

that everybody brought to the table that helped produce this resolution that we bring to the full house today which i will note, as well mr. speaker, was passed out of our committee unanimously. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has reserved the balance of her time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: mr. speaker i rise in support of h.res. 132. after several days of testimony by committee chairs and ranking members and careful review by the house committee of administration, we determine what we believe to be appropriate committee funding levels for the 114th congress. i want to thank chairman miller and her staff for her indulgence throughout this process. we've worked closely and cooperatively and while we would have liked to have done more, i believe these levels will allow the committees to perform their oversight responsibilities. it is my hope that we continue to explore ways to ensure congressional committees are

equipped with the proper amount of resources needed to operate fully while still maximizing the value of their committee funding. i urge a yes vote on this resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from michigan is recognized. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i would just add that for the 114th congress, and i think this is a very important point, actually the house remains below the amount authorized back in 2008. we are below the amount authorized in 2008. so the house has been making significant strides to take a very hard look at the way we utilize our individual budgets, both in our member offices as well as in our committees, and we are absolutely committed to be fiscally responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollars. this resolution highlights those priorities to remain guardians of the taxpayers' dollars and each committee must operate responsibly using their budget to set priorities to carry out their important work. even after the adoption of the resolution, the committee on house administration will continue to work with each

committee to assist them in finding solutions which delivers savings and allow every committee to stretch the valuable resources allocated so they can continue to carry out their important duties. and at the committee on house administration, we understand, mr. speaker, that it is our responsibility to ensure that the house operates in a fiscally responsible manner and effective and efficient manner and that is the responsibility we take very very seriously. i believe strongly that we found the appropriate balance in funding this resolution that will keep in place fiscal responsibility at the same time ensuring that important work of the house is carried out. i would reserve the balance of my time, but i would mention to the ranking member that i don't think i have any other speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: i want to take this opportunity to thank you. it's no secret you won't be returning the next congress but this will be my last time i will be with you managing the committees funding. i know you're here 21 months

more and i want to know that every chance i get with this microphone to thank you. you are one of the classiest ladies in this house. you're fair. i enjoy going to the committee hearings. we smile and shake hands before the meetings and we smile and shake hands after the meetings and you were a pleasure to work with and i wish you well and, again for the next 21 months, any chance i get i just hope i do have the opportunity to keep on thanking you. i want to hope this house will take note of the way our committee works. we work together. we compromise together and because of that things get done. so again, i wish you well and have more opportunity to wish you well. with that, mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote on this resolution and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from michigan is recognized. . mrs. miller: let me sincerely thank mr. brady. if there's anything i'm going to misin this -- miss in this house, it's the friendships i

have made with many people, including republicans and democrats. and you are at the top of that list. you are at the top of the list as professional, and i do think it's a very good thing you point out our committee does operate in a very bipartisan way and we're all about making sure that this institution is able to do what the american people expect out of us. and we both share that passion system of thank you very my look forward to continuing to work with you for another year and a half here. and mr. speaker, i would just urge every member to support the passage of this resolution so that each committee can plan appropriately with the full knowledge of their available resources. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 15 , the previous question is ordered on the -- 152, the previous question is ordered on the resolution. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to.

without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. mrs. roby: i rise to offer ruth ellen daley helm who pass aid way at the age of 98 recently in tucson. she was a pilot in world war ii one of the first female pilots

to serve our military. unlike -- ms. mcsally: she was a pilot, one of the first pilots to serve tissue female pilots to serb our military. she was inducted into the arizona aviation hall of fame in 1999 and awarded the congressional gold medal with her wasp colleagues in 2010. in addition to serving our country wuth and the wasps were pioneers who inspired an entire generation of women to pursue their dreams of serving as pilots in our military and that includes me. when i was going through the challenges of becoming a fighter pilot in the first wave there were no mentors to see us through in front of us. but when i needed encouragement or i wanted to quit ruth and her fellow wasps, starting 20 years ago, would be there for me to inspire me and to encourage me and to give me what i needed

to fight for another day. they were more than role models who broke down gender barriers to serve in our military. they were my personal wingmen, or wingwomen. and i will be forever grate to feel ruth and all the wasp women for paving the way for me. for serving as my friend and mentor and for moving that women could be exceptional pie los too and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: wogs the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the san diego regional climate collaborative which recently won the united states environmental protection agency's lie mat leadership award for innovative partnerships. this award recognizes organizations across the country working on cutting edge climate

initiatives that address greenhouse gas reduction goals, adaptation and resilience. as a member-based network that supports those in the san diego region, it corks -- works to advance solutions to greenhouse gas emissions and prepare the reason region for climate impacts. in san diego, climate change is not a partisan issue. while there's debate in congress about the science of climate change there's not debate among scientists. mr. peters: as i see every day, san diegoians aren't working to -- aren't waiting for washington to act to address climate change. they've built partnerships with businesses, academia, businesses and nonprofit organization to take actions that benefit san diego's economy and natural resources this san diego regional climate collaborative serves as a model for other regions as we teak to -- as we seek to address the climate

change as a nation and as a planet. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to honor the 109 district's own laboratories. the national association of female executives released their list of the top 50 companies for executive women. for the sixth consecutive year, abbott laboratories placed in the top 10. they were recognized for promoting and empowering women. i'm extremely proud of abbott's commitments and accomplish ptments but it's also a sign of how much progress we still have to make as a country. we must continue to ensure our young women have all the same opportunities available to them as young men. mr. dold: we must be sure that women are not as a disadvantage

simply due to their gender. it is our duty not just as members of this house but also as human beings to ensure that women and men are equals in the workplace. and increasing the number of female executives is crucial to that goal. mr. speaker, companies like abbott have made tremendous strides but there is still work to be done. i applaud their example and urge others to follow. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to recognize the contributions of farmers, ranchers and producers to our economy and well being. mr. smith: agriculture supports one in four nebraska jobs and contributes more than $23 billion to our state's economy. i'm very proud to represent nebraska's third district, now

