Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 18, 2011, I unfortunately missed a series of votes. If I had been here, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 601 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 602.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chair, there are a lot of problems with this bill as we have heard about already. In fact, on the wall of my office here in Washington, I have two pictures, among many. One is a picture of W. Edwards Deming and myself, taken just before he passed away in 1993-- the real inventor of Lee Manufacturing. The other is of Dr. Ray Damadian, the inventor of the MRI who, when examining this legislation, said if the new changes had taken place in the patent law, had they been part of the patent system when he invented the MRI, the MRI never would have been invented. He knows more than anybody how flawed this bill is. I want to focus in particular on section 10 of the bill, which allows the Director of the Patent Office to set fees. I'm very concerned about this because, in the last patent fight, in 2004, when I chaired the House Small Business Committee, in return for supporting higher fees with a reduced rate structure for small businesses, the provision in that bill allowing the PTO Director to set fees was removed. This new bill abrogates that hard-won compromise and allows the director of the PTO to set the fees. It is not wise for the legislative branch to give up more power and authority to the executive branch. I know it's inconvenient to have Congress set fees, but that's the job of Congress, not the job of an unelected bureaucrat. When I chaired the House Small Business Committee, I continued the tradition of preventing the SBA from unilaterally being able to set fees to whatever level they sought. I don't see why we have to do this with the PTO. Now in the present bill, section 11 actually lowers fees for small business people and has a good patent fee structure. However, section 10 would allow the PTO Director to proceed with the administrative process to eviscerate that section and impose its own fees. To compound the problem, the Patent Office has been saying for years that if they had the authority to raise fees, they would. In 2002, the PTO strategic plan said they needed to have a fee based upon a progressive system aimed at limiting applications. In 2010, in the white paper on patent reform, they said the same thing. The Patent Office's idea of cutting back on the backlog is to raise fees. That doesn't make sense. But let's eliminate that authority from the Patent Office. Let's leave that authority with the United States Congress. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, you don't strike the right balance between an inventor's constitutional right to file for an invention and giving a patent czar the authority to keep him out of the box by allowing him to raise the fees. Mr. Smith from Texas said it himself; he coupled patent backlog with the ability of the patent director to set the fees. That can only lead to one conclusion: They're going to raise the fees in order to cut down on the patent backlog. It doesn't make sense. This is the people's House. The Patent Office is the people's house for the little inventor. He must have every opportunity to exercise his constitutional right and file that patent. But if Congress cedes the authority to set those fees to a new authority of the patent director-- or we can call him now the patent czar--that patent czar will control for 7 years, at the minimum, the flow of traffic coming through his office. And you know who gets slowed? Do you know who gets hurt? It's the little guy. And the purpose of my amendment is to protect the little guy to make sure those fees are not raised, and also to make sure that the people in this country elect representatives in Congress because it's our job to set the fees, not the job of an unelected person, the person in charge of the Patent Office. I would therefore urge my colleagues to vote for the Manzullo amendment, to support the little inventor, to support the spirit of entrepreneurship in this country. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chair, in my office there are two photographs, one with me and Edwards Deming and the other of Dr. Ray Damadian, who is the inventor of the MRI. Dr. Damadian visited our office, and I said, What's wrong with this bill? He said, Everything. He said, If this bill were law when I invented the MRI, today we would not have the MRI. There are a lot of problems with this bill. This is my fourth patent fight with my esteemed colleague from Texas, but we do agree on most issues; but now we have two persons who simply disagree on policy. Back in 2004 when I chaired the Small Business Committee, I was instrumental in putting in a fixed-fee structure for small businesses; and to do that, I had stricken from the bill the authority of the PTO Director to set fees. This new bill gives to the PTO Director the ability to set fees, even though the initial filing fees for small businesses have been lowered. The problem is that the PTO can come in and simply raise fees to so-call ``manage their operations.'' In fact, two reports, ``The 21st Century Strategic Plan'' filed in June of 2002 by the U.S. PTO, said fees were based upon a highly progressive system aimed at strictly limiting applications containing very high numbers of claims and also the same thing in 2007. Their idea of decreasing claims in the patent office is to raise fees. Obviously, who's that going to hurt? It's going to be the little guy, and that's why it's one of many reasons I oppose this bill. But we should not delegate the authority that Congress has to set fees in one of the few constitutional functions that we have in this body over to somebody who has already stated that he's going to raise fees. You raise fees, guess who gets hurt--the future Ray Damadian, the little inventor, the people who invent things in this country, the true creators of jobs. