here's what nafta yielded. a trillion dollars in accumulated trade deficit and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lost american jobs that moved from cleveland and moved from avon lake and moved from toledo to other places in this world, south of the border. why do we go bant -- why don't we go back and fix this? let's be honest. panama's entire g.d.p. equals 6% of the economy of the washington, d.c., metropolitan area. so what could this panama agreement actually be about? well, letters we've received give us some insight into what it might be about. with panama we know that the country has a longstanding money laundering problem and that it is a tax haven for corporations. how convenient. in 2008 the government accountability office included panama on its 50 country tax haven list. get the picture? starting to clear some of the fog? we all know about some of these kaman island accounts, well, why don't we add panama right to the stack? panama was long on the oecd's gray list of countries that failed to impl

three new trade deals combined make up the largest free trade agreement passed since nafta the north american free trade agreement passed in one thousand nine hundred three president obama appeared with south korean president lee earlier today to tout their new trade deal. now. i think this trade deal that we just passed between a free trade act shows that we are happy to work with republicans where they are willing to put politics. behind the interest of the american people. and come up with proposals that are actually going to create jobs but create free trade act we believe will create up to seventy thousand jobs it's a good deal we've got good strong bipartisan support free trade is one of those rare things today that both republicans and democrats can seem to agree on huge bipartisan majorities in both the house and senate pass these free trade agreements pretty trade agreements under the promise that they could boost u.s. exports as in how much stuff we sell to the rest of the world by thirteen billion dollars every year including as many as two hundred eighty thousand new jobs

and in the nafta the content requirements are 62.5%. korea's car production in 2010 was almost equal to that of canada and mexico combined, yet the korea f.t.a. contains no requirements -- or contains requirements that are much lower than nafta. by allowing the 65% of a car content value to come from a third country where opening the door for that 65% to come from guess who? china. as a result these rules of origin will be devastating to american auto parts industry. the u.s. auto supply chain is already facing challenges from china. according to the commerce department 2010 report titled, "on the road," china auto parts exports to the u.s. have increased 43% from 2004 to 2009. and they're expected to account for an increased share of the u.s. auto partin the future. in fact, commerce predicts that many auto part companies will continue to move production to china in an effort to reduce cost and remain competitive. if this f.t.a. passes, that's not a prediction, that's a guarantee. i've already mentioned the fact that we have lost more

when nafta came, it all left. i can't see how we can compete with our labor when we have $26 an hour they are paying and they are doing $1 to $3 an hour. without equal with the labor, i do not see how we can compete either way. if you are a normal person -- retired people -- the crunch of the money, you can't do what. that is what my comments is. and this was in 1975. but i see how we cannot compete with the unions the way -- i am really scared if war comes, what we are going to do with us being manufacturers -- with all of our manufacturing going overseas. host: appreciate your comments. bob is next. petersburg, virginia. ibp. caller: good morning. if people listen to him, he is right. what this is going to do, it will make the 10% who own all the money richard. it will do nothing for the middle-class or the lower class to put them back to work. already wall street is dominating everything and causing prices to steadily go up. the only way this country is going to get back is when the middle-class and lower class

nafta didn't have the i.l.o. declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work and the followup provisions. this is the peru free trade agreement we passed that has that, right here, under article 17. s the colombian free trade agrement, exactly the same, the principles are the same, number two reads effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. effective recognition. that means anything that stops that can be brought under this agreement and action against the country. so look, you'll hear arguments today that it's a loss of jobs. it's going to be a loss of jobs if we don't do this. we have made a free trade agreement wever single country in latin america except colombia, panama, and ecuador. these will be the strongest. but if we don't lift those trade barriers, all the products we send to colombia have a tariff on them. all those other countries, don't. all those other countries entering into ageements don't have it, canada doesn't have it. we're going to lose jobs to people who make thin

and then we got nafta. many of us remember all the rhetoric around nafta. my goodness, we're going to open up the entire mexican economy for products made in the united states of america. we're going to be selling it in mexico. does anybody in america believe that that policy has worked, that nafta has worked? the facts are very clear, again according to the e.p.i., they found that nafta has led to the loss of 680,000 jobs. so the simple reality is you don't have to be a ph.d. in economics to figure out that if a company has the option of hiring somebody in a low-wage country at 50 cents an hour, 70 cents an hour, don't have to deal with unions, don't have to deal with environmental standards, why would you not go to those countries? well, the answer is you would go. the answer is they have gone. and that's what these trade policies are about. not selling american-produced products abroad, but creating a situation where companies can shut down in america, move factories abroad and bring those products back into this country tariff-free. now, mr. president,

that's what we were told about nafta. well, results are in about nafta. 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 g

