i vote for fast-track, for nafta. instead of the million new jobs that were promised, by 2010, the united states had lost 700,000 jobs. so instead of standing in a corner figuring out how we're going to lose more jobs, we ought to do something that works for the middle class. let me tell you what happened with nafta. instead of improved pay for our workers, which was promised, nafta pushed down american wages. it empowered employers to sty their workers either -- to say to their workers either accept lower wages and benefits or we are moving to mexico. instead of strengthening our economy, it increased our trade deficit to mexico, which know this year hit $50 billion. before nafta we had a trade surplus with mexico. now we have a trade deficit. so instead of standing in the corner and figuring out how we can have more trade deficits with countries we ought to do something to help the middle class. i want to talk about something that happened in california in santa ana right after nafta. the city had worked hard to kee

let me tell you what happened with nafta. instead of improve pay for our workers which was promised nafta pushed down american wages. it empowered employers to take their workers either accept lower wages and benefits or we are moving to mexico. instead of strengthening our economy it increased our trade deficit to mexico which now this year hits $50 billion. before and after we had a trade surplus in mexico now we have a trade deficit creates so instead of standing in the corner and figuring out how we can have more trade deficit we have to do something to help the middle class. i want to talk about something that happened in california in santa ana right after nafta. the city had worked hard to keep the mitsubishi plant that assembled big screen tvs securing tax credit to help them stay competitive. even after nafta passed company officials promised they would keep the plant in santa ana but guess what folks three years later mitsubishi close the plant plant. company officials said they had to cut costs especially labor cos

nafta really never had any document revisions and after nafta was negotiated the clinton administration talked about creating a free trade area with americans and it would be expansion of nafta into the region but for a variety of reasons that ever happen so i don't think we have an example of a big regional agreement that is a living agreement so i do think it would be very much in the u.s. interest and then korea's interest to move as quickly as possible after tpp has been concluded to take that and i would like it to be done before this administration. >> i just want to add a little bit of that because it's hard for me to imagine happening next year but i totally agree with ted that is then korea's interest to move quickly. what i mean by that is if korea gets put into a second round with a bunch of countries that have made changes and are going to be resistant to some of them including some competitors in korea. i won't name them but one begins with t you know much less other countries that have farther to go that prays to them want to aspire to a high standard agreement but it's go

i vote for fast-track, for nafta. instead of the million new jobs that were promised, by 2010, the united states had lost 700,000 jobs. so instead of standing in a corner figuring out how we're going to lose more jobs, we ought to do something that works for the middle class. let me tell you what happened with nafta. instead of improved pay for our workers, which was promised, nafta pushed down american wages. it empowered employers to sty their workers either -- to say to their workers either accept lower wages and benefits or we are moving to mexico. instead of strengthening our economy, it increased our trade deficit to mexico, which know this year hit $50 billion. before nafta we had a trade surplus with mexico. now we have a trade deficit. so instead of standing in the corner and figuring out how we can have more trade deficits with countries we ought to do something to help the middle class. i want to talk about something that happened in california in santa ana right after nafta. the city had worked hard to kee

that wasn't part of nafta. it's going to be part of our current policy today helping our companies helping our workers get there before it's too late. next the congress is going to lay down clear priorities for our trade enforcers priorities that are centered on jobs and economic growth, and there's going to be more accountability and follow-through baked into our enforcement system. in years past, the trade debate in the congress used to come down a simple transaction of trade promotion authority for trade adjustment assistance. what i said in developing this package of bills -- and what more than a dozen protrade democrats said on tuesday and wednesday of this week -- was that the united states senate needed to aim higher. the status quo wasn't good enough. and, in particular, it wasn't good enough in terms of enforcing the laws that are on the books. my guess is in, pennsylvania and everywhere else, particular will he those of us who are protrade and want to tap the global markets, how about enforcing the la

