Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Peru free trade agreement. I can't figure out why Congress is taking up this agreement now, especially when the Bush administration has had such a bad track record of enforcing any of our trade agreements.

President Bush has given little or nothing to our workers these last few years other than a pink slip. So why give them another vehicle for job losses?

Last week, the House passed a trade adjustment assistance overhaul bill. This legislation would provide our workers much-needed relief, but we wouldn't need more trade adjustment assistance legislation if we had better trade agreements.

Even before the TAA bill passed the House, we heard that the President would veto it. So what would the House Democrats be doing by taking up the Peru free trade agreement without a TAA bill?

And just last week we heard from the House leadership that there will be no China currency manipulation bill this year either. So let's review what we are getting out of our new trade deal: no additional relief for our workers, no China currency manipulation bill, no value added tax bill, no enforcement of existing trade policy.

This is what we do get. We get another NAFTA-style trade deal. What do workers get? The same old direction on trade.

The biggest supporter of the agreement is big multinational corporations. As a matter of fact, the President will be meeting with them tomorrow to get them to lobby for the passage of the Peru trade deal. It's the large multinational companies who seek to profit off the backs of working men and women in our country.

The Bush administration claims that the agreement will improve labor standards in Peru, and in the very next breath, Tom Donohue, who's president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, states that he is ``encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with ILO Conventions.''

These multinational companies like Peru, they love these free trade agreements because it's not enforceable.

While some may think that there has been progress made on the environment and labor provisions by the Peru FTA, all you need to do is look at who's supporting these trade deals. Not one union supports this trade deal, not one union, environmental, consumer, small business, faith, family farm group supports the modified Bush Peru NAFTA-style trade deal.

Even the leaders of major Peruvian labor organizations oppose this agreement. They urge Congress to vote ``no,'' claiming that it will weaken labor standards, encourage illegal immigration to the United States, and increase rates of drug trafficking as well.

By voting ``no'' to the Peru FTA, you're asking for a new direction on trade. I ask my colleagues to join me and vote ``no'' on the Peru free trade deal. It's a bad deal for America. It's a bad deal for Peru. It's the same old, same old NAFTA-style trade deal that we're dealing with.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about a human tragedy that affects the lives of millions of innocent individuals. The barbarism in the Darfur region of Sudan continues despite international calls for a cessation of violence. Lives continue to be lost and hope for peace remains distant.

On July 4 of 2004, the 109th Congress declared that genocide was occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan. Over 3 years later, the violence continues. Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives. An estimated 2.2 million people have been forced from their homes.

Today the House will consider three resolutions related to Darfur. It is my hope that this body will continue to focus on this humanitarian crisis until the genocide comes to an end. H. Res. 573 recognizes and commends the efforts of the United States public and advocacy groups to raise awareness about and help end the worsening humanitarian crisis and genocide in Darfur. The responsibility to help end this humanitarian crisis is part of the values that make us American. It is in the best spirit of our country, and it is part of the leadership that we should bring to the world. We must continue to work together as one to bring this conflict to an end.

The second resolution, H. Res. 756, condemns rape and sexual violence against women and girls in Darfur, Sudan, eastern Chad and the Central African Republic. The violence and inhuman experiences perpetrated upon the people of Darfur and the surrounding region have been particularly terrible for women. This resolution urges the President to take an active role in providing victims of sexual abuse with medical and legal support. It also calls on fellow members of the United Nations to sanction the Sudan for any non-compliance to bring known perpetrators to justice. We cannot be silent while innocent women and girls suffer such cruelty.

The final resolution, H. Res. 740, condemns the attacks made on African Union Peacekeepers in the Darfurian village of Haskanita on September 29, 2007. This violent act took the lives of 10 peacekeepers--7 Nigerians and 3 other soldiers from Mali, Senegal, and Botswana. These attacks are unacceptable and detrimental to the peace effort but should not deter the conviction of the African Union or the international community to bring peace and security to the region.

The displacement of millions of people as well as the rape and murder of hundreds of thousands cannot be tolerated by the United States or any country that holds freedom and democracy as sacred values. The ongoing events in Darfur constitute the worst ongoing humanitarian disaster in the world. We must do everything we can to bring it to an end.

