a report released just recently by the economic policy institute, so-called e.p.i. is quoted a lot, the economic policy institute estimates from the year 2001 to 2010 our trade deficit with china led to the loss of 106,970 jobs in pennsylvania, almost 2% of total employment in pennsylvania. across the nation, this same trade deficit with china has led to a loss of 2.8 million jobs since 2001. so basically what you're talking about there is less than a decade. because of -- because of the trade deficit with china, we have lost 2.8 million jobs nationally in almost -- and almost just a little shy of 107,000 jobs in one state, the state of pennsylvania. now, some would say well, you should be careful in how you say that because we're not saying that the currency policy that they have in place -- which i would assert they're cheating on -- that that alone can be attributed to -- or the job loss can be attributed solely, solely to that. i'm not saying that. but there is no question, and i think the record is replete with evidence and examples that much of that job loss ca

2009 and 2010, destroys existing jobs, prevents new job creation, and as economists of the economic policy institute have indicated, increases the global race to the bottom, in their words, when it comes to middle-class wages. for example, the economic policy institute recently released a report noting that as plants have closed, workers displaced by trade in the manufacturing sector have had particular difficulty in securing comparable employment in average -- and average wages of those who found new jobs fell by 11% to 13%. as you see again, that is reflected and demonstrated on this chart, most graphically, is that the economic policy institute's report discovered that since china's entry into the world trade organization in 2001 and through 2010 when you see -- have seen that explosive growth in the trade deficit from the $83 billion to the $273 billion between 2001 and 2010, the increase in the u.s.-china trade deficit eliminated or displaced 2.8 million american jobs or 310,000 jobs per year. so as you can see ill traited in this chart virtually every state in america has been affected by the

but as we know today that didn't happen instead as the economic policy institute points out since nafta went into effect the only thing our country got are massive trade deficits with mexico and massive job losses as this chart shows a small trade surplus with mexico in one thousand nine hundred three before nafta has now turned into a massive ninety seven point two billion dollar trade deficit today that's because our media factories can't compete with all the cheap goods coming across the border and because of this enormous trade deficit more and more factories have been forced to close up shop as this chart shows the part of the country hardest hit by nafta was the rust belt michigan indiana ohio illinois pennsylvania the heart of america's manufacturing sector so well these new these new free trade deals passed last night that are policymakers seem so fond of really be all that good for the country joining me now is max wolff economist at the new school university graduate program and their national affairs and blogger with housing and post max max welcome. so having me so thanks fo

according to a recent economic policy institute report, since china joined the w.p.o., the world trade organization, in 2001 2 point million jobs have been lost in the u.s. as a result of the deficit. that's hundreds of thousands in my state. it's tens of thousands in states as small as west virginia. it's hundreds of thousands in states as large as pennsylvania. currency manipulation is not the only reason china enjoys enormous trade surplus but it's a big part of the region. from 2005 to the middle of 2008 we started to fight back and we're headed in the right direction however slowly. the senate overwhelmingly spourtd a measure offered by -- supported a measure offered by new york democrat senator schumer and south carolina senator senator graham that would put tariffs on chinese imports if the government did not let its currency appreciate. in other words to take away, tall did was wipe clean -- all it did was wipe clean the advantage that china had created by manipulating its currency. that bill passed the senate, but it did not pass the house. it was never signed by the president

workers according to the economic policy institute. it will provide chinese businesses engage in the transshipment of goods through third countries and easy opportunity to take advantage of carrier freights that are intended for south korean goods. accoing to the korea customs service, the quantity of products illegally labeled, made in korea" doubled from 2008 to 2010. these trans-shipments come from southeast asia and other nations. they have a history of transshipping goods to the u.s. through other countries so they can avoid duties that are levied against them for illegal trading practices. korea's proximity and 16 ports, including the world's fifth largest makes them a usual target for chinese companies. investigations by u.s. customs in recent years have resulted in indictments and convictions for a variety of duty evasion schemes that hurt america including cases involving steel wired garment hang arse and honey. -- hangars and honey. -- hangers and honey. we can expect an increase of cheap chinese goods into our market, again