right after nafta. the city had worked hard to keep a mitsubishi plant that assembled big screen tvs securing tax credits to help the plant stay competitive. even after nafta passed, company officials promised they would keep the plant in santa ana. but guess what folks? three years later mitsubishi closed the plant, company officials said they had to cut costs -- especially labor costs -- so they were moving their operations to mexico. we lost 400 good paying, middle class jobs even though everyone promised nafta would never do that, this is going to be wonderful. and i got suckered into voting yes on fast track. and i fear we see this pattern again. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. so we have 12.3 million manufacturing jobs in this country. and we are looking at a trans-pacific partnership deal, the largest trade deal in history covering 40% of the world's economy. tell me, what chance do our people who work in manufacturing have again

many wisconsin communities as i mentioned earlier bear the scars of nafta and other flawed so-called free trade agreements agreements, fromfrom close the factories to closed homes to devastated communities, wisconsinites know all too well what happens when politicians in washington tell them they know what's best for them in wisconsin. let me give you just a few numbers on trade from wisconsin's perspective. on jobs, according to the economic policy institute nafta has led to the loss of more than 680,000 jobs most -- 60% of them -- manufacturing jobs in the united states as a whole. since china joined the w.t.o. in the year 2000, there's been a net loss of over 2.7 million u.s. jobs. of that amount, wisconsin has lost around 68,000 jobs between the years 2001 and 2013 because of our trade deficit with china and their currency manipulation. now, in 2011, we passed the south korea free trade agreement. in the years since the growth of the u.s. trade deficit with south korea has cost us more than 75,000 u.s. jobs. on wages competing with workers in china and other low-wage countries it

they were promise of nafta would bring millions of jobs. instead we lost 5 million manufacturing jobs in this country since 1994. it's only since the otter rescue in 2010 and we begin to gain those jobs back. we know our trade deals for small business to compete with countries abroad pay their workers pennies on the dollar these foreign companies don't have to abide by the same american laws that we do. with so much to do i don't and so much at stake in this deal we shouldn't be rushing the process of considering fast-track. we should working on a living wage working on paid sick and family. we should be working on equal pay for equal work. we should working on investment to infrastructure and innovation innovation. instead the majority leader wants to fast-track fast-track him what's up with is triggered on the floor as quickly as possible. this body should deliberate methodically and carefully before we agreed to become a rubber stamp for the white house's trade policy. it's not workforce in the past. it won't workforce in the future. thi

instead, nafta has led to the loss of almost 700,000 jobs. in 1999, we were promised that permanent normal trade relations with china would open up the chinese economy to american made goods and services. instead, as everybody who goes shopping knows when you buy product after product made in china, that trade agreement has cost us some 2.7 million american jobs. and i remember hearing all of the accolades about free trade with china they all turned out to be wrong. in 2011, the u.s. chamber of commerce told us that the south korean free trade agreement would create some 280,000 jobs. well wrong again. instead, that agreement has led to the loss of some 75,000 jobs. and the reason for all of this is pretty simple. why would an american corporation invest in this country, pay american workers workers $15, $18, $20 an hour, provide health care, deal with environmental regulations trade unions when they can go abroad, pay people pennies an hour, not have to worry about the environment. that is of course what has happened. these trade agreements

they promised nafta would bring millions of jobs. instead we've lost five million manufacturing jobs in this country since 1994. it's only since the auto rescue in 2010 that we begin to gain those jobs back. we know our trade deals for expwis to compete -- for small business to compete with companies abroad. these foreign companies don't have to abide by the same american laws that we do. with so much to do at home and so much stake in this deal, we shouldn't be rushing the process of considering fast-track. we should be working on a living wage. we should be working on paid sick and family leave. we should be working on equal pay for equal work. we should be working on investments to infrastructure and innovation. instead the majority leader wants to fast track fast-track, wants to put this trade agreement on the floor as quickly as possible. this body should deliberate methodically and carefully before we agree to become a rubber stamp for the white house's trade policy. it's not worked for us in the past. it won't work for us in t