i voted for nafta years ago based on the promise that nafta would in some way help the economy of mexico and thus prevent or offer an alternative to this drugs as being a way of earning a living down there. did nafta have a positive impact , and can we make these economic agreements and expect that they will have a better impact of elsewhere than they have on mexico and feel free could occur whoever thinks can answer that. we are not the right people to answer that question however my wife says there's never an issue i shouldn't talk about so i will offer simple and views i spent three years in colombia actually trying to make a case for the fda which is finally found its way to this institution, so i will make that basic genetic case. free trade agreements for the most part are good for the economies of both countries involved, good for the economies of both countries involved because they allow the commerce -- >> can you compare that to mexico? degette the end of the day i don't want to cling to be an expert on nafta but i would say toou that the logic is by removing any , you know, th

relationship with ross nafta it includes exploration up in the arctic sea which we think is one of the most prospective areas in the world down in the black sea in russia also deep water another opportunity for us to leverage superior technology but we're also bringing ross nafta into projects globally in the united states and canada or another but it's very interesting is that you know russia is still very known very well known as being a quote unquote dependent on export of resources like oil and other things vladimir if i could go to you i mean we just one gave us a really pick surely in then from what i know about it is true that the relationship that wrote russia has with oil majors and other energy companies are very good but let's step out of the energy sector right now what are some of the barriers still when i say large companies or mid-size companies want to come here or they can have the same experience as a an energy company. well i think we heard the really the two sides of the story because the early pioneers if we may say saw of foreign direct investment in russia you kn

well, we've lost 600,000 net jobs because of nafta. that same -- that same model of nafta with investor-state relations, investor-state provisions and other things, gave rise to the central american free trade agreement, other trade agreements that every time they cost us jobs. every time the administration, either party, doesn't matter, promised these trade agreements will create jobs, they never do. and this the body, again, korea, colombia, panama, a majority of senators, a strong majority again bought that line that hey, if this is going to create jobs, and it never does. the same promise, businesses promise jobs from increased exports. yet they only talk about half of it. 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

nearly 700,000 american jobs have been lost as a direct result of nafta. in my district, the 43rd congressional district, we have lost over 2,000 jobs since the pass amming of nafta and other trade agreements. mr. baca: the united states has gone from a $1.6 billion trade surplus to a $97 billion trade deficit with mexico. yet we stand this -- stand this week ready to pass three more nafta-style trade agreements, korea, colombia an panama. my constituents face a 14% unemployment rate. they need us to create jobs, not ship them overseas where thousands of jobs will be sent over. ask yourself, who benefits from these trade dreel deals? not the american working families. major corporations are the ones who benefit with these misguided afreems. this is a debate about the haves and have nots. it is time to stand up for working family, it's time to stand up for working families and do the right thing for the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> to address the hou

does that remind you of the myth about nafta? no, this is about yet one more platform to get an access of abused labor, unorganized labor under colombian law, to provide -- to send goods back to the united states of america. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. and then there's the issue of, yes, we will get some moring a kilt exports. insignificant to our industry. won't employ any americans. may employ some more people who are in this country to harvest the crop. but it will cut dramatically into the principle form of employment in colombia. there will be a 75% drop potentially in rural employment in colombia and where will they turn? the noted economist says they will turn from traditional farming and farming for their own economy to growing coca. so not only are we going to facilitate the collapse of their agricultural economy like we did mexico, we're going to facilitate the drug lords with this crumby agreement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has ex

good to have your company watching business and see the head of russia's oil pipeline operator trans nafta says china will said so its seventy five million dollar bill for oil deliveries from russia within a fortnight the money is owed to russia's top oil company ross nafta and pipeline operator transnet in return russia promised to consider the price of existing and new contracts with china the deal follows prime minister putin's visit the earlier this month problems between the countries arose in march when china decided russia was over pricing its oil by two to three percent and car payments according. russia's pipeline monopoly transnet and investment group so much capital were discussing a possibility to create a joint venture to ship russian oil from water down last week so much in the branch of world trade a vitol one attended to build an oil terminal in the dutch city the fifty five hector facility is planned to start operation in four years and expected to take on a significant share of the global oil trade earlier this year so my capital and trans left purchased a port in the bla

and russia's pipeline monopoly trans nafta and investment group so my capital are discussing a possibility to create a joint venture to ship russian oil from rotterdam last week so in a branch of oil trade a veto one intended to build an oil terminal in the dutch city the fifty five had to facility is planned to start operation in four years and expected to take a significant share of the global oil trade earlier this year so my capital and trans nafta purchased the port in the black sea to create russia's leading crude export operator. speaking of oil secular at the current prices it is mostly rising in america on science at the highs and twelve weeks actually on. demand in the us is improving boyle has gained more than twenty percent in the past three weeks light sweet is now up two and a half dollars this hour brant is however down around forty five percent. european stock markets moving from losses to gains traders a digesting a string of earnings reports and are awaiting the outcome of tomorrow's summit so for euro zone leaders drugmaker novartis is among the decliners with the shares