the number one agriculture district in the nation. our global economy presents great opportunity, 95% of the world's consumers and customers live outside the united states and they all need to eat. as a result we are seeing growing demand for nebraska agriculture products. our state's beef exports reached a record high $1 billion in sales in 2014. the efficiency and forward thinking of our ag producers is making it possible to meet demand with fewer inputs and less waste. as a founder and co-chairman of modern agriculture caucus i am committed to promoting scientifically based innovation and policies. on this national agriculture day and agriculture week please join me in thanking the many producers working tirelessly hi to support our economy and help feed the world. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to an exemplary partnership between the about one program an extraordinary initiative that helps people with disabilities and boswell enterprises. mr. rokita: for the past 100 years, boswell's partnership with ability one has helped our community. it helps people with visual impairment. one such man is bob green. he is -- he applied to boswell which because of contacts with ability one was able to hire him. six years later, don is a production supervisor managing 40 people. i'm proud to recognize the work this company is doing in

partnership with the ability one program. they open doors of opportunity and help make the state of indiana nirk beloved state, a better place to live each and every day. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal request. cleep leave of absence requested for mr. young of indiana for march 18 and for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority lead -- the majority leader. mr. rohrabacher: mr. speaker, i yield such time as he would consume to my friend from new york.

>> mr. speaker, i rise today to speak about an important issue that faces our society, domestic violence and sexual abuse. as a former federal prosecutor for the last two decades, i witnessed how violence affects people of all ages races religions, sose yo economic conditions, domestic violence does not discriminate. our country has a moral obligation to stand up against those who exploit their power to commit violence against men women, and children. in an effort to raise awareness and to put an end to domestic violence and sexual abuse, my district will be kicking off the white ribbon campaign. the white ribbon campaign is one of the largest efforts in the world of people working together to prevent and end domestic violence and sexual assault against women, men, and children. the white ribbon campaign will begin this friday, march 20, and

run through march 29. vera house of syracuse, new york is spearheading the local effort in my district. mr. katko: vera house is a comprehensive domestic violence service agency that provides shelter counseling and javo -- advocacy services for women children and men. and they provide prevention programs and community coordination. they'll be providing white ribbons such as the one on my lapel here and white wristbands such as the one on my wrist today to build awareness and put a stop to domestic violence and sexual abuse from march 20 to march 29 thousands of my constituents in central new york will be wearing a white ribbon or white wristband to raise awareness about domestic violence and sexual abuse. i encourage my house colleagues to join me and new york 24 in wearing a white ribbon to put a spotlight on this important issue. wearing the white ribbon

demonstrates a personal pledge to never commit, condone, or remain silent about violence against men, women or children. i hope my country can join me today to support survivors of abuse while providing alternatives to this destructive cycle. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from -- the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. i hope everyone pays attention to that wonderful idea that has just been given to us. these special orders are -- play a role here in that we do permit ourselves the opportunity to hear from people with a little bit more than one minute to talk about it, who have issues that are significant and would like to bring them to the attention of the american people and of course to their colleagues here in congress.

today, i intend to bring the attention of the american people and my colleagues to a threat to the well being of the american people. a major threat that has gone unrecognized and could well change our way of life and change the way of life for our children and destroy one of the basic rights written into our constitution in order to protect the prosperity and security of our country. i'm talking about changes that are being proposed in our fundamental technology law, in our patent system. and i know that sounds very boring to most people but the fact is, without a strong patent system, the american people would be at the mercy of both competitors, in terms of their loy boar overseas but also in terms of vicious and

totalitarian elements in other countries that might want to do us harm. it is our ability to produce the technology that america needs in order to make our people competitive and to produce the wealth that's necessary for a decent standard of living that's made america the great country that it is. we are a great country not because we have very powerful, wealthy interests -- interests here in the united states, which we do, we are a great country because ordinary people are permits to live decent lives. and that our country is not being challenged over its history over and over again and had to waste all of our resources and all our wealth on vast amounts of armaments and drafting all of our people into the military and having a militarized society in order to have a safe -- to have us safe from a foreign threat. no, what we have done is been able to produce wealth dramatically in our country and

our workers being competitive with labor from around the world because we have been technologically superior. there is a threat to that technology superiority an incredible threat that's being foisted off on the congress and on the american people and i am here to alert my fellow members of congress to this threat. . one needs to see how important the technology element of our society has been than right here in the united states congress. there is a statue here in the capitol of filo fanrsworth. now, who the heck do you know who he is? well, he represents a significant part of the american story. he was a farmer in utah a man who was educated in engineering

but a man who had very little resources but he set out in between farming to try to find and discover a technological secret that had perplexed some of the most powerful and financial interests in our country. r.c.a. at the time under a man named david sarnoff, was the premiere technology company a company that had vast resources and was deeply involved in trying to find out in how to invent a picture tube. how we would have a tube that showed images rather than just radio waves that had voice on it. this was a huge challenge, historic challenge. r.c.a. pumped millions of dollars of research into this, but the one who discovered the secret was philo frannsworth,

who then wrote to r.c.a., if they honored his discovery and permit him to have the benefit or at least a benefit from this discovery. yes r.c.a. sent philo farnsworth, a representative from his laboratories and when he described what he found, the man -- the scientist from r.c.a. went away and said we'll be in touch and never got in touch. the next tining that philo knew, there was an announcement that r.c.a. made a major breakthrough in discovery, only it was exactly the discovery that philo farnsworth had made and transmitted the information to r.c.a. this became one of the great

jury and the great legal battles of the early 20th century. philo farnsworth an individual person was up against the most powerful american corporation of the day, r.c.a., and had one of the strongest and toughest leaders that corporation david sarnoff vowed not to give him a penny because it was r.c.a. that actually came up with this. philo farnsworth was able to mobilize support behind his claim. he was able to have people invest in his lawsuits and slowly but surely they made their way through our court system all the way to the supreme court of the united states. and god bless the united states of america. a single man, a poor individual farmer who came up with an important technology secret had his rights respected by our

supreme court over the power and influence of america's most powerful corporation of the day r.c.a. philo farnsworth, was recognized as the inventor, the inventor of the picture tube which has transformed our country and transformed the world. all of the picture tubes you see, whether -- and now the screens that we see on our computers can be traced back to the discovery of this one individual, philo farnsworth and the tragedy that he -- that his life was because over the years he lived a very poor life. he was constantly struggling. had very little resources. by the time he won the supreme court case it was late in his life and he did not benefit as he should have greatly from that. but we have a statue to this wonderful american, a man who stands for what america stands for, using technology to benefit the people, not just to