this is not the nafta playbook. and it is not even the 2002 t.p.a. package, madam president. i realize the president wasn't in the senate at that time, but after my opening remarks i'm going to start outlining the 30 progressive changes in the 2015 t.p.a. package that were not in the 2002 program again to show how different this trade policy would be. but the point of what i have started with, madam president this focus on trade done right is to drive home the potential for more good-paying jobs for our workers. and this would be true in oregon utah, iowa, and across the land. in my state one out of five jobs revolves around exports and the export jobs often pay better than do the non-trade jobs. and the reason i bring this up, madam president is i don't think there is any more pressing economic issue in our country than finding ways to increase wages for americans -- and particularly the middle class and those who aspire to be middle class. and the facts demonstrate clearly that the export jobs often pay better than do the nonexport jobs. and the reason that's the case is be

it is the creation and we see it in trade deals which is nafta on steroids weakening the power of the government to corporate exploitation and all of that means the only mechanism left by which we can save ourselves and save our children is to begin to carry out acts of mass civil disobedience. that requires taking to the streets. i cover the revolutions in eastern europe germany czechoslovakia, romania and i watched day after day hundreds of thousands 500,000 people half a million and then solicit where improv and every night and czechoslovakia in the magic lantern theater all the people who would inherit the government. hobbled to me was a kind of model. what it means to be a dissident, what it means to rebel. he had of course begun with charter 77 in 1978 writing this great essay the power of the powerless calling upon us to live in truth and by living in truth exposing the system for what it was. and that of course is the great terror of the system that it is exposed for the predatory creature that it has become. kabul was not a particularly charismatic figure or even a very good

that is nafta on steroids. what problems will that have? generate profits. where will that profit go? pockets on accountability for every day people. he had the courage to raise an issue that was unpopular. but not attending to the structure analysis to the degree he ought to we end up seeing the same thing. our brother is acquainted with how human beings could creatively respond to poverty. in this case white brothers and sisters, right? but a different moment. your family is strong. unbelievable commitment to education. every working class person is not a robert george. you have a lot of cousins. i am sure. >> i think it is true he didn't get the full picture. he was deflected from seeing other factors because so much seemed to be accounted for by reference to race and the history of race relations and oppression. and that say blind as much as it illumeinate illuminates. and he is a good case of that. the nafta an steroids is what i said we need to address when we talk about proper economic issues. we make a mistake thinking if he could solve those everyth

that, in my view s because so many of the same old enforcementing tools from the nafta era and decades prior just aren't the right kind of tools to get the job done in 2015. our competitors overseas, mr. president, use shell companies, fraudulent records and sophisticated schemes to play cat and mouse with u.s. customs authorities. our competitors overseas in a number of instances intimidate american firms into relocating factories or surrendering our intellectual property. our competitors often spy on our companies and trade enforcers to steal secrets and block our efforts at holding them accountable. to mask that are activities -- their activities, they hide their paper trails and engage in outright fraud. and for a number of years, mr. president, i chaired the trade subcommittee of the finance committee, and i can tell you these examples i've given of modern challenges is just touching the surface of what we found in our investigations. at one point we set up a sting operation to try to catch people who were merchandise launderers. not only does our trade enforcement need, mr. presi

we don't need another nafta. any candidate needs to address the issue into own way. >> what are you backing the wealthy over the workers? workers over the wealthy. >> i think it's obvious the issue we're talking about here have a huge impact on the people of new york city. and when you think of what's happening in our city 46% of people in our city that under the poverty level. those are the statistics developed in the bloomberg administration. the ways we address that involve national policy. we can do a lot at the local level and trying to do with affordable housing in increasing paid sick leave and living wage and other measures. i'm going to get to more working for this new infrastructure in congress can new transportation bill. new york city and cities all over the country need the federal government to address income inequality we can make the progress we need without it. >> even do you think you're doing this for the the u.s., new york voters don't think that. >> this is something that has to happen for pe