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this anti-innovation bill. I believe this bill will stifle job creation and is unconstitutional. Over the past 40 years, the value of corporations has shifted from tangible assets, such as real estate and machinery, to intellectual property. During this same time period, the primary source of all net new job creation has come from start-up small companies. However, since the first major change to our patent system in 1994 that altered the length of the patent from 17 years from award to 20 years from filing, the number of patent awards from start-ups and small, individual inventors has dropped dramatically. Patents awarded to start-up firms decreased from 30 percent of all awards in 1993 to 18 percent in 2009. Patents awarded to small inventors dropped from 12 percent in 1993 to 5 percent in 2009. Why? America has slowly shifted towards a European-style patent system, which gives more opportunities to challenge a patent, resulting in delays in receiving approval for granting a patent, thus shortening the length of the exclusive use of the patent. Now, the average wait is three years. This bill would finalize the shift towards a European- style patent system through changing from a ``first-to-invent'' to ``first-to-file'' system; establishing a new set of ``prior use'' rights; and adopting a third European-style ``post-grant'' challenge. This bill would prompt a litigation boom, primarily inside the administrative review processes at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In Europe, five percent of patents are challenged. In the United States, only 1.5 percent of patents are challenged in court, contrary to the misinformation from the other side of this debate that there is a litigation boom in patent cases. Japan dropped post-grant review in 2004 because it consumed 20 percent of their patent office resources. Canada saw a one-third increase in patent applications and clogged up its system when it shifted to ``first-to-file.'' Commenting on similar legislation in 2007, a former senior judge and Deputy Director of the IP Division of the Beijing High People's Court said the bill ``will weaken the right of patentees greatly, increase their burden, and reduce the remedies for infringement . . . the bill favors infringers and burdens patentees . . . It is not bad news for developing countries which have lower technological development and relatively fewer patents.'' That is why entrepreneurial organizations such as the National Small Business Association (NSBA) and the Angel Venture Forum oppose H.R. 1249. Second, I believe the bill is unconstitutional on several grounds. First, H.R. 1249 shifts from a ``first-to-invent'' system to ``first- to-file.'' However, Article 1, Section 8 states that the Congress shall have power ``to promote the progress of science . . . by securing for limited times to . . . inventors the exclusive rights to their respective . . . discoveries.'' The First Congress included 23 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Three other delegates served in the Executive Branch, including President George Washington. When examining the 1790 Patent Act, we know the intent of the Founding Fathers in patent law--the legislation clearly states that the patent goes to the ``first and true'' inventor. This was recently reaffirmed in a June 6, 2011, Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts in Stanford v. Roche, in which he said that ``(s)ince 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor . . . Although much in intellectual property has changed in the 220 years since the first Patent Act, the basic idea that inventors have the right to patent their inventions has not.'' In addition, two constitutional scholars specializing in patent law ranging the political spectrum agree that moving to a first to file system is unconstitutional. Jonathan Massey, former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and who represented former Vice President Al Gore in Bush v. Gore said, ``Our nation's founders understood that technological progress depends on securing patent rights to genuine inventors, to enable them to profit from their talents, investment, and effort . . . If the bill's provisions had been law in the 20th Century, the Wright Brothers would have been denied a patent for the airplane.'' Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law at George Mason University and Chairman of the Intellectual Property Committee of the conservative Federalist Society said, ``In shifting from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system, the America Invents Act contradicts both the text and the historical understanding of the Copyright and Patent Clause in the Constitution.'' But more importantly, of the only nine peer- reviewed law journal articles on the subject of patent reform, all have concluded that adopting a ``first-to-file'' system is unconstitutional. So, if this bill becomes law, it will be tied up in litigation, further delaying innovation, until the Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality. Section 18 of H.R. 1249 also creates a special class of patents in the financial services sector subject to their own distinctive post- grant administrative review and would apply retroactively to already existing patents. Governmental abrogation of patent rights represents a ``taking'' of property and therefore triggers Fifth Amendment obligations to pay ``just compensation.'' Section 18 would shift the cost of patent infringement from financial services firms to the U.S. Treasury. Finally, the ``prior use'' provision in H.R. 1249 violates the ``exclusive'' use provision guaranteed to inventors under the Constitution. Thus, because this bill will hurt jobs and is unconstitutional, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. The manager's amendment does not fix any of the problems with the bill; in fact, it further compounds the problems with the bill. The first step to fixing our patent system is to fix the PTO. This manager's amendment would still allow patent fee diversion to take despite promises made in recent days. Permitting the PTO to retain its fees will allow the agency to hire more examiners and modernize its information technology infrastructure to reduce the massive backlog of pending patent applications. That's real patent reform; not this bill.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I missed a series of votes yesterday because of a family medical issue. If I had been here, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 381; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 382; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 383; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 384; ``no'' on rollcall No. 385; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 386; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 387; and ``no'' on rollcall No. 388.