I thank Madam Speaker. This weekend, Senator John Edwards announced his opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement. The reason? As his statement says, ``All of these agreements replicate the terrible features of NAFTA.'' Senator Edwards is right. It is more of the same old, same old. A leading Presidential candidate is saying it. The American people are sick of it. And so why is Congress pushing for it? Why would we push for a steady stream of lost jobs that gives incentives to multinational

corporations to move overseas? Why would we agree to an agreement that would displace peasant farmers who would be forced to migrate to the United States?

The American public aren't fooled. Campaign finance reform hasn't stopped the incredible financial influence of multinational corporations. These corporations are weighing in with the candidates, even Citibank. Take, for example, the provisions hidden in the Peru FTA. As Senator Edwards points out, ``Buried deep in the 800-page text of the Peru FTA are ambiguous provisions that could allow U.S. banks to demand compensation if Peru reverses its disastrous social security privatization.''

The Peru FTA contains provisions that could allow Citibank to demand compensation in FTA foreign investor protection tribunals from the Peruvian Government if Peru seeks to reverse its failed social security privatization. The Peruvian archbishop and both labor federation presidents asked the Ways and Means leaders to fix this problem. And it hasn't been fixed.

The House floor will be voting on this in a couple of weeks. As a Democratic Party, we have stood united against privatization of Social Security. We have not backed down. That is why it shocks me to hear that Senator Obama supports the Peru FTA. Yes, Senator Obama does support the Peru FTA.

Senator Edwards has it right. It is time to stick up for the American workers. It is time to reject the same NAFTA model that has devastated our industry. It is time to listen to the broad list of groups who do not support the Peru FTA. Not one union, environmental, consumer, small business, faith, family farm group supports the modified Bush Peru NAFTA Expansion FTA. So why would any Presidential candidate?

It is important to hear what the candidates are saying about protecting our jobs and fighting for fair trade deals. It is important that we stick together in this fight to keep our jobs here at home. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Peru FTA.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Alden Wilson, who announced recently that he will be stepping down as Director of the Maine Arts Commission. Alden has been a fixture in Maine's cultural landscape for over three decades.

Under Alden's leadership, the Maine Arts Commission has become an example for similar commissions in other states to follow. One of the keys to the Commission's success has been Alden's ability to bring together artists, community members, and policy makers to focus on common goals.

The arts are a fundamental building block in our regional economies and are vital to our communities. Serving as director of the Maine Arts Commission for 33 years, Alden focused the group on the cultivation of Maine's creative economy. In large part because of Alden, Maine enjoys a vibrant arts landscape that spreads to every corner of the state.

Alden leaves an organization with a strong vision and a record of success. I have had the joy of working with Alden during my time in the Maine State Legislature, and now, while serving in Washington.

I wish Alden the very best in the future as he pursues new opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, in the coming days Congress will consider the Peru Free Trade Agreement. I rise tonight to ask why are we in such a rush to approve a flawed and misguided trade policy.

The Peru Free Trade Agreement doesn't enjoy the support of any of the constituencies which it's supposed to benefit. No labor unions vocally are out supporting this agreement. Why would they? The labor standards are unenforceable. It doesn't protect ``buy America.'' It promotes off- shoring of our industries.

The Peru Free Trade Agreement is just like the NAFTA-CAFTA framework. NAFTA has cost Maine over 23 percent of our manufacturing base. The new labor environmental language will do nothing to improve the situation.

The Bush administration claims that the agreement will improve labor standards in Peru and, in the next breath, Tom Donahue, president of the United States Chamber of Commerce states that he is ``encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with the ILO conventions.''

So why are we rushing to approve such a toothless measure?

Why is Congress moving so fast to approve a trade policy which has not been subject to a full hearing since the deal was announced? The last hearing on the Peru Free Trade Agreement in the Ways and Means Committee was held in 2006. There are no environmental groups that are rallying support for the unenforceable environmental protections. That includes the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth.

So why are we not taking the time to consider the impact the Peru FTA will have on our environment, our intellectual property or privatization of Social Security?

Even the labor leaders of major Peruvian labor organizations oppose this agreement. They urge Congress to vote ``no,'' claiming that it will weaken labor standards, encourage illegal immigration to the United States, and increase the rates of drug trafficking and violence.