i was just getting out of law school when nafta got passed. [laughter] [applause] number three, you've got some critics saying that any deal would be rushed through. it is a secret deal. people don't know what is in it. this is not true. any agreement that we finalized with the other 11 countries will have to be posted on 94 at the 60 days before i even sign it. then it would go to congress. and you know they are going to do anything fast. [laughter] there will be months of review. every t. crossed, every i..a. everyone will see what is in it. there is nothing abstract about this. this is a very deliberate plan. which will be subject to scrutiny and i'm confident when people read the agreement for themselves, they will say this is the most progressive trade deal in history. number four, critics warn this would undermine regulation. even financial regulation. they are making this stuff up. this is just not true. no trade agreement will force us to change our laws. this agreement would make sure our companies are discriminated against in other c

we sue saw them from president bush as he negotiated nafta. we saw it from president clinton he's pushed nafta through congress. we saw it from president clinton when he pushed pntr. we saw it with president bush the second with the central american free trade agreement and we're seeing it with president obama on south korea. on south korea, president obama and the administration increased a 70,000-increase in jobs. they always say more jobs and higher wages but then we ended up losing 75,000 jobs under the south korean free trade agreement. today we're voting on whether or not to end debate on the fast-track bill. if people are a little confused it's very understandable. wreer goingwe're going to end debate, but we've barely begun it. historically when we've done trade agreements in this town -- as bad as they've turned out to be for working families and places like reno and cleveland and smaller towns like mansfield and lima and jackson ohio -- when we have passed these trade agreements at least we've had open debate where we could open amen

i voted for fast-track for nafta. what a mistake that was. mr. president, president clinton promised us the world. republicans and democrats who were pro trade promised us the world. do you know what happened? we lost 700,000 jobs, mostly in manufacturing. what makes you think that we're not going to see these 12 million manufacturing jobs leave when chile pays $1.91 an hour $1.91 an hour. malaysia pays $1.21 an hour. peru pays $1.15 an hour. mexico pays 80 cents an hour. vietnam pays 58 cents an hour. and brunei and singapore well, they have no minimum wage at all. so we have a very simple amendment here, which i don't believe i'll ever get a chance to offer but it's simple, and i know if i went outside and asked the average american how they felt and just said do you think it's right for us to do a trade deal with countries that pay poverty wages slave wages to their people, how are we going to compete with that? and people say oh, well, our workers are smarter. that's right. but those workers let me tell you, they're very smart in chile and ma

it is the creation and we see it, these trade deals which are nafta on steroids weakening the power of the government to curb or halt corporate exploitation and the only mechanism left is to carry out acts of mass civil disobedience. that requires taking to the streets. i covered the revolutions in eastern europe, east germany, czechoslovakia, romania and i watched day after day hundreds of thousands, 500,000 people, half a million people in prague, and every night in czechoslovakia in the magic lantern theater, all the people who inherit the government, it was a model of what it means to be a dissident, what it means to rebel. it began with charter 77, 1977. in 1978 writing this great as a the power of the powerless, calling to live in truth, by living in truth, and exposing the system for what it was. and that is the great terror of the system that it is exposed for the predatory creatures that it has become. hobble was not a charismatic figure or a very good speaker but he had the moral authority. there was no question in prague. i remember all through the streets of the city there

go back to 1992 when nafta came in my state of west virginia lost 31,000 jobs since and a half tamp it's hard for me to say this is going to be different so much better. i if you look at where our jobs were lost was in the inner city. where a lot of the textile -- a lot of things going on. we lost all that. now it's rampant with crime high unemployment. how are we better off? we need to look at that. minimum wage is what they think we can raise any type of quality life we're in trouble. the other thing is that no one good- -- you haven't heard anybody talk about drug abuse. not sexy. not one of this is is in room doesn't know someone in our immediate family or extended family hasn't had a prescription drug problem. it is rampan, epidemic proportion. we can't find people that are clean enough to work. our education is not pushing them to get skill set's so they can complete globally. there's lot going on there i'm fine. i can look at a progressive i can look at it conservative. if it's somewhere in between you have to -- i said this. i'm not right on every issue but eye not wrong on every