you don't need a great study done by the department of commerce or the economic policy institute. all you have to do today is walk into any department store in america, and when you buy a product, you know where that product is manufactured. it's not manufactured in vermont. it's not manufactured in california. it is, often it's manufactured in china, mexico or other developing countries. that has been the whole goal of these trade agreements. shut down plants in america. move them abroad. hire low-wage workers there. bring the products into this country. and the idea that we would be extending this concept to korea, panama and colombia makes no sense to me at all. mr. president, since the year 2000, 2.8 million american jobs have been eliminated or displaced as a result of the increased trade deficit with china. and after all of the talk on the floor of the senate and on the floor of the house and the editorial boards of major newspapers, and by leading politicians about how the china trade agreement would create jobs in america, it is very interesting to hear what these corporat

is super interesting and what about american jobs because from what i've read i think the economic policy institute estimates that just the career free trade agreement free trade agreement could result in the loss of one hundred sixty thousand or so american jobs over the course of several years or there's no doubt about it i mean this is the largest expansion of the free trade area since of mess after and the history of that of nafta has been bad for every country. and so what we have here is a situation where these you know these massive shipping jobs overseas like general electric who is close thirty three factors in the u.s. since obama came into office and then you have these people advising the president how to create jobs maybe the president should be talking to them about creating some drug lord that's interesting you bring up t.e.o. . of course death and all this is the chairman of g.e. is the head of obama's jobs council he is the jobs czar you raise eyebrows when he recently did that interview on sixty minutes and was pretty unapologetic about the fact that i mean are you sure is is you

the economic policy institute estimates that nearly 700,000 u.s. jobs have been displaced since the passage of nafta in the 1990's. the majority of the jobs displaced, 60% were in the manufacturing sector. my home state of ohio is one of the top 10 states with the most jobs displaced by nafta, having lost 34,900 jobs. our rapidly increasing trade deficits with countries like china has resulted in the loss of over five million jobs in the last decade. of that five million the state of ohio has lost 103,000 jobs, as a result of the increase in our trade deficit with china. this is not a debate about being for trade or against trade, as some of my colleagues have framed it. this is a debate about learning from the free trade policies we've pursued over the last decade that have proven to be significantly damaging to the american economy and american workers. the numbers speak for themselves. i urge my colleagues to oppose this agreement. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from mic

in fact, the economic policy institute has estimated this agement with colombia will result in the loss of 55,000 american jobs. the colombia deal is particularly gentleladying because it will do more than just destroy american jobs, but bring into question whether our nation is a defender of human rights and workers' rights around the world. more unionists are killed every year in colombia than in the rest of the world combined and last year, saw 51 murders as the afl-cio noted if 5 c.e.o.o had been murdered last year in colombia, this deal would be on a very slow track indeed. this year, we have seen 23 more men and women killed. human rights watch reviewed these and hundreds of other cases of anti--union violence there and concluded that colombian authorities have, quote, made no progress in obtaining convictions in killing in the past 4 1/2 years, end quote. only 6% of the 2,860 murders since 1986 have there been any conviction. that means 94% of the killers are walking away. worse, 16 of the murders this year have occurred after the labor action plan put forward by the administrati

and again i and my colleagues where i used to work, the economic policy institute i've been writing about this for decades. and then i went into the administration and worked for the vice president and the president's economic team and we were confronted with all of the problems that poll was articulating a minute ago. and i think that much of what we did was helpful in terms of getting the economy out of a horrible kind of backwards reversal of really heading off a cliff to where we are now. but clearly i think this is one of the messages of the movement, we need to go much much further and i agree with bill. we're on a playing field that's really not accommodating the magnitude of the changes that we need. i think it was marshall who said there's two parties one is them and the other is not them. in a way it's almost worse. in a way it's almost worse. one is them and the other is a little bit less them. one is saying let's cut the heck out of spending and let's kind of you know take a whack at the social insurance and the other is saying oh, no, no, let's cut less and take less of a wha