it was one of many manufacturers who moved south of the border after the implementation of nafta, the north american free trade agreement signed in 1993. what's happened in evansville since then is the subject of tonight's edition of "need to know." here's an excerpt, narrated by correspondent rick karr. >> reporter: after nearly 80 at an appliance store near evansville, we met up with economist mohammed khayum. he says its consumers whove been the big winners under nafta. >> we benefit because of range of things that happen including more products, great quality, lower prices. this suit, for instance, is a product of mexico. >> reporter: khayum is dean of the business school at evansville's university of southern indiana. he says the fridges and other appliances in this store are better than they would have been without free trade-- smarter, more durable, more energy efficient, and cheaper. >> when we buy tvs, we may buy two instead of one. >> reporter: khayum says one reason why nafta has a bad reputation is because it's easy to put a face on the workers who lost jobs to lower-paid

and then we've got nafta.y of us remember the rhetoric about nafta and open up theade n entire mexican economist for we project in the united statesca does anyone in america believe that policy the facts are clear. again according to the epi, they found that nafta has led to the loss of 680,000 jobs. so the simple reality is sure te be at teaching economics to the figure out if a company has thes option 70 cents an hour, don't de have to dealal with unions for o environmental standards, why wouldho she not go to those is countries. the answer is you would go. the answer is they have gone. and that is that these trade policies are about, not selling american produced productsmeric, abroad by creating a situation where companies can shut down in america, and the fact is abroad and bring those products back into this country tariff free. now mr. president, we have quote from after quote after quote from members of congress during the nafta debate, during the china debate and they told us about the sound to me to

my reporting requirement mirrored exactly in the kafta and a half -- nafta requirements. the requirement reporting plans is included in the implementing legislation to ensure that colombia's labor leaders are not forgotten once this agreement is implemented and that is crucial. because as we have seen, if you're a labor leader in colombia, you're likely to die. .. a. >> they want to sell whatever, cars in korea, they sell here. we don't have many barriers but when we try to sell our goods and services there, they have barriers. why is that? what i've learned in drilling down in this, go back to the end of world war ii, we emerged from world war ii the strongest economy on earth. we were the 800-pound gorilla in the room when it came to international trade. we made better products, we dominate markets, whether it was cars or anything you can think of. other countries in an effort to build their markets began to erect barriers to keep our goods and services out. as time goes by, they've gotten to be a lot better, stronger competitors. and, frankly, the time has come to leve

what is nafta? it has powerful tools to move our economies, to make our 3 economies competitive, to protect jobs here in the united states and in canada and in mexico, all three who were losing jobs to asia. our reaction should be a powerful new vision of nafta to build up opportunities. also, the case of immigration. saying that building walls, the problem of migration will be solved, i think it would be a great mistake. like prohibition, walls do not work. we can do much better than that sitting down and discussing the strategy is for immigration. look at this guy is saying that he would put electric wire on top offenses so that people would die. -- on top of the fence so that people will die. it is in credible going on in the 200-year-old democracy, they gave us so much inspiration, they gave a so many good ideas. it is incredible we can i come to an agreement. it is like a cat and dog. when the station does not solve the economy of the united states, we are in trouble in mexico. that would be a

i voted for nafta years ago based on the promise that nafta would in some way help the economy of mexico and thus prevent or offer an alternative to this drugs as being a way of earning a living down there. did nafta have a positive impact , and can we make these economic agreements and expect that they will have a better impact of elsewhere than they have on mexico and feel free could occur whoever thinks can answer that. >> we are not the right people to answer that question however my wife says there's never an issue i shouldn't talk about so i will offer simple and views i spent three years in colombia actually trying to make a case for the fda which is finally found its way to this institution, so i will make that basic genetic case. free trade agreements for the most part are good for the economies of both countries involved, good for the economies of both countries involved because they allow the commerce -- >> can you compare that to mexico? degette the end of the day i don't want to cling to be an expert on nafta but i would say to you that the logic is by removing any of, you k