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chair, I missed a series of votes today because of a family medical issue. If I had been here, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 389; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 390; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 391; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 392; ``no'' on rollcall No. 393; ``no'' on rollcall No. 394; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 395; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 396; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 397; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 398; ``no'' on rollcall No. 399; ``no'' on rollcall No. 400; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 401; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 402; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 403; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 404; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 405; ``no'' on rollcall No. 406; ``no'' on rollcall No. 407; ``no'' on rollcall No. 408; and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 409.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 10, 2011, I unfortunately missed a series of votes. If I was here, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 299, ``no'' on rollcall No. 300, and ``no'' on rollcall No. 301.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I missed a vote earlier today because I was inadvertently detained. If I had been here, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 213. Stated against:

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 10, 2011, and on Monday, March 14, 2011, I missed a series of votes because I was ill. If I was here, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 168, ``no'' on rollcall No. 169, ``no'' on rollcall No. 170, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 171; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 175; and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 176.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, we have a unique opportunity today to begin the long process of addressing the hidden tax of burdensome regulations. These are the regulations that choke small businesses, hinder U.S. manufacturers, and obstruct job creation. Last year alone, the Federal Government created 43 major new rules that cost our economy approximately $28 billion, and my friends on the other side of the aisle wonder why jobs are going overseas. By directing committees to review and purge outdated and unproductive regulations from the books, this resolution provides much-needed oversight to a regulatory system that is spiraling out of control. As the co-chair of the House Manufacturing Caucus, I hear almost every day from manufacturers and other small businesses that are being crushed by unnecessary regulations which constrict job growth and yet don't make us any safer, any healthier, or any more secure. Our country needs a sensible and economically competitive regulatory policy. We need to give the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration a stronger voice within the executive branch to stop or amend bad regulations before they become finalized. We also need to pass the REINS Act that will require Congress to have the final say on major regulations before they take effect to ensure that they are following congressional intent. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 72.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I missed two votes today because of weather-related conditions. If I had been here, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 24 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 25.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, two weeks ago, the Treasury Department released the details of the Federal budget deficit for Fiscal Year 2010. While many of the numbers were grim, at least one federal agency--the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC--reported a net income of nearly $260 million and contributed a net positive balance to the Federal budget deficit of $352 million in FY 10. In fact, this represents the 33rd consecutive year that OPIC has made a positive contribution to the Federal budget. These numbers were also confirmed by an independent external auditor, KPMG. OPIC's earnings are generated through fees charged to users of their financing and insurance programs, as well as interest earned on its growing reserves, which now total about $5 billion. Because OPIC charges market-based fees for its products, it operates on a self- sustaining basis at no net cost to the taxpayers. This is not counting the tax revenue generated by the more than 274,000 U.S. jobs that OPIC projects have supported over the past 39 years. In FY 10, OPIC- supported projects are estimated to generate $624 million in U.S. exports and to support nearly 1,000 American jobs. Eighty of the 97 projects supported by OPIC in FY 10 involved U.S. small businesses. Thus, it would be counterproductive to close down OPIC because that action would actually reduce an incoming revenue stream to the Federal government and exasperate our budget deficit problem. In addition, if OPIC were terminated, many current users of OPIC would simply switch to investment insurance and financing programs of foreign governments, which would result in the shifting of U.S. jobs and tax revenue overseas, because there is no private company that provides long-term political risk insurance. That is why I encourage Congress to pass a multi-year reauthorization bill for OPIC, S. 705/H.R. 5975.