together they form a legislative package that throws out the 1990 nafta playbook on trade with those policies that have high-wage jobs that opportunity is lost if it is whittled down at two. mr. president in particular in my view is legislative malpractice in the calculation here is simple the finance committee gave the bipartisan trade enforcement bill to protect american jobs to protest experts that i believe every member of this body supports it closes a shameful loophole to allow for products made with forstmann child labor to be made in our country. it is 2015 there is an obsolete and no room for a loophole that allows slavery in american trade policy is the decision is made to drop the bipartisan legislation than that would live on. and the senator who goes home to speak as i do about the virtues of job-creating trade policies has a special obligation to insure the trade enforcement is tough and effective and builds on american values that is what the enforcement bill is all about without proper enforcement no trade deal could ever live up to the hype it needs to get to the pre

trade enforcement has got to be in the forefront not in the rear, and a recognition that the 1990's nafta trade playbook is being set aside. mr. president, i'm going to be brief at this point but i'd just like to give a little bit of history as to how we got to this point. mr. brown: mr. president would the senator from oregon yield for a moment? thank you. i want to thank senator wyden for his work on the customs bill that we will be debating, the bill to which he's referring. especially his amendment that we worked on on prohibition of child labor closing an 85-year loophole, if you will, allowing child labor in far too many cases and we as a nation were importing goods produced by child labor. i appreciate his support and senator hatch's support early in the process before the markup began on our level the playing field language which is important to a number of industries to make the playing field more level as senator wyden was sane, and third the importance of currency. we know how many jobs we've lost in my state and all over the country because of what's happened with people gamin

that is because so many of the same old enforcement tools from the nafta era and decades prior just are not the right kind of tool to get the job done in 2015. our competitors overseas use shell companies fraudulent records, and sophisticated seeking to play cat and mouse with us customs authorities. competitors overseas intimidate american firms into relocating factories were surrendering intellectual property. competitors spy on companies to steal secrets and block efforts. to mask the activity they hide paper trails and engage in outright fraud. for a number of years i chaired the trade subcommittee of the finance committee and can tell you the examples i have given of modern challenges is just touching the surface of what we found in our investigation. at one time we set up a sting operation. not only not only does our trade enforcement need to catch up to the schemes we have to have a trade enforcement policy that stays ahead of the game. that is why the bipartisan enforcement package will take enforcement up to a higher level. this bill raises the bar for alterative forces whether

i am a representative of a state that immeasurably benefited by the nafta -- the north american free trade agreement and, by the way, many of the same interests and people that oppose that are opposing this now i.e., primarily the labor unions. and the purpose here that means eliminating this catfish program which is one of the most brazen and reckless protectionist programs that i have encountered in my time in the united states senate. the purpose of the usda catfish office is purportedly to make sure catfish is safe for human consumption. i'm all in favor of ensuring that american consumers enjoy wholesome catfish. the problem is, the food and drug administration already inexpects all seafood including catfish. the true purpose of the catfish program is to create a temporary to -- trade barrier to protect catfish farmers in two or three southern states. let's be clear what this is all about. protect catfish farmers in two or three southern states and we are endangering the entire agreement here. that's not right and it's not right for the american people. in classic farm bill poli

frankly the record of trade deals like nafta and others really cause serious questions to be asked before we enter into a trade deal that recently and this is a new thing in this is what elizabeth warren is talking about. all of a sudden one of the things the big banks on wall street around the globe, the 18 to 20 local too big to fail banks are trying to use trade deals to essentially smuggle in deregulation provisions. it's bad enough that they are in washington beating the doors of people in congress and the regulators they in and day out to bend the rules towards wall street's way to get their wish list as we see too often happening. they also do it in the war in capitals and now what they are trying to do is do it in our trade agreements so the trade agreements have had problems about who really benefits and who really is harmed. we have this added couple of provisions that allow financial regulation or deregulation or financial loss to be challenged and weakened through trade agreements. senator warren and senator sherrod brown and others in congress are fighting against it to make