in fact, the economic policy institute has estimated this agreement with colombia will result in the loss of 55,000 american jobs. the colombia deal is particularly gentleladying because it will do more than just destroy american jobs, but bring into question whether our nation is a defender of human rights and workers' rights around the world. more unionists are killed every year in colombia than in the rest of the world combined and last year, saw 51 murders as the afl-cio noted if 51 c.e.o.o had been murdered last year in colombia, this deal would be on a very slow track indeed. this year, we have seen 23 more men and women killed. human rights watch reviewed these and hundreds of other cases of anti--union violence there and concluded that colombian authorities have, quote, made no progress in obtaining convictions in killing in the past 4 1/2 years, end quote. only 6% of the 2,860 murders since 1986 have there been any conviction. that means 94% of the killers are walking away. worse, 16 of the murders this year have occurred after the labor action plan put forward by the admini

. >> shout out to the economic policy institute, liberal think tank, 25th anniversary this week. conversation a bit from the conservative heritage foundation, kato, hoover, all the rest. >> you ended up with two. now we're all going to go check out the dvd of james brown and mick jagger. >> you'll love it. >> that's it for this edition of "the daily rundown." see you right back here tomorrow. another show coming up next. don't miss andrea mitchell reports. she's speak with secretary kathle kathleen sebelius. we'll hear from herman cain on this later today. they specifically just said at the speech he will not talk about these allegations until he gets to the press club. bye-bye. >>> here's a look at your business travel forecast on this monday. still waiting for the power to go on for millions of people in the northeast. the power crews are going to have decent weather this week. a little chilly out there this morning. cool air is around. that's pretty much the worst of it. temperatures thereupon up there england in the 40s today. have a great halloween. ♪ ♪ let's go ♪ ♪ ♪ come w

we have lost, according to the economic policy institute in the last ten years, almost 3 million good paying jobs. which takes us to the debate right now on the floor of the senate, and that is the continuation of these disastrous trade policies in terms of panama and colombia. in my view, i feel very strongly, and you said it a moment ago, we have a failed trade policy approach. why continue it? >> i feel like any american -- all an american niese needs to know about these so-called trade deals or free trade deals. the house is requesting is bill to displace u.s. workers u.s. tax money so if they are selling the american people trade deals to create jobs, why is it that we need to pass hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to employ people who are losing their jobs to trade deals? >> well, that is a very good question. what really bothers me is, you know, i've been through the nafta debate, voted against it, the chinese debate, voted against it. it's the same old crab. nobody how many jobs they say it's going to create, nobody believes it. the function of unfettered flow trade

instead of creating 100,000 american jobs, the economic policy institute has found that nafta destroyed more than 682,000 american jobs, including the loss of 150,000 computer and electronic jobs. now, i don't understand why when you have a policy that has failed and failed and failed, why you want to continue that policy. football teams who have coaches with losing records get rid of those coaches. when we have a trade policy which has resulted in millions of american workers losing their jobs, you don't continue that same philosophy. mr. president, the issue here is not just mexico and nafta. it's not just pntr with china. it is obviously what is going to happen with the trade agreements that are before us today: korea, panama, colombia. mr. president, the economic policy institute has estimated that the korea free trade agreement will lead to the loss of 159,000 american jobs and will increase the trade deficit by nearly $14 billion over a seven-year period. why would you want to go forward on the, those ideas? why would you want to go forward with a trade agreement that will increas

the economic policy institute, one of the many think tanks across washington of various points of view who have studies this -- studied this issue, on june 17 of this year in a report by the economic policy institute, and i'm broadly summarizing, but one of the many conclusions they reached about this issue is that if china revalued its currency by 28.5%, many would say it's a bigger problem than 28.5%, or 28.5% advantage that their workers and their companies have. if they revalued to that level at 28.5%, the growth in our -- our gross domestic product in the united states would support 1,631,000 u.s. jobs. and if other asian countries also revalued their currency, then 2,250,000 american jobs would be created. so even if someone could prove that those numbers are off by 10,000 or 20,000 or even if you could debate the number being off because some might reach different numbers but i've seep numbers that high and i've also seen numbers in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs. so any policy that we can enact here, in this case being appropriately tough with china on the cheat

