the echos of the nafta debate. now, that was a long time ago and i was here then. in 1988, i voted for fast-track authority to allow the administration to negotiate the north american free trade agreement. then five years later i saw the deal. it was a bad deal, and i voted no. but it was too late because when i saw the deal, i knew i couldn't fix it because that's what fast-track is. and what this majority here today is saying to us is, vote for fast-track and give up your right, senator boxer from amending this trade agreement. so they say well, it's very transparent. go down and look at it. well let me tell you what you have to do to read this agreement. follow this: you can only take a few of your staffers who happen to have to have a security clearance -- because god knows why, this is secure; this is classified. it has nothing to do with defense. it has nothing to do with going after isis. it has nothing to do with any of that. but it is classified. so i go down with my staff that i could get to go with me, and as soon as i get there the guard says to me, hand over your electroni

jobs we have to do something that works for the middle class. 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 co

are saved both for and after nafta. better? the united states is a before-and-after nafta and so much of the u.s. debate is about trying to assess the. impacts of nafta and the subsequent agreements and most importantly china's entry into the wto. so i think unfortunately the question of the impact of fta you look it very much with respect to that trade agreement and look in each case there were a set of promises made to the american people about what happened in terms of it and it didn't play out quite the way the administration promised. >> is the green eyed on? >> is that better? >> my green light is on and i've tried both different directions. so again as i was saying for the united states everything is very much a before-and-after nafta and it's about trying to assess the impact of those agreements on the u.s. economy and each of those cases what we saw fairly rapidly after the agreements was an increase in the u.s. trade deficit. the before and after the fourth china's entry into the wto those countries have higher trade barriers that we do therefore in the aftermath of the

promises. and, you know, the more i hear it the more i hear the echos of the nafta debate. now, that was a long time ago and i was here then. in 1988, i voted for fast-track authority to allow the administration to negotiate the north american free trade agreement. then five years later i saw the deal. it was a bad deal, and i voted no. but it was too late because when i saw the deal, i knew i couldn't fix it because that's what fast-track is. and what this majority here today is saying to us is, vote for fast-track and give up your right, senator boxer from amending this trade agreement. so they say well, it's very transparent. go down and look at it. well let me tell you what you have to do to read this agreement. follow this: you can only take a few of your staffers who happen to have to have a security clearance -- because god knows why, this is secure; this is classified. it has nothing to do with defense. it has nothing to do with going after isis. it has nothing to do with any of that. but it is classified. so i go down with my staff that i could get to go with me, and a

the largest free trade agreement since nafta and members should know that this agreement has the potential to expand to a number of additional countries without congressional approval. the administration has said that they would -- it would welcome interest from other nations including china in joining t.p.p. given the impact that trade deals like nafta have had on american businesses and workers i would argue that it is important that congress not only be notified of new negotiations but also have the opportunity to vote on whether or not to move forward with bringing on additional countries into multinational trade negotiations. if congress were to approve the trans-pacific partnership it should not and must not be a blank check to bring in additional names -- additional nations without congressional approval. i am public concerned about countries that manipulate the value of their currency to gain an unfair advantage over our u.s. workers. steal intellectual property from american innovators. engage in unfair labor practices. damage the environment and do not abide by existing

of this discussion, and that is the nafta playbook, the playbook for trade in the 1990's, is gone and it is a new day in trade policy. so i have summarized mr. president, why the trade promotion act is not the trade policy of the 1990's, is not the north american free trade agreement and what we're going to do today is essentially start with the question of how vigorous trade enforcement ought to be at the forefront of america's trade policy in 2015 and beyond and how our new approach on enforcement is different than the policy of the 1990's. the reality is, you can pack trade agreements full of lofty goals and principles. you can amass all of the enforcement ideas you might want. but it doesn't do any good, mr. president, if you don't have real enforcement tools and you make sure that they aren't locked in a shed. and, in my view, that has been happening for way way too long. the status quo on trade enforcement simply no longer does the job. and as i've listened for many months to senators on both sides of the aisle, i believe there's widespread recognition that our approach to t

. president the obama administration says trust us. forget what they said about nafta. forget what they said about korea. forget what they said about china. this one is different. really really. cross our fingers hope to die. this one is really, really different. yes, it may be true that every corporation in america corporations that have shut down factories in this country moved to china they're supporting this agreement. yeah it's true that wall street whose greed and recklessness have almost destroyed the american economy they're supporting this agreement. yes, it is true that the pharmaceutical industry who charges us the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, they're supporting this agreement. but not to worry, we should trust these guys. they really are thinking of the american middle class and working families. trust us. when they tell us a trade agreement will be good for working people, yes, we should really trust them. meanwhile every trade union in america, the vast majority of environmental groups in this country, they are saying be careful about t.p.p. vote "no

provably job killing trade agreement as nafta was come as pntr was come as catalyst, south korea was. we know the real answer that is deal amounts to more than they promised it to if it were really good for the american worker why can't the american worker see it? more corporate hands out more corporate sellouts. as many of my colleagues know, i think this trade could simply doesn't workforce. here's what's wrong with the trans-pacific partnership the first of all with china there's no guarantee he won't join later. there's no prohibition and dislike which as far as we can see with a limited access to the text that china can't a backdoor into this agreement without a vote of congress without any examination from the american public. second, what happens to competition, american workers are paid a living wage. in vietnam the average is $3 a day. how do we compete without? with the currency we know that china has gained the currency system year after year. they don't play by the same rules as we do. in corporations shift from democratically elected government to governments to to corporati