enrich huge corporate interests. and indeed philo farnsworth has a statue here in the capitol, but you will never see the statue to david sarnoff of r.c.a. that shows you where the heart and soul of america is. the fact that we had a supreme court that decided for the little guy rather than the huge powerful corporation showed what kind of country we have. that's what makes america great. that's what has created the new technologies that's uplifted our people and made sure that our people were competitive and thus had high standards of living and that we were secure from foreign threats because we were technologically superior to those foreign threats. this is what has made america great, and today it is in jeopardy. the technological edge of our country will be robbed from us by multinational corporations who are powerful and are shifting issues through the

congress that will gravely diminish the patent protection of the american people and had these same changes in the law that these multinational corporations would now foist upon us were law in the days of philo farnsworth, we would have no picture tube. we would have never had a philo farnsworth. we would have never had the recognition of the creative jeanous of the american people but instead we would have had the powerful rich multinational corporations running roughshod over america's creative genius. no, we have that threat today and i would ask people to pay close attention to what's happening here on the floor of the house in the next few months. what's happened is we have to understand that patent protection of the american people is something that was written into our constitution. it is part of the heart and soul of our country.

benjamin franklin is well-known as the man who discovered electricity, but he was also one of the great founders of our declaration of independence and, yes the -- one of the people who authored our constitution. benjamin franklin, the great technology hero, the hero of liberty and justice for all. thomas jefferson, if you go to monticello and visit his home, it is filled with inventions. small inventions that thomas jefferson knew that we were not going to rely on big government. we couldn't rely on big corporate interests and rich people, but we would rely on the genius of the american people through technology. freedom and technology, the two things that would uplift ordinary americans. those things are now at stake. they are now in danger. we in fact are now facing basic

changes to the concept of intellectual property rights and especially the rights of our inventors and is being foisted upon this body in what i would say a very deceitful manner by powerful interest groups from the outside. but remember, with the protection that we've had, america has had the inventions. we have uplifted the standard of living of our -- of the ordinary american. we built the reaper which permitted us to harvest huge crops of food so americans were well-fed and we became the breadbasket of the world,. the cotton gin to make sure americans had clothing. there was a american that invented the machine that permitted the mass production of shoes. the mass production of shoes was permitted because a black american whose other rights were not protected, but his rights to own the intellectual property, the inventions, the patent rights to his inventions

was respected and because of that, all americans ended up with being able to have more than just one pair of shoes before this man invented his invention of how to mass produce shoes, everyone had -- ordinary people had one pair of shoes and that was it. that was it. when they wore out, your feet wore out. we have things like the electric light that we know that nooms edson was so involved with -- thomas edison was so involved with. telephones, alexander graham bell. all of the major inventions were invented by american genius, not of very powerful corporations but of the american genius of the american people. and what we have always had, however is a situation where big guys did try to steal the creativity of the little guy. but in our country they couldn't get away with it. in our country, the philo farnsworths knew that they would be protected if they created something that uplifted

their fellow man. so americans and american genius was put to work as never before in any country's history to make sure ordinary people and especially our working people in our factories, in our companies could be competitive with those factories and companies and the workers overseas. our people don't work harder than the people overseas. that's not what made us a great country. the fact is people work really hard all over the world, especially in third-world countries where people live in utter poverty. they work really hard but it is the technology that has put -- that is put into play the technology put into play with that hard work and the profit motive for investing in that technology and creating that technology, that is what has made the difference in an american people that are well-fed, american people with great opportunities american people who can be proud that

they have a decent standard of living and are able to make decisions for themselves and their families, not just live in the abject poverty that existed for so long in so much of the world. no, it wasn't just our hard work, it wasn't just our natural resources, it was a constitution that wrote into it the rights of every individual citizen and paramount to those rights. even before the bill of rights and our constitution is a provision that guarantees that our inventors and our writers will be given the right to own to control their invention or their book for a given period of time and profit from it. traditionally our inventors have had ownership rights to what they have invented for 17 years of protection and that during the 17 years they would own it and when they applied for a patent that that patent

would be -- once it was issued, they'd have 17 years to control what they had invented. and also until that patent was issued it has always been in the united states that it is kept totally secret what that invention is until the inventor has been actually granted the rights to own that invention. well, these things have led directly to a genius a -- a surge of genius in our -- in our borders that were reflected the fact that our people had freedom and technology available to them. so these are things that we have taken for granted because this is what america is all about. but today powerful multinational corporations, especially in the electronics industry, are trying to destroy america's patent system. my colleagues should understand this and the american people should understand this and be

talking to to their member of congress and their senator because if they are -- if they succeed in undermining our patent system and destroying the rights of the little guy to own what he has created, then -- and give the big guys the power to steal from the little guys, we will see a difference in our country. within a generation we will no longer have these advantages that i just spoke about. and what we have today is an effort by the big guys to be able to get away, change the rules so they can get away with stealing from the little guys. now, obviously there are people that aren't going to come out and say, please, let's vote for a bill there's going to break down the patent system so that big multinational corporations can steal from american inventors. of course they're not going to say that. so what do they say? well, let me put it this way. 25 years ago when i first --

this fight has been going on since the time i've been in congress and i noticed what had happened was that some big corporations are trying to put into the gap implementation -- that is a trade treaty. they are trying to put into that trade treaty's implementation language a bill that had to go through congress, changes in our patent system that weren't even required by the treaty. . what they were doing, if you really want to see how heinous this is, what were those changes 25 years ago that these big corporations wanted to make? number one was saying that, yes, when you apply for your patent, 20 years after you apply for it, you really have no patent rights after that at all. even if it takes 15 years to get your patent. the american system was the

clock starts ticking when you get your patent. 17 years of protection. these big guys were trying to give our american inventors maybe no protection. after 20 years they had nothing. but everybody would know about it because the second provision they were trying to foist on us was that after 18 months if a patent had been applied for, after 18 months even if it had not been granted, the patent been granted, they were going to publish the patent application. so that every thief in the world would have heard all of the secrets of every american inventor. they called it the public patent -- patent publication act, they were so blatant about it. after we fingered it and drew america's attention to it, they changed the name. then it became an issue not trying to disclose patents or patent applications, not trying to limit the amount of ownership in our patent people had, it

became instead of battle against the submarine patenters. that's what they called it. that was the bogeyman that was created that day in order to get people here to vote in a way that would destroy the patent rights of the american people. the patent rights i just outlined. both of those were going to be eliminated. we were going to have instead of no disclosure, we'll have full disclosure over the patent application even before you're granted the patent and you're not guaranteed any specific time but your patent would run out after 20 years even if you didn't have any time to protect it. that's what they were trying to do. we managed to stop them. we put a coalition together bipartisan coalition. marcy kaptur of ohio and myself have been active on this issue for the last 25 years trying to thwart these huge corporate interests who are trying to neuter the rights of the little guy, of the small inventor of the independent operator.