in terms of career, let me say d word good economic policy institute is estimated the korean free tradeeement will lead to the loss of 159,000rade american jobs that will increasn the trade deficit by nearly 14 billion over a seven-year t period. why do you want to go forward in a trade agreement that will coss you jobs? president obama has estimatedil the career free trade agreement will support 75,000 american jobs, but the headline of december's evan, 2010 article in "the new york times" says it all. few new jobs expected to from free trade with south korea. is according to this article, the free trade agreement is likely job creation the short run our according to the government a by node analysis. analysis done by the trade commission projects the overalll trade deficit will increase, not decrease the korea free trade implemented. this is eric on internationalmio traden. commission.? what are we doing? what are we doing quite thatf mr. president, let me just touch on one aspect of the free trades agreement, which deserves a lot of focus and a fear. much that it's not. and that is t

that's by the economic policy institute. host: so you disagree with the president who said this will provide jobs? guest: you know, i don't see it. the american people, most of them don't agree. we don't have any experience in that. the deal with korea, for example, requires only 35% of the content of automobiles to be american made. that means that downstream the steel manufacturers and the parts manufacturers. they can be made anywhere. in colombia, this is still the most dangerous country to be a unionist trade union, members, 51 of them were killed last year. look, gretta, if 51 c.e.o.'s had been killed in colombia last year, do you think we would be doing a trade deal with colombia? i don't. and there's impunity, meaning there's very little punishment as a result. host: all right. let's get to phone calls. harvey in stafford, new jersey. good morning. caller: hello. it's nice to see you back. you are a frequent visitor on c-span. i wonder if you would be so kind as to tell us why you were one of the persons who voted ag

last month the economic policy institute found that 2.8 million u.s. jobs have been eliminated or displaced since 2001 due to the groge u.s.-china trade deficit. last year the currency reform for fair trade act passed this chamber with strong bipartisan support. yesterday, unfortunately, the new house majority voted nearly identical legislation down. the currency reform for fair trade act has been supported by members on both side of the aisle and give this and any administration the authority to take countervailing measures and currency manipulators like china in support of hardworking americans. we need to change that, mr. speaker, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? without objection. mr. perlmutter: thank you, madam speaker. the best way to reduce the debt that this country has is to put people back to work. when they are back to work, they are paying their taxes and they are not getting unemployment. we need to get everybody in

host: these statistics from the economic policy institute report that the unemployment rate for 16 to 24-year-old workers average 18.4% compared with the 9.6% for u.s. workers overall and young high school graduates have been hardest hit. the unemployment rate for high school graduates under age 25 who are not enrolled in school was 22.5% compared with 9.3% for college graduates of the same age. what does this mean for electoral participation? guest: you know, it's hard to motivate and go to the polls when you're facing joblessness rates that are higher than this generation -- than young people has ever seen since the bureau of labor statistics has started tracking this. and it's gotten worse. so four years ago let's say they got involved many of them at a 2-1 rate in the obama campaign. a lot of them, nonpartisan efforts like rock the vote, because they had hoped they can make their future better. and so you get that hope by knocking on doors and calling your friends and by participating in something that had a very positive message, that they can make their future better. and they e

workers according to the economic policy institute. it will provide chinese businesses engage in the transshipment of goods through third countries and easy opportunity to take advantage of carrier freights that are intended for south korean goods. according to the korea customs service, the quantity of products illegally labeled, made in korea" doubled from 2008 to 2010. these trans-shipments come from southeast asia and other nations. they have a history of transshipping goods to the u.s. through other countries so they can avoid duties that are levied against them for illegal trading practices. korea's proximity and 16 ports, including the world's fifth largest makes them a usual target for chinese companies. investigations by u.s. customs in recent years have resulted in indictments and convictions for a variety of duty evasion schemes that hurt america including cases involving steel wired garment hang arse and honey. -- hangars and honey. -- hangers and honey. we can expect an increase of cheap chinese goods into our market, agai