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I rise in strong opposition to the recent sham election that took place in Burma on November 7. As the sponsor of this important resolution, I want to lend a public voice for many people yearning to see democracy take real root in Burma. The purpose of the election is crystal clear: to entrench the military junta's rule under a cloak of democracy. Notwithstanding the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the junta's actions cannot be an excuse to draw the curtain closed on so many people in Burma who yearn for the fresh breath of freedom. While claiming the pro-junta party won 80 percent of the vote in the sham election, the Burmese regime clearly demonstrated its adherence to Chairman Mao's famous dictum that ``political power comes from the barrel of a gun.'' To make matters worse, just as rigged election results were being reported, junta troops engaged in shoot-outs with ethnic minority forces in border areas, sending tens of thousands of refugees fleeing into Thailand. Artillery fire even flew over the border, injuring refugees, Thai civilians, and Thai soldiers on the Thai side. Shelling your peaceful neighbor is no way for any government to conduct an election. And while we all laud the release of the acclaimed Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, no one should be fooled into thinking that the Burmese junta leopard has changed its spots. The junta has treated Aung San Suu Kyi like its political yo-yo, letting her out and then pulling her back in whenever it has served the regime's political whims. Having gotten her out of the way during the critical runup to the bogus elections, the regime has now decided it is time to place her again in the world spotlight. But we cannot for one moment forget that there are an estimated 2,500 other political prisoners, including brave monks and ordinary citizens from the Saffron Revolution 3 years ago, who still languish in the Burmese gulag. Until these others are free, Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma are indeed truly not free. In 2008, I led the effort, along with my friend from New York, Representative Joe Crowley, to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Aung San Suu Kyi. We must never forget the strength and hope that she represents. We must never be fooled into believing that this time there really will be change in Burma. A flawed election process cannot hide the fact that until a sincere, transparent dialogue of political transformation is begun with the opposition, there can be no true democracy and rule of law in Burma. One need only recall that Hitler and Stalin had elections also, and they were just as meaningless. This raises the whole question of the value of engagement with a regime which hunts down refugees and shells its neighbor in the aftermath of bogus elections. The administration clings to the desperate hope that talking to dictatorial thugs with no preconditions will lead to a world of peace and harmony. The Burmese junta and their bogus elections demonstrate the naive assumption behind this approach to foreign policy. The release of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest, however, still leaves one Peace Prize laureate behind bars. That is the recent Prize recipient, Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. It seems high time for the rulers in Beijing to follow the example of their Burmese buddies and immediately release Mr. Liu. Governments which fear lone voices of conscience like Aung San Suu Kyi and Mr. Liu can never be truly secure, no matter how much voter fraud they conduct to prop up their regimes. I strongly and enthusiastically urge my colleagues to stand up for democracy and freedom in the proud ancient land of Burma and to wholeheartedly support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. I rise in support of the resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, on August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime invaded and occupied nearby Kuwait. In response, the United States stood firmly against this act of aggression and led a strong coalition of responsible nations in making clear that Saddam's actions would not be tolerated. As a result of U.S. leadership, the U.N. Security Council adopted almost a dozen separate resolutions that, among other things, demanded that Iraq unconditionally withdraw from Kuwait and increased economic sanctions and other pressure against Saddam's dictatorship. On November 29, 1990, the U.N. Security Council authorized the use of all necessary means to compel Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. Congress voted on January 12, 1991, to authorize America's Armed Forces to enforce the U.N. Security Council's resolutions with respect to Iraq. Mr. Speaker, when called to action, our men and women in uniform, almost 700,000 of whom served in the theater, fulfilled their mission in an exemplary manner with valor and honor. Joined by our coalition partners, the U.S. military overwhelmed Saddam's forces and drove them out of Kuwait in a decisive campaign that lasted fewer than 30 days. Sadly, during the Gulf War, 383 Americans made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in service to our Nation, and more than 460 others were wounded. Among those who died was a young flight surgeon from Rochelle, Illinois, by the name of Dr. Koritz, when his jet aircraft was shot down. Further, over 170,000 returning veterans of the Gulf War have suffered from serious health problems. In 2001, I authored the Persian Gulf War Illness Compensation Act to make sure that our veterans receive compensation from illnesses as a result of Gulf War syndrome. This legislation garnered the support of more than half the House of Representatives, and it was later signed into law by the President of the United States. It was thanks to the loving dedication of Donna Steele, the widow of Gulf War veteran Dan Steele from Freeport, Illinois, that helped me understand the devastating nature of Gulf War syndrome. Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Gulf War, we must honor the service and sacrifice made by servicemembers and veterans. Further, we must reaffirm our determination to ensure peace and stability in the gulf region which is a key U.S. interest. Accordingly, I am proud to support House Resolution 1672 and thank my friend from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for introducing this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, it is a real honor and privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer). He is the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. He and I are classmates. We trained in school together to run as Members of Congress. He is a dear, dear friend. Our offices are on the same hall. Unfortunately, he is going to be leaving Congress this year.