and how did we stop them that very first time? well, we added an amendment on that said, these changes that are being foisted on us today, being voted on today, only apply to companies that have over 100 employees. and all of a sudden those people who were advocating this saying oh, this will be good for everybody, especially the small inventor, all of a sudden they had to withdraw the bill. well, if it was so good for the little guy why would they withdraw the bill? they withdrew the bill because the bill was aimed at helping huge corporate interests to step on the little guy in the united states. and we defeated that, but we have been fighting, fighting fighting for 20 years, and this year it looks like we have lost the leverage that we had to defeat these powerful special interests. that's why it is important for the american people and people involved in technology

development to pay attention to proposals that are being made here in the house and in the senate concerning intellectual property rights, especially concerning the pat inter-- patent rights our people have enjoyed since the founding of our country. today we have a bill that's being presented, and again it can't be presented on how do we destroy the patent rights of the average american, they have to find something that sounds so sinister that they can set up a strawman, the strawman -- they'll say, look at him. we are going to beat him up. that's what this bill is about. it's like i said, submarine patents were the reason why they had to eliminate the right of the small inventor to a guaranteed term or to have confidentiality in his patent application. that was a submarine patent. now they are not saying that. they have had to come up with a better term that is even more

frightening and sickening that submarine patent. it's the cynical nature of this type of debate on an issue was demonstrated by the fact that a corporate leader who was on the other side of this issue than i am, has now changed his position and come to me with a description of how the words pat ent troll came about. because now we hear -- we've got to change the law, not for submarine patents, but now because of patent trolls are preying on the american people. they are draining us of funds and enriching themselves, these patent trolls. well, where did that word come from? this gentleman i'm talking about was in a meeting with the heads of some very powerful corporations. they sat around in a circle to decide what term they should use. and he said to me well, i

recommended patent pirate. well, that wasn't sinister enough. so they came up with patent troll. by the time -- yes, that's the one. why is it the one? it sounds so sinister that it's going to be able to blind people as to who the real victim is. we are out to get the patent troll, but it's the little guy, it's the small inventor, the independent inventors that are going to be damaged severely by an attack on the patent trolls. what is a patent troll by what they are trying to tell us? patent troll, we keep hearing the argument that there are people in our society that are using -- they are using basically patents that are not really good patents. they are patents that really are not legitimate patents. and they are using these to create litigation that will

enrich the lawyers, the patent trolls, because patent trolls reach out with some illegitimate patent claim, then they have to get paid off or go to jail. well, how much of this is -- there is some of that. but let us note this. there are frivolous lawsuits throughout our entire system. there are frivolous lawsuits in almost every endeavor in the american economy. and -- but there are also legitimate lawsuits. there are people who are really damaged and deserve to have the right to sue somebody. the law that we are facing now, that is being proposed here in congress for a patent law, is the equivalent of eliminating the right of people to sue someone who has done damage to them in order to prevent a frivolous lawsuit from happening.

do we really want to neuter the rights of people because some people abuse the system? you're going to take the 90% of the cases where it's not being abused, or 95% of the cases where it's a legitimate suit and eliminate that right in order to handle the frivolous suits? that's what's happening. although we are being told that all of the suits are frivolous and that the inventors are being portrayed as money grubbers, these guys try to take advantage of these big corporations. yeah, right. the little guy's trying to take advantage of the big guy. that's why we've got to pass a law that restricts dramatically restricts the rights of the little guy to deal with an infringement by a big corporation. what this bill is, h.r. 9, and it's waiting to be brought to the floor. it could be brought to the floor in the next week, month, two months, we don't know yet this

bill dramatically undercuts the rights of legitimate patent holders to enforce their patents. the patent troll element comes in with this. today if you're a small inventor and large corporate interest has been infringing on your invention that you own it for 17 years, after that, by the way everybody can use it for free, but during that 17 years you have a right to be compensated for the fact that you have -- you are the one who discovered this. you invested your time and effort and your scarce resources in order to come up with this new discovery. they have a right then to try to bring, if a large corporation is using it without paying them royalties, they have a right to bring suit. but money -- many of them don't have those resources. they don't have any money. they are, indeed, independent, small inventors up against

corporations that are worth billions of dollars. i might say, multinational corporations. these aren't just americans, david sar knopf -- sarnoff. a lot of these corporations are multinational corporations and they have nothing to do with the american trfment they have everything to do with the interest of making money for their stockholders and their company which is a multinational, which is global in scope and not an american company necessarily. so we are going to undercut american inventors' rights to try to enforce their patent from being stolen by multinational corporations. that's what this bill does. this is, to me, in my 25 -- 26 years here in congress is the best example of crony capitalism that i have ever seen. what is crony capitalism? that's when we pass laws and set up regulations that are aimed at what?