So who supports this agreement? Big Business. It's the large multinational companies who seek to profit off the backs of working men and women in our country.

Remember back on May 10 when we heard about the new trade model? Well, if it's so new and great, then why aren't we hearing from all sides on the trade debate asking us to support it? There is a reason: there is not much new about it. It's the same old model with a little fancy title.

I ask my colleagues to take a step back and consider this agreement carefully, demand the enforcement of the labor standards that conform with the ILO Conventions and environmental protection that might actually protect the environment.

I ask my colleagues to consider the impact of this agreement and to question why we are moving so quickly to box ourselves into a corner. And I'm asking Members to listen to their constituents.

All across this country, the American citizens are opposed to these bad, flawed trade deals. This is more of the same. We must have a new trade model. We have to start thinking globally of how we're going to deal with the globalization in this world today. So I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Peru trade deal.

I thank the gentlewoman and the gentleman for yielding.

The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 represents a vision for economic development in our Nation that will help Americans in the most distressed regions of our country.

In the northern border region, we are seeing clearly persistent patterns of economic distress. If you look at the 36 counties that lie on the border or right next to the border between Maine and New York, you will find poverty above the national average, medium household income that is more than $6,500 below the national average, persistent unemployment through layoffs in traditional manufacturing industries, and most striking of all, a meager gain of only 0.6 percent in population between 1990 and 2000, compared to the 13 percent growth nationally over the same period.

In short, Mr. Speaker, our mills are closing, our young people are leaving, and too many of our workers are looking for work. Clearly, this region has a common set of challenges and a compelling need for investment in new growth.

Two days after I was elected to Congress, the very mill that I worked at for over 28 years went bankrupt, and my hometown and region were devastated. The story of my town and the mill that I worked at has been repeated across our region. That is why we need to support our regional industries and build new job opportunities, and that is why we need the investment, leadership and focus in our regional economic development bill.

The Northern Border Commission would help the region invest in transportation, health care, agriculture, broadband, and alternative energy. It can be a partner with businesses to maintain our industry and build a new industry cluster. It can help us create jobs in the long term.

We have all the ingredients we need to face our challenges head-on and make our region an economic engine. This new commission will help us make the fundamental changes for our future.

I want to once again thank the chairman and chairwoman for all their hard work on this bill. This bill is a new way to look at economic development in our Nation.

So with that, hopefully our colleagues will pass this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in strong opposition to the lies being told to the good people of Costa Rica about the importance of the CAFTA referendum they are about to vote on.

I went to Costa Rica last night to share some basic truths. The pro- CAFTA government is now telling the people of Costa Rica how wonderful passage of CAFTA will be for them.

Remember when the Mexican Government said exactly the same thing to the people of Mexico during a debate on NAFTA in 1993? What happened with the passage of NAFTA, 1.3 million Mexican farmers have been displaced.

The country's growth rate has stagnated. Wages have actually declined, and the country's environmental policies have been successfully challenged and chilled throughout NAFTA's outrageous corporate regime.

NAFTA and CAFTA have actually increased protectionism by restricting free commerce in lifesaving medicine. One hundred priests in Costa Rica have come out against the flawed trade model; and just this past weekend, hundreds of thousands of good Costa Rican citizens protested this referendum. Out of a country of 4 million people, that shows how strong opposition is, and it should be.

Voters are being told by the United States Government that we will retaliate if they do not vote in favor of this referendum. The people of Costa Rica can rest assured that the U.S. Government will not retaliate. In fact, let me quote a letter last week sent from our Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, and the Speaker of the House to the Ambassador of Costa Rica: ``The decision as to whether or not Costa Rica joins CAFTA and votes yes or no on their referendum on October 7 is the decision of the people of Costa Rica.''

The letter goes on to say: ``We understand that it has been asserted by some that there is a link between the referendum vote and Costa Rica's continued participation in the Caribbean Basin Initiative. We are not aware of

any connection between the two. Participation in CBI is not conditioned on a country's decision to approve or reject a free trade agreement with the United States.''