Mr. MANZULLO. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I stand in strong support of this resolution, which recognizes the architectural genius of a man who was born over 500 years ago and continues to inspire the work of architects today. Andrea Palladio was born into a family of modest means and rose through society as a result of his hard work, commitment to learning, and dedication to his trade. Palladio is best known for his work, ``The Four Books of Architecture,'' and by 1554 he was named the chief architect of the Republic of Venice. Palladio's work defined the renaissance style of architecture. Thomas Jefferson utilized his principles in designing his home at Monticello, as well as when he designed the plans for the University of Virginia. The Palladian style served as inspiration to many architects during the 18th century when they designed the United States Capitol, where we meet today, as well as other government buildings and monuments in and around Washington, D.C. Indeed, Palladio's influence goes beyond architecture to touch the lives of countless Italian immigrants in this country. Americans of Italian heritage carry on the Palladio work ethic and commitment to excellence. In this resolution today, we recall the life of Andrea Palladio and recognize the significant contributions he made to Western architecture and to the cultural heritage of the United States. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the adoption of this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and rise in support of H. Con. Res. 327, a bipartisan measure recognizing the efforts of the USA Bid Committee to bring the World Cup to the United States. On December 2, the Executive Committee of the International Federation of Football Associations, or FIFA, will be voting and announcing the host countries for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup competitions. A month ago, the United States decided to focus solely on its bid for 2022. My colleagues will recall that the U.S. hosted a highly successful World Cup 16 years ago, in 1994. In addition to holding opening ceremonies and the first match in my home State of Illinois, that tournament set World Cup attendance records, drawing nearly 3.6 million live spectators at matches that were broadcast to billions of viewers around the world. It was a great success for the World Cup and a huge boost for the game in the United States. Since that time, soccer has grown significantly in this country, both as a participant and a spectator sport. I can think of no better venue for the 2022 FIFA World Cup than the United States of America. We boast the second largest number of players in the world, with over 24 million Americans playing. With nearly 4 million young people playing in more than 6,000 clubs and leagues, the United States leads the world in youth players--those who are most committed and important to the future of the game. With our state-of- the-art stadiums and broadcast facilities, we also have the best possible infrastructure to make the 2022 World Cup accessible to the people of the world. For these and many other reasons, holding the 2022 FIFA World Cup in the United States would be good for FIFA and good for the economy of the United States. Thus, it is fitting that today we join together across party lines to commend and support the efforts of the USA Bid Committee to bring the World Cup competition to the United States in 2022.