helping the big guy in relationship to the little guy. crony capitalism is when the little guys pay and end up having their rights trampled upon but the big guys are protected by different laws and clauses that we put into law here in washington, in the house and in the senate. well, the bogeyman this time, as i say, is the patent troll. the patent troll is what? the patent troll is someone, although i wouldn't call him a patent troll i'd say there is a person who is willing to join with a small inventor or independent inventor to see that his patent is enforced. we are not talking about phony patents. we are talking about legitimate patents. we are not talking about frivolous claims from a legitimate claims to patent claims of an inventor, but the

inventor does not have the strength to enforce that against the big corporation that has unlimited budget. so, this bill would dramatically -- make it dramatically more difficult for anyone to enlist someone who is not the inventor to help them press their case against the infringement, the stuff that they had. by the way if this law h.r. 9, was passed and would have been law at the time of milo farnsworth, he would have been beaten up, kicked around stepped upon, and he would not have had any benefit from his invention of the picture tube. do we want a country in which the big guys are able to do that to the small inventors? how long are we going to be on top of things? how long will our standard of living of our people stay high and our businesses competitive and our country safe and secure because we are technological advances, how long will that

last if we are stepping on the little guy? and we fundamentally change the nature of technology law in our country. that's what's happening. a bill -- this bill passed last year in the house. and it was stopped in the senate. let me note, one of the amendments that i personally had to propose that demonstrate how bad this bill is although i managed to win this one -- the one amendment we were able to win, was they wanted to take away the rights of an inventor to sue the patent office if, indeed, the patent office was not legally enacting -- not acting, in terms of his patent applications. in other words if a government agency was doing something illegally using illegal criteria maybe because someone else was influencing the decision from the outside, maybe there was just some sort of

personality problem, maybe it was corruption from within, but if an independent inventor sees that he's being treated and he's being dealt with in a way that is not consistent with the law, they always had a right just like every other american, to sue and take his case to court. this is how blatant h.r. 9 is. that bill contained a provision that said, the small inventor can't take his case to court. they are going to neuter the small inventor of his right to take it to court. he has to instead go to an ombudsman at the patent office. oh my. an ombudsman. how nice. eliminating the right of an american citizen, an inventor, in order to what? in order to send him to a government bureaucrat and the agency he thinks has done him wrong rather than having a day in court. that exemplifies everything that is in the h.r. 9.

and it is so cynical what we've got is, again, the american people are saying, look at this strawman. it's called strawman argumentation. let's build up a strawman, the trolls, and everybody will think that we are aiming at the trolls, but in fact, the real target are the little guys. . the little guys who can't afford, without some help from the outside, to enforce their patents. there's nothing wrong with someone investing in an inventor who says, look, i've got my whole life's savings in this, i invented this, but this big corporation refuses to give me any royalties from my patent. there's nothing wrong with trying to help that inventor enforce his rights. nothing wrong at all. but the strawman is, that person who's actually investing in this, now, he didn't invent it and he's going to prove its by it, thus he's -- profit by it, thus he's a troll.

no, that person is fulfilling an important role. and not permitting outside people to invest with inventions and inventors. by doing that, what we have done is diminish the value of every american patent. this is what eventually defeated that understanding -- defeated, that understanding defeated this bill in the senate last year, because our american universities understood that if that went in the value of all these patents that the american universities have been developing would dramatically go down. it would diminish the value of all patents when you eliminate that right of people to invest in patent enforcement. that makes sense. and so there was an upheaval, almost every american major university and many other industries that deal directly with long-term research and development, like the

pharmaceutical industry, for example, they knew that we could not allow this to happen. so that was stopped in the senate. that was stopped in the senate last time around. people realized that this type of crony capitalist attempt was to the detriment of the american people. now we have some of the most powerful multinational corporations still at play, trying to push this through this session of congress. people have to know that h.r. 9 is crony capitalism personified. they need to talk to their congressman and my colleagues need to talk to each other about this bill and not just accept what is being handed to them as something that's made its way through the committee process. this bill destroys the rights of discovery for the little guy. this suit allows basically -- doesn't do anything against frivolous lawsuits but deems

all of these -- all of the legitimate cases and puts them in the same category as frivolous lawsuits. it causes -- h.r. 9 causes fees, and there will be fees on defending infringement, would be leveled not on the guys who have committed the crime, but we are actually leveling fees on people who are trying to enforce their rights. we're asking people to pay more money in order to enforce their rights. it destroys for example, the trouble damage awards. what does that mean? if you're a little guy, to get a lawyer to help you, you need to -- that lawyer has to know he's going to make a profit on getting involved in a suit against a big corporation. today they have what they call triple damages. if the corporation knows that it is infringing on the little guy, there are triple damages. well, they've been -- they're

trying to get rid of those triple damages, they say, no, only actual damages. what does that mean? the little guy can never afford to hire a lawyer. the lawyers won't get involved. well, you can say these big corporations, they certainly have all the legal help they need. so that provisional loan basically, that provisional loan neuters the leverage that a small inventor has to get some legal help in this battle to defend his or her own property rights. so basically -- and this bill by the way fails to identify and it even sometimes protects, lawyers cooperating on bad faith with frivolous lawsuits, as compared to trying to help -- let's deter frivolous lawsuits, but let's not do it by eliminating the rights of people who have legitimate claims against big corporations. there's another bill now

emerging. in the house it's h.r. 9. it's a disaster. we need to make sure people know that the american people have been tipped off and we're not going to let major huge corporations like google, which is one of the main people -- groups behind this, to try to rip off these little guys. we're not going to allow that to happen. they're not going to rip us off either. but this has been recognized in the senate, like i said, it was stopped last time. so there's a bill in the senate, s. 632 this bill reasserts the condition of willful infringement. so basically, it reinforces the idea that if a company is willfully infringing this is something that is absolutely -- that someone needs to be paid for and compensated for because someone intentionally step on their rights. it gives the p.t.o. the

discretion to award damages in these cases, when you see that a big company has willfully simply said, well, ignore the fact that this group -- that we know this group invented it, ignore that just go ahead and if they try to sue us, we'll step on them. or we'll get -- we'll get the rules of the game changed in congress so that they don't have a chance to sue us. that bill basically, the s. 632, the bill in the senate, specifically allows higher education and smaller entities to be identified basically as legitimate owners and thus what we have is we are protecting the actual little guys and their educational institutions. and basically what we also have in the senate bill is something that's identified -- that identifies what bad faith, and these demand letters which are frivolous lawsuits, it actually

gives strength and power to thwart these frivolous lawsuits without damaging the rights of the small inventor and the traditional rights of the american people. so we are up against a major fight but here we have a good piece of legislation in the senate in s. 632 and a crony capitalism bill here h.r. 9, here in the house. the american people have to at times get involved or things will go haywire in our country. we don't have the rights and privileges that every american enjoys simply because it was in the constitution. it has, over the years, the american people have stepped up when they saw their rights were being trampled upon. the big guys were always around trying to steal from the little guys. but as we saw with a case, we

