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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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