As someone who has supported trade preference for Latin American countries like I have, the most recent the Andean countries, I can confirm that there will be absolutely no retaliation against the country or voters no matter what the outcome of the referendum. The people must look beyond the scare tactics being waged in this campaign.

How will CAFTA affect Costa Rica? Voters, all they have to do is look to Mexico to see what CAFTA has done to them. Since the passage of NAFTA, poverty in Mexico has increased. The middle class has declined. Many Mexicans are fleeing to America in hopes of finding a better wage and a life for their families.

Who benefits under NAFTA and CAFTA agreements? The multinational corporations, not the people. We have seen that corporations and their friends in the government will employ dirty tricks, election fraud, and tell outright lies to ensure that they continue to be able to exploit workers and ruin the environment.

This is a historic and important vote for the people of Costa Rica. I believe it is time for the United States and Costa Rica to go back to the drawing board and develop a new trade agreement that all sides can be proud of. The United States renegotiated Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea. We should do the same thing with the agreement with Costa Rica. It is time to develop an agreement that benefits our workers and communities.

Madam Speaker, many of the newly elected freshmen campaigned on a platform of ensuring a significant change of course from the Bush trade policy.

The Peru Free Trade Agreement is based on the same flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model that has been so devastating to industries all across our Nation.

While I campaigned for this seat 5 years ago, the cornerstone of my campaign also was to fix our broken trade policies. I've seen firsthand what they have done to the State of Maine.

I firmly believe that in order to address our trade imbalance, we have to change the trade model. The Peru Free Trade Agreement is the same old model with a little lipstick.

There is overwhelming opposition to the agreement by unions, environmental, consumer and small business groups. They're all asking Congress to oppose the Peru FTA. Who supports the bill? The large multinational corporations, Big Business, does.

When Tom Donahue, president of the United States Chamber of Commerce,

states that he is ``encouraged by assurance that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with ILO conventions,'' we should be more than skeptical.

While we have all heard that the Peru trade agreement text improves labor and environmental standards, we fail to hear that they were added on top of the same old NAFTA and CAFTA text. The bottom line: this is another Bush NAFTA expansion.

Key unions are worried about the labor provisions. The new provisions require countries to adopt, maintain, and enforce only the terms of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

The new FTA language does not require signatories to meet the ILO conventions. That's the binding standards. The declaration is a nonbinding statement.

It is highly likely that changes to the environment and labor provisions will have no real effect on the ground.

We all know that the Bush administration has a long record of not enforcing the standards of past trade agreements. Why should they start now?

And there are so many problems with the Peru Free Trade Agreement, whether it's the privatization of Social Security, ban on anti- offshoring, or failure to protect our intellectual property rights. There are more than enough reasons to oppose the Peru FTA. Not to mention if you look at NAFTA, NAFTA has caused a worse problem here in the United States with illegal immigration. The Peru Free Trade Agreement will do the same thing, cause the illegal immigration problem to get worse.

I could go on and on about the Peru FTA. I ask my colleagues to really listen to what America is saying about these free trade agreements. I'm asking Members to vote their conscience. Oppose the Peru FTA.

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the Ways and Means Committee markup on the Peru free trade agreement, I rise tonight in strong opposition to the Peru free trade agreement.

I am extremely disappointed there will be no formal committee hearing on the Peru free trade agreement. The last hearing for the Peru free trade agreement in the Ways and Means Committee was held in 2006.

Given that the administration and leadership announced proposed changes to the trade model in May, I believe it is critical to have a full hearing on the Peru trade agreement. The diversity of viewpoints on the Peru FTA have not been significantly heard by Members. Many of the newly elected freshmen Members campaigned on a platform of ensuring a significant change of course from the Bush trade policy.

The Peru free trade agreement is based on the same flawed NAFTA and CAFTA model that has been so devastating to industries across the Nation.

When I campaigned for my seat 5 years ago, the cornerstone of my campaign was fixing our broken trade policies. I have seen firsthand what they have done to the State of Maine. I firmly believe in order to address our trade imbalance, we have to change the trade model. The Peru FTA is the same old model with a little lipstick.

There is overwhelming opposition to the agreement by unions, consumers, small business, and environmental groups. They are all asking Congress to oppose the Peru FTA.