have a commitment to america's little guys, the men and women who maybe are not rich, but have a creative genius that will uplift all of us, we have a commitment to them. h.r. 9 breaks that commitment and destroys their ability to actually benefit from their own creative genius. i would ask my colleagues to spend time reading h.r. 9 and considering that the strawman argument, that this is the trolls we have to do this to do the troll -- get beyond the slogan and see what effect it will have and ask small inventors independent inventors and educators what impact the changes in h.r. 9 will have. and once they do, and once they understand, the legislate ors here -- legislators here and in the house understand the damage this will do to the american people and how the little guy is going to be stepped upon,

they will vote against it. but they have to have their attention drawn to this. people are busy here in washington. the biggest problem is getting the attention of our colleagues , to pay attention to a bill like h.r. 9. that's part what have the citizenry has to do if our process is going to work. they need to be talking to their congressman, they need to be talking to their senator. whether you're an educator and you deal with patents in your education institution, or whether you're an independent inventor and have an idea that will make americans more productive and more competitive, or make our country safer, you are the -- you're the treasure house of this country and they're trying to destroy that treasure right now. i call on my colleagues to join me in opposition to h.r. 9 and to work with the senate to try to have the senate bill intertwined and to come to a compromise so we can have a positive bill here in the house and move forward in a positive

way, to make sure that americans remain prosperous, americans remain secure and americans remain free. that's what our constitution was all about. that's what thomas jefferson was all about. that's what benjamin franklin was all about and that's what we're supposed to be all about. i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentlewoman from california mrs. capps, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the memory of local santa barbara, california firefighter daniel corigan. dan was born and raised in hayward, california where he played football and attended a catholic high school. dan earned his degree in

mechanical engineeringing from college. and -- engineering from california and he began his fire fighting career with the fresno fire department in 2007. in 2013, dan joined the santa barbara city fire department, where he made a tremendous impact not only on his colleagues but the entire community. throughout his career, dan was recognized by his colleagues for his hard work ethic, his considerable intelligence and enjoyable sense of humor. and that's why we were all so deeply saddened by the unexpected news when dan passed away two weeks ago. he was just 35. his loss came much too early for a beloved hero who devoted so much of himself to serve his community. dan is survived by his pregnant fiance, sara, his son, jack, his sisters, debby and row sane

-- roseanne, and his parents, john and anne. our thoughts and prayers are with them all at this sad time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands seek recognition? ms. plaskett: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. plaskett: thank you, sir. every year during the month of march we celebrate the contributions to events in history and modern society by women. we call it women's history month. but in my district in the u.s. virgin islands, the month of march is also commemorated as virgin island's history month, so in keeping with both customs i would like to take time to recognize a few virgin islanders who have broken the glass ceilinging for women in the upper echelons of law in the territory and indeed the

united states and inspired generations of young women to do the same. the honorable ilene ramona peterson who became the first female judge in the u.s. virgin islands in 1971. the honorable jada who later became the first female sworn in as attorney general of the virgin islands. and the honorable wilma lewis, who among a long list of worthy accomplishments was the first african-american woman to serve as inspector general to the u.s. department of interior and later as the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. judge lewis current currently serves as the -- currently serves as the chief judge of the district court of the virgin islands fments our fight for law -- islands. our fight for law and justice and equality comes from our history and that fight has often been led by women. women such as queen mary thomas, who along with three other women, led a revolt in the streets of st. croix to protest unfair labor wages and deplorable working conditions in 1878.

mr. speaker, i want to recognize that these women and because of their work and their contributions, have allowed many virgin islands women to ascend through the glass ceilinging. their contributions made it possible for a young girl from the virgin islands, myself, to become a new york assistant district attorney be at the justice department and later serve as the fifth delegate to the congress from the u.s. virgin islands. to that end mr. speaker, it troubles me to see the political gamesmanship that is delaying the confirmation of loretta lynch as the next attorney general of the united states. by all accounts, she is highly qualified and regarded and would make a great attorney general. i am urging my colleagues in the senate chamber to bring ms. lynch's confirmation to a vote. place your objections on the record. thank you very much for your time and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. there's a story out in a story out in a number of media, like this, details of an iran deal allows 6000 center fugse, rolls back the u.n. arms embargo. that story talks about in order to entice iran to cut back to 6,000 or 6,500 centrifuges, elements of the u.n. arms embargo against iran could be rolled back. and i think it's important to recall it hadn't been that long ago that a principal cornerstone of the discussions between the obama administration and the --

i have to be careful of the words i use here on the house floor, but the america killing iran administration, it was going to require them to dismantle their efforts toward nuclear production. and now the floating -- they are floating a draft that's going to allow them to have thousands of centrifuges. now, i have been advised, my people at the iaea in vienna that actually if they just have 3,000 centrifuges with all of the uranium that's been enriched to 5%, they only need 3,000 to take it up to 90%, and once you're 5%, it seems like it would be a long way to get to 90, but it's a matter of weeks.

and you could do it easily in a facility that would be easy to hide because you could take those 3,000 in a facility 30 meters by 70 meters and you could enrich from 5% to 90% have weapons grade ukraine yum. have the nukes that at least at one time -- uranium. have the nukes that at least at one time the identifya toll la khomeini still believes they can hasten the return of the 12th iman, to rule over the world caliphate, and they can do so because they believe the prophecy is he will arise, the 12th one, as the head of the caliphate, this world caliphate, he will arise out of chaos. and they believe that could be nuclear chaos. so in effect if this administration agrees to allow even 1,500 senttry fugse to

continue to spin in iran, he is hastening the demise of millions of people ultimately. a new holocaust. it's one thing when leaders in the united states could say, gee, we didn't know that millions of jews were being killed by hitler. gee, we just didn't know. but there came a point where it became very clear. and hitler and his subordinates really tried to hide what they were doing. iran has made no bones about what they want to do. they want to wipe israel off the map. first of all they are never going to eliminate all of the jews in the world. it will not happen. as god is my witness, that will not happen. but what will happen as