the discussion this morning introducing our special guest is mclaurin, a policy analyst in our thomas rowe institute for economic policy studies. he focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues and also examines energy prices and other economic effects of the environment policy and regulations particularly looking at climate change or cap-and-trade legislation and he articulates the benefits of the market environmentalism. he has appeared on many radio programs locally as well as serving as an associate for the charitable foundation prior to joining this year heritage. please strine me in welcoming my colleague, nick? [applause] 64, john and all of you for coming here today. but surely promises to be an educational and exciting event with our speaker. learned about these issues and studying them as the global recession hit seen a shift in the movement away from the learning about the catastrophic consequences of the climate change and shifting towards agreement job's movement and towards a clean energy economy, and these policies have such far reaching implications of american households and businesses

the economic policy institute estimates that the president's job bill would create 2.6 million jobs overro*epls proposal included aero-- the president's proposal included areas that have strong bipartisan support, to help small businesses. small businesses are the growth engine of america. that's where jobs are created. that's where most innovation will take place. the proposal would help small businesses with new hires and their payroll and expensing investment, so they have the incentive to go out and invest in job growth. that's what was in the president's proposal, to help small businesses. in the president's proposal, we had a provision to help our veterans. we all talk about our warriors, our soldiers who are out there every day protecting our values. they have represented america so brilliantly in international combat, and now they are coming home to america. they are coming home, and they can't find work, can't find a job. the president is saying let's help them. we all talk about doing what we can to help our warriors. well, this bill did something tan i believe about it. and wh

for a fair and balanced debate, kevin hasset, director of policy studies at the american institute and federal budget policy analyst at the economicg to both of you. >> good morning. >> kevin, let me start with you, do you like this plan and why? >> yeah, i like this plan a lot and there's three reasons. one is it's a credible plan and it's very well designed. it comes from a proud tradition of tax theory. the second reason that i like the plan is the numbers add up. they hired fiscal associates a well known firm to do the scoring, same firm i hired to score mccain's plan. the numbers add up. the third thing is it would grow the economy, it would cut the unemployment rate by three percentage points. big plus from where we are. >> a lot of people say i'd love to go down to the 9% tax bracket. what they don't like about the plan is the increase in the sales tax and we showed that map before. some states like in new york, you'd be paying 18% almost when you go to buy a good. you see that as a problem? >> the 999 plan is the first phase of herman cain's tax plan and the second part would be eliminating the 9% business tax and 9% incom

the economic policy institute has estimated that the trade deficit with china has cost the united states economy 2.8 million jobs, 1.9 million of these were manufacturing jocks. between 2001 and 2010, this period we saw this job loss, it resulted in rhode island in that period of approximately 12,000 jobs that were lost. a recent study by a team of three economists confirm what many in my state already now, that jobs in rhode island are among the most vulnerable to cheap chinese imports. job losses are directly attributable to the u.s. trade deficit with china, which has been exacerbated again by their persistent undervaluation of their currency. our trade deficit with china, which grew over ten years from $83 billion ten years ago to $273 billion has had an outside impact on my state because chinese goods compete directly with many products that were produced in rhode island and continue to be produced in rhode island. from textiles to toys, rhode islanders have been harmed as the artificially cheap yuan and exports from china affected communities. if singapore, taiwan, asia and hong ko

the economic policy institute has estimated that the korean free trade agreement will lead to the loss of 159,000 american jobs and will increase the trade deficit by nearly $14 billion over a seven-year period. why do you want to go forward in a trade agreement that will cost you jobs? now, president obama has estimated that the korea free trade agreement will -- quote - "support at least 70,000 american jobs" -- unquote -- but the headline of a december 72010 article in " the new york times "says it all -- quote -- " few new jobs expected soon from free trade agreement with south korea." according to this article, the korean free trade agreement is likely to result in little if any net job creation in the short run, according to the government's own analysis, our government's own analysis. this analysis was done by the u.s. international trade commission which projects that our overall trade deficit will increase, not decrease, if korea free trade is implemented. this is our own international trade commission. what are we doing? what are we doing? now, mr. president, let me just touc