Who supports this deal? Big Business does. When Tom Donahue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, states that he is ``encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with ILO conventions,'' we should be very skeptical.

While we have all heard that the Peru agreement text improves labor and environmental standards, we fail to hear that they are added upon the old NAFTA and CAFTA text. The bottom line: this is another Bush NAFTA expansion.

Key unions are worried about the labor provisions. The new provisions require countries to adopt, maintain, and enforce only the terms of the ILO declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. The new FTA language does not require signatories to meet the ILO conventions. These are the binding standards; the declarations are nonbinding. It is highly likely that changes in the environment and labor provisions will have no real effect on the ground.

We all know that the Bush administration has a long record of not enforcing the standards of past trade deals.

Why would they start now? There are so many problems with the Peru FTA, whether it is the privatization of Social Security, ban on anti- offshoring, or failure to protect our intellectual property rights, there are more than enough reasons to oppose the Peru FTA.

I could go on, but I do not have the time. I ask my colleagues to really listen to what America is saying about these trade deals. I am asking Members to vote their conscience to oppose the Peru free trade agreement.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Mr. Wayne Viger, this year's recipient of the National Association of Letter Carriers' National Hero of the Year Award.

We are all familiar with the unofficial motto of the letter carriers which says that ``neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.'' Mr. Viger went above and beyond even this solemn promise, putting himself at risk to evacuate residents of a burning apartment building.

While completing his rounds, Mr. Viger smelled smoke at an apartment building on his route. Hearing a smoke alarm and seeing smoke pouring from the door and windows of a ground floor apartment, he entered the apartment to find an elderly woman with clothes aflame and hair singed. Viger pulled the woman to safety and extinguished her burning clothing. He proceeded to alert and evacuate other residents of the building, providing comfort and care wherever he could.

I am very proud to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Mr. Wayne Viger for his actions and for receiving the National Association of Letter Carriers' National Hero of the Year Award. His actions speak to deep-rooted courage and compassion for others as well as quick thinking and decisiveness, qualities which make him a role model for others and a deserving Hero of the Year.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in commemoration of the life of Dr. James Ross of Houlton, ME.

As a distinguished senior member of Family Health International, FHI, Dr. Ross made substantial contributions toward the global fight against HIV and AIDS.

During his time at FHI, Dr. Ross became a mentor to many, and a benefactor to many more.

Before becoming FHI's senior director of Global Operations for the Asia-Pacific Region, Dr. Ross had served as a country program director for nations in both Africa and Asia.

My sincere condolences go to his wife, Cheryl, his son, Benjamin James, and all of those who have also been personally touched by Dr. Ross's life and work.

While he is no longer with us, his memory and his contributions live on. It is with the utmost gratitude that I salute Dr. Ross.

The citizens of the State of Maine, the United States of America and individuals across the globe are extremely fortunate to have had such a wonderful friend and advocate.

Mr. Speaker, the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 represents a vision for economic development in our Nation that will help Americans in the most distressed region of our country.

In the northern border region, we have seen a clear, persistent pattern of economic distress. If you look at the 36 counties that lie on the border right next to the border between Maine and New York, you will find poverty above the national level average, median household income that is more than $6,500 below the national average. You'll see a persistent unemployment through layoffs and traditional manufacturing industry, and most striking of all, a meager gain in only 0.6 percent of the population between 1990 and 2000, compared to a 13 percent growth nationally over the same period.

In short, Mr. Speaker, our mills are closing, our young people are leaving and too many of our workers are looking for work. Clearly, this region has a common set of challenges and a compelling need for investment and new growth.

As a mill worker for over 28 years at Great Northern Paper Company, I understand the particular challenges in the border regions of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York. Like my father and grandfather before me, I left high school and went straight to work in the paper mill in my hometown. After 28 years, and 2 days after I was sworn into Congress, the mill that I worked at went bankrupt, and my hometown was devastated. Unemployment rose to over 33 percent.

The story of my hometown and the mills where I worked has been repeated throughout the State of Maine and our region. That is why we need to support this region economic development bill. We have to support our regional industries and build on new job opportunities, and that is why we need to invest in leadership and focus in our regional economic development that the Northern Border Commission would bring.

