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

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

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 was just getting out of law school when nafta got passed. [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 online at least 60 days before i even sign it. then it would go to congress. and you know they are not going to do anything fast. [laughter] there will be months of review. every t crossed, every i dotted. 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 not discriminated against in othe

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

we don't have another nafta. any candidate needs to address the issue in their own way. >> i think it's obvious the issues talked about here having huge impact on the people of new york city, and when you think about what's happening in the city, 46% of the people of the city at our near the poverty level, those are according to statistics developed in the bloomberg administration. the ways we address that involve national policy. we are trying to do it with affordable housing, sick leave, and other measures. we need policies to change. i'm here tomorrow working for the new infrastructure bill in congress, a new transportation bill. new york city and cities all over the country need the federal government to address income in income inequality. >> perception, though, that even though you think you do this for new york voters don't think that. >> the fact is this is something that has to happen for our people. none of us should get lost in perceptions. we deal on facts, everyone understand the the federal governme

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 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

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

nafta has previously been cited by critics of this potential trade agreement. in nafta, efforts to raise labor and environmental standards were essentially included in letters on the sidelines of the agreements. the way the trade promotion authority legislation has been worked out and what the president in visions for the transpacific partnership agreement is to ensure that those labor and environmental agreements are written into the agreement to make sure they can be enforced. again that is indicative of the precedence commitment to ensuring that we are maximizing the opportunity that exists for the american economy and most importantly, for american middle-class families, when it comes to the terms of this agreement. the view of the president is that the united states is not the one that is engaging in this economically dynamic region of the world. we are essentially ceding ground to china and china will most assuredly try to write rules of the road that further disadvantage american companies who are trying to do business in this region of the world. at a m

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

understanding what's happened to us, and hindsight's 20/20, 1992, my state of west virginia lost 31,000 from nafta. hard to say this is going to be different, so much better for you. look at where a lot of our jobs were lost, that was in the inner city, where a lot of the textile -- we had a lot of things going on. we lost it. it's now rampant with crime and high unemployment. how are we better off? look at that. minimum wage is what they think is the only way we can raise, you know, any type of quality life. we're in trouble. the other thing is is that no one -- you have not hear anyone on the trail talk about drug abuse, have you? it's not sexy. you know why? there's not one of us in the room who does not know someone in the immediate family or extended family who had a prescription drug problem. it's rampant. we can't find people clean enough to work. our education is not pushing them to get skill sets to compete. there's a lot going on there. i know these -- i'm fine. i can look at progressive. i can look at conservatives, but somewhere in between, you got to, you know, i said this i'm not --

net effect on working people of the trade deals that we have made over the last 20 years or so since nafta has been -- cost millions of jobs and to lower the average wage and the average income of a working family by about $1800, even after taking into effect inflation and the cost of consumer goods. the net effect on most working people has been negative. i think it is worth pointing out that in baltimore, where we have this tremendous unemployment everybody agreed, we select people, employers bring in guest workers to do jobs that those people could do. we let employers go to mexico central america to bring in people as landscapers and gardeners and hotel workers. jobs that clearly a person with a high school education can do. the unemployed people in baltimore can do yet, we let them bring people from thousands of miles away to work in his stead of going -- instead of going to baltimore in hiring the unemployed people in baltimore. to me, that is a crazy policy. host: caller: this would be for mr. tanner. i am not poor and i am not black. but when you sprinkle poverty and despair in any

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

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

i supported nafta, but i am also pleased to see that people are raising serious questions about what we do with those who are replaced. i am concerned about the government being so above everything that when they see a trade violation they don't do anything about it. i think we have a long way to go on this bill. i am fundamentally open to be open, but not to do anything that would destroy our manufacturing ignorpts. i know that portman had an amendment on currency manipulation. maybe that would be included and it could be a positive step. my concern is trade is good, open is good, but at the end of the day it needs to be fair? [inaudible question] >> i have to see what it is at the end. as governor they are asking me what would you do 0 this bill? let's get to my desk first. >> caroline rhymes last question. >> and then two more. [laughter] go ahead. >> i am looking for a very concise answer. revisions to the tax code and where are you on carried interest? >> revisions on the tax code. i am in conversations now with steep forbes about his flat tax. the beauty of his plan is this. nu

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

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

and trade just like nafta and others cause serious questions. recently, what do we have? this is the new thing and what senator warren is talking about. all of a sudden, one of the things the big banks on wall street and around the world -- are trying to use trade deals to essentially smuggle in deregulation provisions. it is bad enough that they are in washington beating the doors of people in congress and the regulators day in and day out to bend the rules towards wall street's way to get their wish list. they also do it in the foreign capitals, and now they are trying to do is do it in our trade agreements. so the trade agreement have the historic problems of who really benefits and who really is harmed. we have this added couple of provisions that allow financial regulation or deregulation or financial laws to be challenged through trade agreements. senator warren, representative sander levin, and others in congress are fighting against to make sure that these trade agreements cannot be a church in horse to basically attack financial -- cannot be a trojan horse to bas

i supported nafta. i am pleased to see people raising serious questions about what we do for those who are displaced. i am concerned about the government being so above everything that when they see a trade fire laois in, they don't do anything about it. i think we have a long way to go on this bill. i fundamentally am for open, but i am not for america doing things that destroys our manufacturing industries. i know this bill involves some of these intellectual property rights. i know we had an amendment on currency manipulation. maybe he will offer that again. that would probably be a positive step. let's see how it comes out. my concern is, trade is good but at the end of the day, it needs to be fair and a level playing field. i have to see what it is at the end. they are on's asking me, what would you do on this bill? i say why don't we let it get to my desk first. david: last last question. gov. kasich: then two more. [laughter] go ahead. >> revisions to the tax code and where are you on carried int

i supported nafta. but i'm also pleased to see that people are raising serious questions about what we do for those who are displaced. i'm extremely concerned about the government being so above everything that when they see a trade violation, they don't do anything about it. i think we have a long way to go on this bill. i think there will be some good and it will probably be good. i fundamentally am for open but i'm not for america doing things that sell our workers or to store our manufacturing industries. i know this bill involves some of these intellectual property rights. portman had an amendment on currency manipulation. maybe he will offer that again. maybe it will be included. let's see how it comes out that my concern is trade is good open is good, but at the end of the day, it needs to be fair and a level playing field. reporter: there is no yes or no? governor kasich: i will see what it is in the end. i say, why doesn't it get to my desk first and i will let you know how i feel. >> carolyn r

we all live in the shadow of nafta. simple as that. we saw a deal previously that was supposed to strengthen the economic hand of american workers and undermine workers profoundly and those in the economic sector. there's honest concern that this trade deal could do the same. we put aside real concerns about information and processing. the concerns of the deal, there's tremendous concern as this plank makes clear that the real empowerment is for not american workers. i agree with elizabeth warren on that issue. i think we have a respectful disagreement on the issue. i think that's not unheard of in the democratic party. i think right now, what you see is more and more energy among progressives to not accept the status quo and to fundamentally change the political debate and the trade issue's a good example of that. >> why the criminal justice reforms you talked so much for years in new york city are not included as a part of the progressive agenda? >> we've implemented changes on stop and frisk, marijuana arrests, and, obviously, what