as the economic policy institute and the alliance for american manufacturing recently reported, our and balanced trade with china has cost the united states more than 2.8 million jobs since 2001, including 1.8 million manufacturing jobs. and i have got to be clear, our relationship with china is about more than currency. you see a prosperous china can be an enormous boon to the united states and to the global economy. but only if workers can build a middle-class life and they can have a strong voice through independent unions. and if the chinese government plays by the same rules. you see the question is, what is our government strategy for ensuing bet -- ensuring that our relationship with china is mutually beneficial and not a zero-sum game played by unfair rules where workers both in china and in the united states are sacrificed to corporate interest? you see these kinds of questions are not just limited to china. congress will soon consider three agreements with south korea, with columbia and with pam ahmad. the korean deal will boost korea as an export platform to the united states

according to the economic policy institute, for starters the korea free trade agreement will cost us 160,000 jobs. bye-bye to the last vest inges of the auto part industry. 35% korean content requirement, they can source all their stuff from china or maybe better, north korea, where they can use slave labor and it will be cheap. we'll ask our workers to compete with that? there goes another industry. now, colombia and panama. well, e. purks i. estimates they are kind of dinky economies. they only lose about 55,000 jobs. so for starters we are creating a quarter of a million jobs overseas with more failed trade policies. colombia, they kill labor organizers but they promised they won't do that anymore. panama, huge haven for drug smugglers, terrorist money, and others. they launder money but they promised the obama administration, even though bush said they could keep doing it, they promised the obama administration they won't do it. they will no longer allow people to secret ill-gotten gains in panama unless it's in their national interest. that's a little bit of a loophole. so these

a recent report by the economic policy institute finds the u.s.caused in part by china has cost our economy 2.8 million jobs over the past decade. chairman bernanke in testimony before this committee in april of 2010 noted that, quote, most economists agree that the chinese currency is undervalued and used to promote an export committee, unquote. and he said it would be good for the chinese to allow more flexibility in their exchange rate, unquote, and that, quote, we should continue to press for a more flexible exchange rate, unquote. i agree with those statements by the chairman. this week, the senate has the opportunity to take action in response to china's unfair trade practices when we vote on bipartisan legislation to crack down at long last on china's currency manipulation. last night the senate passed the first procedural hurdle with a strong bipartisan vote to move forward with debate on the legislation. so to sum up briefly, more than two years after the recovery officially began, our economy remains very vulnerable. unemployment is stuc

studies that many members referred to in a very brief debate they had about this was by the economic policy institute, which is somehow developed numbers of the numbers of jobs lost to the china trade in each congressional district and in each state. and that is the kind of boiling down of data you need to even make a dent in a congress that is so fixed now on what it needs to do to maintain its own majority, to follow the leadership's guide on that, and to play politics at a level of gridlock that i think historically is going to stand as an unrivaled. by previous. no, certainly but by subsequent periods it can't continue to be this bad, and something that can't continue to be this bad won't. and that's the happy thought that he is to inspire myself to get up every morning. but i can tell you, if journalists are discouraged about it, members of congress even more so. there are some excellent people that are considering leaving the institution precisely because the work they do in committee goes nowhere. and because it's a demoralizing time. it's hard, it's better to be there when woodrow wilson was

workers according to the economic policy institute. it will provide chinese businesses engaged in the transshipment of goods through third countries and ease the opportunity to take advantage of tariff rates intended for south korean goods. according to the korea customs service, the quantity of products illegally labeled "made in correa" doubled from 2008 until 2010 -- "made in korea." primarily from china and southeast asian nations. chinese companies have a history of trans shipping goods to the u.s. through other countries so they can avoid duties against them for illegal practices. portss proximity and 16 and clothing of the world's fifth largest makes them a usual targets. investigations by u.s. customs in recent years have resulted in indictments and convictions for a variety of duty-evasion schemes that hurts america, including cases like steel wire garment hangars and honey from china. there are no provisions in this agreement to guard against a potential flood of chinese products shipped through korea. that means we can expec