but i voted for the trade agreements including nafta when they came to united states senate. i had a lot of other conversations too on the other side of that coin with entrepreneurs and innovators people who were eager to take advantage of new opportunities and whose ingenuity helped to create jobs move our country forward, change our economy open up new opportunities reinvent the mix of our economic base in cities like boston, philadelphia chicago, los angeles, new york, elsewhere. whether we like it or not, my friends, what is new particularly in business -- not in everything, but particularly in business -- ultimately catches up with and ultimately overtakes the old practice. that's the reality. you can trace that from the beginning of the industrial revolution. it's what we've always called progress. and, yes with unevenness sometimes in the social fabric it has more generally than not brought you that progress. but the resulting gains, it is fair to say don't come often without some element of loss at some point. and that's why we put in place trade adjustment assistance

yeah, we had nafta north american free trade greavment. we had cafta the central american free trade agreement. and what was the result of that? well we lost five million jobs in america. we lost five million jobs. we lost 50,000 factories. if you go around oregon, you can see these factory sites. i was out recently to visit the blue herring site. a few years ago there were hundreds and hundreds of workers at the blue heron paper factory but under the structure of one agreement, w.t.o., those jobs went to china. paper manufacturing went to china. and the equipment was pulled up out of that factory leaving a big hole and shipped overseas. that's what happened. we lost our factories. we lost our jobs. now, there's been a lot of discussion that this is a new trade agreement that it establishes enforceable standards for labor. welshes perhaps -- welshes perhaps the most single porn -- important standard is minimum wage. it is about exploiting the full race to the bottom. so, of course, i'm sure the proponents would say well, of course we've ad

together these bills would form a legislative package that throws out the 1990's nafta playbook on trade. it is an opportunity to enact fresh middle-class trade policies that will create high-skill high-wage jobs in oregon and across our land. that opportunity is lost if this package of four bills gets winnowed down to two. mr. president, in particular, dropping the enforcement bill, in my view, is legislative malpractice. and the calculation here is quite simple. the finance committee gave the senate a bipartisan trade enforcement bill that will protect american jobs and promote american exports, which are two propositions that i believe every member of this body supports. the enforcement legislation closes a shameful loophole that allows for products made with forced and child labor to be sold in our country. this is 2015, mr. president. there is absolutely no room for a loophole that allows slavery in american trade policies. if the decision is made to drop this bipartisan legislation that shameful loophole would live on. now, any senator who goes home and speaks, as i do, about the v

wyden: colleagues, the senate now has the opportunity to throw the 1990's nafta playbook into the dust bin of history and begin a new forward-thinking era in trade. this can be a momentous day for creating more economic opportunity for our people transparency and sunshine, and the forward march of american values. the legislation can help us pry open the booming markets for our exports. it will strengthen the american brand in the fight against trade cheats and bad actors who block our way. it will raise the bar for worker rights environmental safeguards and human rights, and it will help strip out the excessive secrecy that makes people skeptical about trade. colleagues in a sentence, this is how you begin to get trade done right. and i yield the floor and urge support for cloture. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on h.r. 1314, an act to amend the internal revenue c

remember nafta? oh let's do nafta. it's going to raise the standard of living in mexico and the mexican people won't come across the border. we had -- we had all those factory jobs leave. and this -- mexico's part of this deal. how about vietnam? 58 cents. and how about brunei and singapore? no minimum wage. what kind of a chance do our workers have? i don't care how productive they are. we have the most productive workers. the people in these countries are very smart. they're terrific. mr. manchin: on that amendment -- i would like to ask unanimous consent mr. president, to be on the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: absolutely. very proud of that. proud to have senator warren. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: what kind of chance do our workers have? do you think a manufacturer in their right minds are going to stay here when they can go to vietnam and have some terrific people? i know the vietnamese community in my home state are fantastic. they're fantastic leaders