anybody, including this administration, if they are intent on going here to allow iran to continue to move toward nuclear weapons under this so-called nuclear agreement, they move there it will cause judgment to come down on our country for allowing something so horrific to become possible when we had the means to stop it. this is no time for anyone who is a civilized individual, who believes in the rights of men, the rights of women, the rights of children to be cutting a deal with these cut throats in iran. nobody seems to want to talk about it, but iran has drug this thing out for over a year perhaps valerie jere rhett was

working a deal even -- jarrett was working a deal even longer than that. there were reports she was negotiating with them earl will i on trying to -- early on trying to see if something could be done whether that's true or not, clearly what iran has done is drug out the talks, continue to increase the number of centrifuges it has spinning, continue to move toward the ability to have a tremendous amount of 5% enrichment, so that very quickly can move to 90%, develop the nukes, and they would likely develop a number of them statement -- at the same time, not just do one. they would do a number and spread them out so that once they move in to nuclear mode they have several, and you try to take them out at that point, you're going to find one or more of them in cities that you care about. so we should never allow that to

even become possible. and when i see this deal i see all these articles about it then i see this article obama planning drastic shakeup in policy toward israel. so because the people of israel in their election made clear we would prefer not to be wiped out by iran, and we can tell that the deal that the obama administration is cutting is bad for israel and puts us at extreme risk, they gave more seats than were expected to the likud party, netanyahu's party. and what is the response of the obama administration after they threw everything they possibly could threw temper tantrums

about prime minister netanyahu speaking right here just to tell us his perspective on the iranian deal because his country is most at risk? and those that refuse to understand, it isn't just israel at risk. they may at the cost of thousands of millions of lives. these people have no respect for the lives of people who are not radical islamists, as they are. so, you might think oh, gee, maybe the obama administration learned a lesson. let's don't try to interfere in the election process in a foreign country. it does make you wonder, there were all those rumors about since obama money was never audited in his original campaign in 2008, and there were massive

numbers of $50 contributions with credit cards, where did those come from? were any of those foreign? we have seen allegations about money coming in to hillary clinton's campaign from foreigners. we know in bill clinton's campaign got caught red-handed with money from monks that was given to vice president al gore. but foreigners are not supposed to be able to influence our elections. it appears that potentially they have. if that were true, don't know for certain, because it wasn't an audit done but maybe that would help explain why this administration is so quick to get involved in the election process in israel to try to destroy netanyahu, who was more concerned with the preservation of the nation of israel than he was in getting another nobel

peace prize for this administration. but this, dated today by melanie , says, the white house on wednesday suggested it could reverse its decades old policy of using its veto in the united nations security council to protect israel. it could refuse to veto resolutions related to the palestinians, or introduce a measure of its own. the "wall street journal" reported. the u.s. could also lend its support to a two state solution based on israel's 1967 borders. a senior white house official told "the new york times." quote, we are currently evaluating our approach unquote. state department spokeswoman socki said. according to the journal, quote, we are not going to prejudge what we would do if there was --

should have said if there were, she said if there was a u.n. action. the article also says, the obama administration in the past has shielded israel at the security council using veto to strike down a resolution condemning israeli settlement activity in palestinian territory. now obama officials may decide to allow israel to be exposed to more international pressure in attempt to force them back in to negotiating in what i would call a deal to hasten the attempted demise of israel. it is interesting though we are currently evaluating our approach, the state department said because we were told by a muslim brother publication in december of 2012 that -- i

believe it was 2012, it was before the fall of muslim brother morsi as president of egypt, but it was muslim brother approved publication in egypt that dragged about the six top advisors in the obama administration who they bragged were muslim brothers. some in the media don't want to do anything but vilify me for pointing out what muslim brothers have pointed out. but for a number of years i tried to advise the homeland security department that you have elevated a man to the top advisory council given him a secret security clearance, allowed him to access documents in which i was told by people i believe including the director of d.p.s. in texas that we know

that this man downloaded two documents. we know he downloaded them with his personal computer at his home. and then there were -- was a report from patrick poole, the reporter, he had direct indication from a national media outlet that he had shopped shows documents to this national media outlet who happened to refuse. i asked secretary napolitano about it. she said she knew nothing about it. that was interesting because her chief told the director of texas department of public safety the night before who advised me the night before that she had been totally briefed on what he had done. when i brought it up the next day either she lied in front of our committee, or the close staff member lied to the

department of public safety director in texas the night before. but we do know this later when i again asked her about it and if it had been investigated, she said that d.h.s. had looked into it and there was nothing to it. yet when there was a foia request for the documents pertaining to the investigation, there were no documents that supported that there ever was an investigation. so either, again, the department of homeland security secretary lied committed a crime, or d.h.s. lied and there were documents about that investigation. in any event, last september the homeland security department after years of being warned about this person they kept

elevating, after one of the isis videos hit television, and showed the islamic state cutting off the head of an american, this top advisor to our homeland security department tweeted out basically the caliphate's inevitable. people just need to get used to the idea. that was the basis of it. so they allowed, homeland security, they allowed him to go ahead and not be renewed as a top advisor to homeland security. we also know that the imam who had been head of the islamic society of north america, which was named as a co-conspirator in the largest prosecution for supporting terrorism in the

history of the united states, in going after the holy land foundation in dallas, texas federal court, the islamic society of north america was named as a co-conspirator, as was the council of american islamic relations. . we saw a story last year where they were thinking about changing their name to, i forget what the words were, but the letters were, instead of care, it would be w.t.f. i guess they thought better of having w.t.f. be their symbolic letters, representing who they are. but in any event, care, isna, they were named co-conspirators in the holy land foundation trial. when an effort was made to remove their names from being listed as co-conspirators, the judge in the federal court there in dallas reviewed the evidence and said, no, there is

evidence that supports having their names as co-conspirators. they appeal to the fifth circuit court of appeals. for the united states. and all those judges looked at it and said, no, there is plenty of evidence here to support that these groups are co-conspirators with the holy land foundation which principals were convicted of supporting terrorism and sentenced to prison. so, this administration gets sworn in within two months of the conviction and instead of being careful about these groups that u.s. federal courts had said we had plenty of evidence to show that they support terrorism, this administration neglected, refused to consider that,