Mr. MANZULLO. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I speak in favor of the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, H.R. 2378. This day has been long in coming. In 2003, I was one of the first Members of Congress to introduce legislation to stop currency undervaluation, especially by China. There has been some modest progress taking place over the years, but the overall practice continues to the detriment of our manufacturers. Counties in northern Illinois have a real unemployment rate of somewhere between 18 and 25 percent. We can't wait any longer for more promises to solve this problem in the future. Just listen to one of my constituents, Jerry Busse from Rockford Toolcraft, who was quoted in the Rockford Register Star on August 30 of this year. Mr. Busse: `` `We have done work for a big manufacturer in Chicago for 20 years. All of a sudden, we lost a lot of their business because they decided to move the work to China,' Busse said. He asked the Chicago company what he had to do to get the work back. `` `The prices they were getting from China were close to what we had been getting. I said, I think I can do the work for that amount,' Busse said. But the company refused. `` `Their management said anyone in America has to be 30 percent under the Chinese price. And I can't do that.' '' Well, that's about the extent of the valuation of the Chinese RMB. I support the new version of the legislation to combat exchange rate undervaluation by China and other countries. We have to take a stand to stop China from making their imports cheaper in the U.S. and our exports more expensive going to China. One study estimates that correction of all the Asian currency undervaluations would cut the global U.S. trade deficit by about $100 billion and generate at least 700,000 American jobs. This legislation provides another weapon in our trade arsenal to empower trade enforcement officials to confront unfair trade practices by China and others. If you want to stop Chinese imports coming in at predatory prices and give our manufacturers and farmers the chance to fairly compete, then support the currency reform bill.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this day has been long in coming. In 2003, I was one of the first Members of Congress to introduce legislation on this topic to stop this anti-free market practice of foreign governments of deliberately undermining the value of their own currency to make their exports less expensive and foreign imports more costly. We have had some modest progress over the years but the overall practice continues to the detriment of our manufacturers and farmers. Currently, counties in northern Illinois have an official unemployment rate of between 8 and 16.4 percent. The unemployment rate in the cities of Rockford, Belvidere, and Freeport are 17.4 percent, 17.8 percent, and 13.3 percent respectively. But if you include those who have given up looking for work, the real unemployment rate for these counties and cities is probably somewhere between 18 and 28 percent. We can't wait any longer for more promises to solve this problem in the future. I am pleased to support the ``new and improved version'' of the legislation introduced by my fellow co-chair of the House Manufacturing Caucus, Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, to combat exchange rate misalignment by China and other foreign governments. I am a proud original co-sponsor of this legislation. Regardless of any person's view on free trade, opposing exchange rate undervaluation is an area where both sides of the trade debate should come together. We must take a stand to stop China and other nations from making their imports cheaper in the U.S. and our exports more expensive in their country. Let me relate the experience of one manufacturer from Rockford, Illinois, Jerry Busse of Rockford Toolcraft. He was quoted in the Rockford Register Star last August saying, ``We have done work for a big manufacturer in Chicago for 20 years. All of a sudden we lost a lot of their business because they decided to move the work to China.'' Jerry Busse asked the Chicago company what he had to do to get the work back. The prices they were getting from China were close to what Rockford Toolcraft had been getting. Jerry Busse thought to himself that he could do the work for that amount but the Chicago company refused. According to Jerry Busse, the management of the Chicago firm said anyone in America has to be 30 percent under the Chinese price. Mr. Speaker, 30 percent is approximately the undervaluation of the Chinese currency. Suffice it to say that Rockford Toolcraft couldn't meet this predatory price and lost a customer. Despite any differences we may have over trade policy, we should all agree on the need to stop foreign governments from undervaluing their currencies to gain an economic advantage over us by making their goods artificially less expensive in the United States and making our exports more expensive overseas. This bill is not targeted at one country. Currency undervaluation is not just a problem that plagues our trade relationship with China. About two weeks ago, Japanese monetary authorities sold a large amount of yen against the dollar to stem the Japanese currency's sharp appreciation against the U.S.--the first time since 2004. Other countries have joined in this anti-capitalistic, mercantilist behavior over the years and they should be equally condemned. It is in their long-term self interest to eventually move to a valuation of their currency that is based on the marketplace--not by a government official. Fred Bergsten, Director of the highly respected Peterson Institute for International Economics, estimated that correction of all of the Asian currency undervaluations would cut the global U.S. trade deficit by about $100 billion and generate at least 700,000 jobs. This legislation provides another weapon in our trade arsenal to empower our trade enforcement officials to confront unfair trade practices by China and others. The revised bill gives discretion to the Department of Commerce to consider currency undervaluation as another form of a government subsidy that is eligible for higher countervailing duties. This legislation is preferable to other bills that would impose blanket, across-the-board tariffs on just Chinese goods that would almost immediately be ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. This approach is WTO compliant and does not target one specific country over another for currency undervaluation. This bill should unite both spectrums of the trade debate and one that should send shockwaves to capitals of foreign governments that deliberately undervalue their currency for a trade advantage. The frustration level is high among our small manufacturers such as Jerry Busse and the time is ripe for Congress to act. I'm here as a proponent of free but fair trade in support of this carefully crafted legislation and I urge my colleagues to do the same. If you want to stop Chinese imports coming in at predatory prices and give our manufacturers and farmers the chance to fairly compete, then support this bill. If you don't like government subsidies and interference in the marketplace; if you prefer capitalism to mercantilism; then you vote for this bill.