of the interesting studies that members referred to in the very brief debate was by the economic policy institutebers of jobs lost to the china trade in each district and state was compiled. that is the kind of boiling down of data that you need to make a dent in a congress that is so fixed on what it needs to do to maintain its own majority and follow the leadership died - leadership-- guide on that and play politics at a level of gridlock that historically is going to stand unrivaled. it cannot continue to be this bad. something that cannot continue to be this bad won't. that is how i inspire myself to give up every morning. -- get up every morning. members of congress are discouraged. they're excellent people considering leaving the institution precisely because the work they do in committee goes nowhere. it is a demoralizing time. it was better to be there when woodrow wilson was meeting the -- leading the united states into being a dominant and world power. members of congress are at a time when it is becoming less the case. it is not so much fun. >> thank you. [applause] >> even though some

in those ten years, the economic policy institute estimates that 2.8 million american jobs were lost other trade-related industries as a result of increased trade with china and the chinese government's manipulation of its currency. my state of new york has suffered some of the biggest losses with over 161,000 jobs lost or workers displaced since 2001. accession to the w.t.o. was supposed to bring china's policies in line with global trade rules meant to ensure free but fair trade. instead, china has single mindedly flouted those rules to spur its own economy and export-oriented growth at the expense of its tradings partners, most of all the united states. our economic relationship with china needs a fundamental change. it's not just in currency, although that's the number one issue. on issue after issue after issue, whether it's poaching intellectual property, unfairly and illegally subsidizing chinese businesses, monopolizing rare earths, not allowing american companies to compete in china, on issue after issue after issue, china is mercantilist, plain and simple. they use the rule

for those of you who do not know, the green lighting institute is a national policy institute working for racial and economic justice. they are well known by the financial industry for their aggressive pursuit of the community responsibility act. they are experts and running grass-roots networks to hold financial institutions accountable to the many responsibilities that we share with the communities we serve. so with that, we are at the beginning of this process. i am grateful to you, supervisor, for bringing more attention to this topic. together, we can dialogue and have a good conversation about what kinds of opportunities this banking rfp can have come in if we can then present goals, missions, and different outcomes, to the different various financial institutions looking at the city and considering bidding for our services. that is very exciting. it is a great opportunity. we must also consider that we have to do this hand in hand, at the same time, making sure we are safeguarding these millions of dollars of financial tracks -- transactions which occur every year, making sure that they occur accurate

ronald reagan's administration, according to an analysis of the federations data by the economic policy institute. and he ends by saying this, he says, my opinion regulatory unserpt is invented by republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. in other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to teal with high unemployment. i ask unanimous consent that this piece be submitted to the record, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: i'd bring that up not to say that regulation isn't a problem and that we -- that we should not deal in a constructive way with needless regulation. the president said that in the speech to the house when he introduced his jobs bill, but it is not the only problem out there and it is -- and to suggest that bringing bills like this to the floor are going to somehow create jobs is just patently false. if we can't to create jobs in this country, we should bring the president's jobs bill to the floor. again, t

beside money, today's focus was a new attempt to go around congress and institute his economic policy. this time, taking aim at housing. something he details just moments ago. chief white house correspondent ed henry is traveling with the president. >> reporter: business is starting to boom on the las vegas strip. a dozen miles away at the neighborhood of underwater homes the economy is in terrible shape to people like teresa cabrera. the 43-year-old customer service rep at auto glass store believes obama is trying but not delivering. >> has he done enough to deal with foreclosures? >> i don't think so. he went to down here and it's been hard for everyone. >> the president came to cabrera's neighborhood to prod congressional republicans with a new message. >> we can't wait. >> reporter: and unveil a new housing plan that bypasses congress. executive action that will allow people with underwater mortgages to refinance to lower costs. if they are current on payments and have loans backed by fannie and freddie. >> consumers save money, the families save money. it gets the families spendi