because they thought they knew better. so they brought the leaders of care and isna into the realm of their close advisors. so is it any mystery when in may of 2011 prime minister netanyahu was coming to washington, the president sought advice got advice from the leader of this named co-conspirator supporting terrorism, the imam, and when the president gave this speech to -- in the state department itself the imam was there. this administration had obviously given him credentials to allow him not only in the white house, but in the inner sanctum of the state department. so when i read we're currently evaluating our approach from

the state department, i can't help but wonder have you got the imam in there that egyptian muslim brother -- muslim brother-approved article said was a muslim brother, a top advisor? you have got him in there helping advise you on how to go after netanyahu how to put israel more at risk than you already have? we're evaluating you are you are -- our approach scares me, should scare others. when you know theinistration advice. this article says, the obama administration in the past has shielded israel at the security council, using a veto to strike down a resolution condemning israeli settlement activity in palestinian territory. now obama officials may decide to allow israel to be exposed

to more international pressure in an attempt to force them back into a negotiating peace deal. well, israel is eyes-wide-open as iran continues to spin centrifuges and enrich uranium. they understand that their very existence is at risk. yet we have people here in washington this administration, that apparently are hearing from people saying, oh no, it's no problem. you know, israel is the real problem here. never mind the people that are advising this administration are more upset with israel wanting to continue to exist than they are with are iran for wanting to wipe out israel and the united states.

this should scare people in the united states because, as prime minister netanyahu pointed out though he didn't have to he cares about the united states, he was educated here. he'd like to see us continue to exist and be friends with israel. he pointed out, look, they're developing intercontinental ballistic missiles and those are not to hit us in israel, he says. they're coming after us. they really don't even need intercontinental ballistic missiles. they could put them on a cargo ship, bring them right into our ports, bring them right up the potomac river in the houston chip channel, into new orleans heck, just between new orleans and houston, i think they could wipe out 70% of our refined gasoline. so we could be in a world of hurt in a real hurry.

the president's job is to help provide for the common defense. and it seems that his initiative is more to be opposed to anything israel knows in its collective heart will keep them protected. but unfortunately that's not all the news. we look here and find, this is an article from news max, islamic state jihadists may have committed genocide in trying to wipe out the minority in iraq, the u.n. said thursday in a report laying out a litany of atrocities. the islamic state, quote, may have committed all three of the most serious international crimes, namely war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

the united nations human rights office said in a statement. the agency published a horrifying report detailing killings, torture rape, sexual slavery and the use of child soldiers by the extremists. all of these crimes, it said were violations of international human rights and humanitarian law and some may amount to crimes against humanity and war crimes. further down it says innumerous villages, men and boys over the age of 14 were rounded up and shot while the women and girls were abducted as the the speaker pro tempore:s of war -- spoils of war. the report which was ordered by a u.n. human rights council last september, following a request from the iraqi government pointed out that some villages, quote were entirely emptied of their population. many women and girls were sold into sexual slavery or handed over to islamic state members as, quote, gifts, unquote.

the report said addinging that witnesses had described hearing girls as young as 6 screaming for help as they were raped in a house used by islamic state fighters. a pregnant 19-year-old had told the investigators she had been repeatedly raped by an islamic state doctor over a period of 2 1/2 months and that he deliberately sat on her stomach saying, this baby should die because it is an infidel, i can make a muslim baby. and we had a report in the last few weeks from a catholic source in nigeria where they have begged the united states for any help that will give to try to stop boko haram and their efforts to wipe out christians in nigeria. and this source indicated that

they had heard from the united states from the obama administration, that the obama administration will only help them against boko haram if nige will change its law -- nigeria will change its laws to allow same-sex marriage. well, apparently once this administration got through obamacare promising the catholic leaders christian leaders hey we will never, ever refuse to allow you to practice your religious beliefs, well that turned out to be a lie. because of course they went after catholic nuns they went after the catholic church. well, at least those who actually practice what they preached in the catholic church. and any other christian who believes that abortion is

religiously wrong. so i guess after the administration broke its promise and went after and used the full force of the government to prevent people from practicing their religious beliefs and being able to conform their conduct to their religious beliefs, it was a no-brainer that they would then try to impose their religious beliefs or lack thereof upon countries like nigeria or others in africa or around the world. there will be a price for the united states as a country to pay when we know about jews being wiped out when we know about christians being wiped out and god has blessed us

with the ability to protect ourselves and to stop such genocide. and not only do we do nothing to stop it we demand that they abandon their christian beliefs before we'll offer any help. there will be a price to pay for the united states of america for being so calloused as christians and jews around the world are suffering in numbers like never before. i applaud my friend brad sherman this article today, quotes sherman saying, i fear you have misled this committee in telling us that once iran has the rights of a nuclear state subject to the additional protocol, you'll be able to stop sneakout, because you've

said first, well they can't develop a nuclear weapon because that would be illegal. that's a preposterous argument. obviously they're willing to break the law. my friend, mr. sherman, and i disagree on so much. but i know him to be an honorable man. and he understands iran doesn't care about breaking deals. any deal with iran is like a deal with hitler. soviet union thought they could cut a deal with hitler. the thing that their leaders were most mad about is that hitler breeched the agreement before they -- breached the agreement before they did because they had intentions apparently of breaching it. so we're somewhere between neville chamberlain and stalin in trying to reach a deal with a modern-day hitler except hitler didn't have some crazy

religious idea that he should wipe out everybody in the world that didn't have the exact same religious beliefs that he did. look, we're on the side of right. presidential cissy in egypt's on the side of right. saudi arabia u.a.e., all over the middle east they're becoming afraid because this administration is on the virge of cutting a deal that will allow iran to continue moving forward, to not just one nuke, but many nukes and a breakout could be a matter of weeks. i know people are talking about it could be years, but when you hear from people that know that could you have a facility 30 meters by 70 meters and that you could sneak that 5% into a secret facility without people knowing, and you could enrich it to 90 and% and have nuclear weapon -- 90% and have nuclear weapons, we ought to take notice. we have been blessed with much

and to whom much is given, of them much is required. the world deserves better with what we've been blessed with in the way of power and they deserve to have us stand up against iran. it's time for us to bomb iran's nuclear facilities. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i ask consent that when the house adjourn today it adjourn to meet on monday -- [inaudible] the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: i would move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands in

adjournment until noon on mo