The Northern Border Commission would help the region invest in transportation, health care, agriculture, broadband and alternative energy. It can be a partner with businesses to maintain our industries and build new industry clusters. It can help us create jobs for the long term.

We have all the ingredients that we need to face our challenges head on and make our region an economic engine. This new commission would help us make a fundamental change in our future.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working in a bipartisan manner on this bill. I'd like to thank the Chair of the full committee, Chairman Oberstar, and the Chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Norton, for their efforts as well, and also the former Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Shuster, for all his hard work on the regional commission bills, as well as Congressman Hodes from New Hampshire who has been a true leader in this particular area as well.

This bill represents a new way forward for economic development in our Nation for the places and the people that need it most. Let's pass this bill and give our people the hope and the future that they deserve

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2825, designating the post office at 326 South Main Street in Princeton, IL as the Owen Lovejoy Princeton Post Office Building.

Owen Lovejoy, born in Albion, ME, and known for his passionate public service, fought for years for the abolition of slavery. At the root of this passion was the memory of his brother Elijah, Presbyterian minister and editor of an abolitionist press. Elijah was murdered by a mob angered by his anti-slavery writings.

Owen Lovejoy sought an end to slavery, opening his home to runaway slaves, seeking political office in order to push for change, and serving in the Union Army during the American Civil War. An acquaintance of Abraham Lincoln, Lovejoy served as a platform speaker in support of Lincoln in his famous debates with Stephen Douglas.

Our country owes much to individuals like Owen Lovejoy, who, believing in his heart that ``all men are created equal,'' sought an end to

slavery. He never sacrificed what he felt was important, and he dedicated his life selflessly to the greater interests of his country.

It is an honor for me to speak in support of this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2825 honoring a pioneer and a true public servant.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, and I ask my colleagues to consider voting against this rule for one simple reason, and that's time. I respect the work of our Rules Committee; I do not oppose this rule lightly.

But the fact of the matter is, under this rule, we would begin debating a huge change to our patent system that would have major ramifications for our economy. We have just returned from a long work period in our districts. We found the committee report filed late in the day when we came back, and two manager's amendments filed late yesterday. Most Members haven't had time to understand what the manager's amendment fixes or doesn't fix.

I can tell you, having worked all night late last night with staff to find out what the manager's amendment does: it actually worsens the underlying bill, especially with respect to the damages section of this bill. But Members aren't going to be given the time to really consider what the manager's amendment does or what it does not do. They are going to be told to trust the changes that have been made to fix a badly flawed legislation.

Congressman Manzullo and I went to the Rules Committee yesterday to request that we not vote on this bill because it's not ready for floor action. We asked for more time to debate the bill in order for the opposition to be heard. We were denied. With over 300 organizations who are opposed to this legislation, have very serious concerns about this legislation, it is important that their voices be heard in this debate.

We do need to address our patent system, and we must have the time to do it and do it right. By voting down this rule, we would give this House and the American people the time to make the right choices for our innovators, our jobs, our economy. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Today I rise in strong opposition to the Patent Reform Act of 2007. While I appreciate all of the hard work that Chairman Berman did on this bill, I think this bill is bad for our manufacturing industry.

We have been told that the manager's amendment significantly improves the bill. It actually is worse than the underlying bill, especially with respect to the damages section in the bill. This bill is fundamentally flawed. It can't be fixed by the manager's amendment.

This bill will weaken patent protection by making patents less reliable, easier to challenge, and cheaper to infringe. This bill severely threatens American innovation, jobs and competitiveness and ought to be opposed.

Hundreds of companies and organizations around the country have written Congress to raise their strong opposition and their strong objections to certain provisions of this bill. Manufacturers, organized labor, biotech, nanotech, pharmaceuticals, small businesses, universities, and economic development organizations have serious concerns about this legislation.

Foreign companies are watching this legislation and are eager to attack U.S. patents. The Economic Times reports that Indian companies see an opportunity to challenge our patents; and by doing so, they will leave our businesses in a litigation crisis.

We are compromising many of our industries by passing this bill. We are creating a litigation nightmare. We need to proceed to get a better bill, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation so we can move forward on legislation with more people who will support patent reform which has to be changed. I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation.