i led on this floor the battle against cafta. i did so because in those agreements there were not enforceable international worker rights. we face this in panama. as originally negotiated, there was not the implementation of those rights in panama. they had certain provisions relating to newer businesses, they also had restrictions in terms of trade zones and what we said to the panamanians was, bring your laws up to international standards. that's exactly what they did. this is the opposite in that respect of nafta and cafta. so it is not accurate to say this is a nafta-type agreement. it simply is not. in terms of government procurement we want access for our companies and workers to the construction that's going on in the panama canal zone. it's vital for our companies. and so essentially in this agreement there is a provision that we can have access there with limits as they can with limits to us. it's mutually beneficial. lastly, there's been reference to the tax haven. panama was a tax haven, one of the most striking in the

>> there was a specific reporting requirement in cafta that pertained to a very special part of that,hat was a white paper that was created by the ilo. the reporting requirement contained to that. >> what is the administration position on providing an annual report on the colombia labor action plan? >> the labor action plans contain the ongoing reporting between the government ongoing, as you know most of the requirements will need to be fulfilled before january 1, 2012 and, therefore, the president has to determine whether the agreement is to come to the fact, when it is to come into effect so we were taking that into account. as was pointed out earlier he made that explicit three times in his letter of transmittal to congress. the president intends to take that into account as he brings the agreement into effect. beyond that there's periodic, there are periodic meetings between the u.s. and the colombian government as the action plan unfolds. and also they would be opportunity to be in dialogue with the congress in that context of the congress spent there would be an opportunity the

in 2005, president bush claimed that cafta was a pro-jobs bill that would stem the tide of u.s. manufacturing jobs losses but since cafta passed in september of 2005, america has lost 2.4 million manufacturing jobs. here we have roughly 9.1% unemployment in this country, due in no small part to the washington elite jamming these job destroying trade agreements down our throats. americans do not want free trade. a recentbc-"wall street journal" poll showed that 63 -- a recent nbc/"wall street journal" poll showed that 63% of americans believe free trade cost american jobs. 61% of tea party supporters believe that trade agreements have hurt this natio it's time we started listening to the will of the american people and doing what is in the best interest of the american people, not in the best interest of the foreign nationals who desperately want to take our jobs, madam speaker, i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would show their true american colors and vote no, no, no on these three trade agreements. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has e

our disastrous trade policy which includes nafta, permanent normal trade relations with china and cafta. do we add on to trade policies which have failed? and for the love of me, i cannot understand why anybody would want to do that. and the facts are very clear, our current trade policies have failed, have been a disaster for working families. according to a recent study conducted by the well-respect economists at the economic policy institute, the pntr, permanent normal trade relations with china, has led to the loss of 2.8 million american jobs. 2.8 million american jobs. and i remember because i was in the house when that debate took place, and i heard the same they think then as i hear now. members of congress getting up and talking about all the new jobs that were going to be created. well, it wasn't true then. it is not true now. how can you defend a trade policy based on the same principles as pntr with china when that policy has cost us 2.8 million jobs in the last year alone? and then we got nafta. many of us remember all the rhetoric around nafta. my goodness, we're going to

this is, in terms of workers' rights, the opposite of nafta and cafta. what this does is to embody the basic international worker rights in the trade agreement enforcibly. peru was the breakthrough and panama continues along that pioneering path. secondly, panama, while we're here, panama acted to change its labor laws before we voted, as was true for peru. we pointed out the deficiencies in their laws and i discussed them with the previous administration in panama, but neither it nor the bush administration was willing to make sure action occurred. now those changes have been made as to companies less than two years, those changes have been made in terms of the economic processing zones, and they have prohibited bypassing unions by direct negotiations with nonunionized workers. unfortunately, not due in colombia. look, on the tax haven, they signed the t.i.a. we asked them to to that and that's precisely what they have done. in terms of investment, this bill strengthens the present status quo in terms of investment protections for the united states comm

cafta cost us jobs. yet the geniuses around here, the people that -- and the meeting has been wonderful in this, opposing trade agreement after trade agreement because he gets it. the geniuses around this place in the white house, in the house leadership, in some of the senate leadership, senate leadership and far too many of my colleagues on my side of the aisle, the geniuses around here are saying let's pass more trade agreements because it's working. give me one other issue, mr. president, where people in this body en masse, in huge numbers say, you know, this trade policy isn't working so let's try more of it. and that's exactly what we have done. we continue to pass trade agreements that look a lot like nafta. we continue to pass trade agreements that get us in this situation that cost us jobs. now, mr. president, i'm for more trade. like most americans, i want to see a trade war with other countries, but like most americans, i have a problem with many of the rules that govern our trade policy, beca

they say nafta, cafta, korea, free trade agreement, panama free trade agreement, colombia free trade agreement will mean more exports. talking only about exports is like telling a baseball score and only reporting half of the sports score. for instance, you know, yesterday the season obviously mercifully ended for the presiding officer's home team, but it's like saying yesterday the twins scored eight runs. good for them. but the indians scored 12 but they only told but the twins' runs. you don't report baseball scores that way. you report scores by twins got eight, the winds won 12-8 or the tigers won 3- . the people who support the trade agreements say they increase exports. but imports increase more dramatically. president bush once said that a billion dollars in trade surplus or trade deficit translated into 13,000 jobs. if have you a billion-dollar trade deficit, if you're selling more than you're buying, then that creates 13,000 jobs. if you're buying more than you're selling, if you have a billion-dollar trade deficit, you lose 13,000 jobs. you know what our trade deficit is,

when we look back at cafta, which was passed in the irl will 2000's, what happened? did we get trade balances with those countries? no, there were certain industries that made out like bandits. i'm grad some industries can export and generally agriculture is able to sell a little bit more, but the net is negative. the net is negative. we have lost over seven million jobs in this country because these agreements are not fair trade agreements. they don't result in balances for our country. let's just take a look at what happened with mexico alone. they told us, the same people who are arguing nor these agreements today -- for these arguments today, back when nafta was passed, we had a trade surplus. don't worry, it's going to be better. no, no, it's not going to be better because there's no real rule of law, no respect for the peasant class in mexico, and the agriculture adjustment will be horrendous. it is at the basis of the exodus of mexican farmers and peasants into our country. that is what is fueling illegal immigration is the lack of a resolution to what occurre

when free trade was being debated under clinton and under bush nafta, cafta, et cetera, the leadership told us that as a result of free trade we will be transitioning to a low-wage service economy. well, if we were the leading manufacturing and exporting country in the world, and we're going to be transitioning to a low-wage service economy, that by definition is a radical decline in our economy and that's what we're experiencing right now. so how would they know that we were transitioning to a low wage service economy? they knew that because free trade is literally a restructuring of our economy. . . >> tell congress to stop playing politics and take action on jobs. it went to rebuild the economy where an american has a chance to get ahead, we will need every american to get involved. host: president obama's radio address. caller: good morning. i think president obama is right by using the executive order. when he came in office, i got tired of hearing republicans talk about treason and things like that. [inaudible] president obama should be applauded for what he is trying to do for t

and it seems to me to be enormously foolish for us to continue this failed policy of nafta, of cafta, of permanent normal trade relations with cheap and extend them to korea, panama, and colombia. i urge, i urge my colleagues to stand up to the big-money interests who want to us pass these trade agreements, stand up for american workers and say no, trade is a good thing but it has to be based on principles that protect ordinary americans, working people, not just the c.e.o.'s of large corporations. with that, mr. president, by yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today in the wake of another very sobering jobs report. unemployment remains stalled at 9.1%, 14 million americans are out of work. another nine million have been forced into part-time jobs because they simply cannot find full-time employment. these challenging economic times demand that congress and the administration put aside partisanship and work together in earnest to address the prolonged jobs crisis. many of the decisions that will

will be created it and do you know how many jobs are supposed to be great in this country from nafta, cafta, shasta, whatever they were? >> answer pretty because time has expired that i can tell you what the estimates are for job creation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> it is a pro-job, pro-american export agreement. >> thank you. i believe we have two remaining speakers that asked the question. miss black is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i think both of you for being so diligent sitting here for so long answering these questions. i know that's got to be difficult but we've all had a little break. i want to start out with the idc has estimated that these free trade agreements with increased exports by at least $13 billion, which asserted a good thing for us. chairman camp in his opening remarks reported that there could be, and as the 250,000 u.s. jobs that would be created. we know that the benefits of these trade agreements are long lasting. in fact, since 2000 when u.s. exports to countries with trade agreements have grown to times as fast as our worldwide

we have been -- seen close votes with cafta that was passed several years ago but particularly especially in the u.s. senate trade is more of a bipartisan issue. nafta, which we talked about earlier, was begun under a republican president george h. w. bush and concluded under a democratic president bill clinton. these deals were negotiated under george w. bush and then sent to congress after some revision of different parts by president barack obama, a democrat. we see a lot of crossover across the aisle. the u.n. does international trade commission typically comes forward with estimates of what it would add to jobs in the u.s. economy. so there is a lot of coverage given to lawmakers in favor of these deals and evidence of what they would add to exports. what they would erode manufacturing jobs and overall employment in view of this, which many contend, it is a complicated issue. but there is a lot more evidence for these helping the u.s. gdp over all. host: the white house memo written in "the new york times" by mark lambler, and he has a piece this morning. here is how he starts in --

i don't know your industry will enough to know the challenges that were created by cafta or competition by china. no question there are and balances -- imbalances without we manage business here and what the government does and other countries, which makes for challenges in small businesses. having said that, what our experience is, is that most small business owners, they may have their frustrations and things causing them problems. what they really want to do is be successful and what they do. they would to produce the best products and services they possibly can. i am sure you do. and they want to find a market. we tried to be as proud that -- as pragmatic as we can amidst all of the challenges that are distractions for small-business owners. i don't know the specifics of your business. if you want to get in touch with us, i would love to know more. i did not know if you want help from a financial institutions or you don't. you said you had not had any help of the past, maybe by choice. but if it is something a cdfi could help with, we would be glad to talk to you. host: our guest is

our disastrous trade policy which includes nafta, permanent normal trade relations with china and cafta. do we add on to trade policies which have failed? and for the love of me, i cannot understand why anybody would want to do that. and the facts are very clear, our current trade policies have failed, have been a disaster for working families. according to a recent study conducted by the well-respect economists at the economic policy institute, the pntr, permanent normal trade relations with china, has led to the loss of 2.8 million american jobs. 2.8 million american jobs. and i remember because i was in the house when that debate took place, and i heard the same they think then as i hear now. members of congress getting up and talking about all the new jobs that were going to be created. well, it wasn't true then. it is not true now. how can you defend a trade policy based on the same principles as pntr with china when that policy has cost us 2.8 million jobs in the last year alone? and then we got nafta. many of us remember all the rhetoric around nafta. my goodness, we're going to