and ten other countries follows in the footsteps of disastrous trade agreements like nafta cafta permanent normal trade relations with china and the south korean free trade agreements. any objective look at these trade agreements will tell us that they have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and have led us to a race to the bottom where american workers are forced to compete against workers in low-wage countries who are making pennies an hour. mr. president, over and over again, supporters of these types of trade agreements have told us about how many jobs they would create how beneficial they would be for the middle class and working class of this country. but over and over again virtually everything they told us turned out to be wrong and they are wrong again in terms of the t.p.p. in 1993, president bill clinton promised that nafta would create one million american jobs in five years. 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

carried out by ronald reagan, nafta but on that this exploded the prison population the destruction of welfare, 70% of the children of -- were stripped of their ability to receive government benefits. glass-steagall, all of this essentially has propelled us forward to a situation where as things unravel we no longer have the legal mechanisms for the protection by which we can resist. this is by design. the nsa has run numerous scenarios on the effect of climate change. we just on march 400 parts per million the first time the levels of carbon emissions have been that high for an entire month in recorded history. and corporate forces exploit until there's nothing left and in theological terms in many ways they are forces of death. quite literally when we talk about that forces it is climate change. that's the reality that we face. that is the political, the economic the environmental realities that we are up against and the capacity of the state to control the citizen, to modern modern -- monitor the citizen to use lethal force against unarmed citizens and all of the marches all of the

. look at the transpacific partnership with the obama administration. 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 mista

, rather than approveably job-killing trade agreement as nafta was as pntr was as cafta was, as south korea was. we know the real answer. this deal amounts to more empty promises. if it were really good for the american worker, why can't the american worker see it? more corporate handouts, more worker sellouts. as many of my colleagues know, this trade agreement simply doesn't work for us. here's what was' wrong with the trade promotion authority. with china, there is no darn tee it won't join -- no guarantee it won't join later. there is no agreement that china can't back door into this agreement without a vote of congress without examination from the american public. second, what happens to american competition? american workers are paid a living wage. in vietnam the average is $3 a day. how do we compete with that? with currency, we know china gamed the currency system year after year after year. they don't play by the same rules as we do. in corporations, shift from democratically elected government to governments of corporations. we've seefn it -- seen it in tobacco, seen it in m

trade enforcement has got to be in the forefront not in the rear, and a recognition that the 1990s nafta trade playbook is being set aside. now, 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. president? would the senator from oregon yield for a moment? >> i'd be happy to. >> 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 mark-up began on our level-the-playing field language which is particularly important to a number of industries in this country to make the playing field more level, as senator wyden was saying and, third importance of currency. we know how many jobs we've lost in my state and all over the coun

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 because there is often a v

trade deals of the path. 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 people. none of us should get lost in perception

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 amendments. the last time we had senate debate was three weeks of debate. this i

is point number one. when you ask folks specifically what you oppose, they just say nafta. nafta was passed 20 years ago. that was a different agreement. in fact, disagreement exists some of what was wrong with nafta and making labor and environmental provisions actually enforceable. 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

1993-2002 in the aftermath of the so-called nafta north american free trade agreement. over a period of time between 1993 and 2010, the trade deficit with mexico is up by some $66 billion. and that's as of 2010, over those 17 or so years. so that's the backdrop when you you -- when we debate trade itself. i know there have been assertions made this agreement the trans-pacific partnership with 11 other countries will be different and there will be protections in there that there weren't with earlier agreements. i have real concerns about those assertions and i have doubts that they'll play out in that manner. because in the end this debate is about wages and jobs. it's really, in one sense one major issue. will this agreement and will the trade promotion authority that undergirds this agreement advance or hinder job growth and the growth of wages? i have real concerns about arguments that say it will, that it will advance job creation. one of the assertions often made is well, job loss over time, over several decades, more than one generation now that affected states like pennsylvania

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 were

is 2020. 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

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 gaming -- countries gaming the currency system. i just wanted to express my thanks to senator wyden

questions have been around for a long time. 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 o

manufacturers. 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

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 politics, southern catfish farmers worked up some specious talki

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 that's why we've done a lot of oth

. 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

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 virtues of job-creating trade policies has in my view, a

working america has done very poorly under this goal of geostrategic influence. 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 wou

, 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 code of 1986, si

that have been already granted since the nafta, we not have -- we not have seen an uptick. in fact, we've lost 31,000 manufacturing jobs and i for one am not willing to put one more job in jeopardy in west virginia. and that's a concern we have. so what we're asking for is a very modest, very sensible very reasonable commonsense approach to do the job the people elected us to do. at this time i yield the floor to my friend, the senator from massachusetts, mr. president. ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, i want to thank my good friend from west virginia, senator manchin. i want to thank him for his leadership i want to thank him for his independence, yap i want to -- yap to thank him for his tranches. in the past few weeks the public has heard a lot about the trans-pacific partnership a massive trade deal the u.s. is negotiating with 11 other countries. the public has heard from supporters that it is the most progressive trade deal in history, a deal that will benefit working families and small businesses. an