our reaction should be a powerful new vision of nafta so that we build up opportunities. also, the case of migration. thinking that by building walls the problem of migration is going to be solved is a great mistake. like prohibition was, walls don't work. we can do much better by sitting down and discussing which should be the strategy for immigration. -- we should sit down and discuss immigration. it got put a wall up 20 feet high. -- this guy put up a wall 20 feet high. it is incredible. it is nonsense. a 200 year old democracy that gave us so much inspiration. that gave us so many good ideas. it is incredible they cannot come to an agreement. it is like the cat and the duck. no solution for the economy. when this nation does not have a solution, the economy of the united states -- we are in trouble in mexico. that would be a good way to solve the problem of violence and drugs, by growing the economy and by extending the jobs and opportunities to more and more people. it has to do with opportunities for kids that today do not have them. mexico is going to elect a new p

nafta not only hurt the united states, it hurt mexico. and it is forming deeply. so i'm interested to hear forming contents of our arguments today. so mr. reif, let me ask you this. this is what i had major problems with, this legislation. the rules of origin provisions in this agreement, not in past agreements, not in futuristic agreements, this agreement, these provisions would allow products made with a 65% foreign content, including regional countries like china, malaysia, and vietnam, they would qualify for duty-free access to the american market, is that correct or incorrect? >> mr. pascrell, that's not, that's not a correct description of the rule of origin. world of origin provides that the automobile, we're talking about an automobile, it varies from product to product, will be constructed, built in united states or in south korea and it needs to have a certain round of regional local content. >> in the nafta agreement even we had 50/50 formula i believe, was it not? in terms of transporting of these good? >> i believe that may be corre correct. >> isn't

but this agreement includes key provisions not found in nafta. for example, the trade agreement clarifies that environmental regulations generally are not considered expropriations requiring investor compensation. finally, the united states has consistently maintained a trade surplus with panama for over 20 years. $5.7 billion in 2010, and the trade agreement is expected to increase this surplus. so it's for those reasons that i support this agreement, but i have a question. because some have argued that the united states negotiated, quote, loophole-ridden, close quote, tax information exchange agreement with panama. they note, for example, that the tiea includes a broad, quote, public policy exemption that panama can abuse. mr. reif, could you respond to that accusation? because we think we've tied it down, and it sounds like to some people it's still wide open. please, say for the committee and for the record what the status of that issue is. >> yes, sir. we did tie it down, and the administration, both administrations took the time to get this

does that remind you of the myth about nafta? no, this is about yet one more platform to get an access of abused labor, unorganized labor under colombian law, to provide -- to send goods back to the united states of america. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. and then there's the issue of, yes, we will get some moring a kilt exports. insignificant to our industry. won't employ any americans. may employ some more people who are in this country to harvest the crop. but it will cut dramatically into the principle form of employment in colombia. there will be a 75% drop potentially in rural employment in colombia and where will they turn? the noted economist says they will turn from traditional farming and farming for their own economy to growing coca. so not only are we going to facilitate the collapse of their agricultural economy like we did mexico, we're going to facilitate the drug lords with this crumby agreement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has ex

remember, if we go back to nafta, we were told during nafta we were going to create millions of jobs't happen. we lost many jobs. i think the measure of any trade agreement has to be, where are we right now? what's been our experience with the trade agreements in the past? why haven't we been able to get workers rights, environmental quality principles into the trade agreements? i don't think this debate is over. >> congressman dennis kucinich. i'm sure you know by now ron paul has you on his short list for cabinet position if he picks up the nomination. >> ron paul and i work closely together to try to stop the wars which is a major drain on our nation's morale, spirit, economy. i'm proud to work with him on that. he's a good american. >> congressman dennis kucinich from ohio. congressman, thank you. >> thank you. >>> breaking news now. an amber alert for a missing 10-month-old girl in kansas city, missouri. here's her picture of lisa irwin, last seen sleeping in her crib around 10:30 last night. at this point, police say it appears someone entered the home through a bedroom window

i'm going to end welfare as a right and support nafta. i'm going to support balancing the budget.s well as raise taxes. he took a centrist position. i thought clarence was going to go on tonight and that's what i thought you said you were going to do and back the bill clinton approach not the populist approach. what is your position? i need to know. where are you clarence? are you with bill clinton? clarence, when they write the headline after the election -- let's go back to your business. when they write the election report after the 2012 election and they said the president won by going to the center or the president won by going to the left and pushing a very populist agenda what will be the winning headline? that's all i'm asking. let's go to our business reporting on this. let's use the usual english language. will he be perceived as successfully the left or successfully the center? >> chris, you know as well as i do the same event happens. you get five different headlines and different angles. the fact is there is a lot of confusion over whether obama has changed or not. a

the problem is this creative free trade deal is worse than nafta. it's going to allow our jobs to be shipped oversees to countries like china. the point is this. even if the u.s. car manufacturers sell cars in korea, those cars with k be be made with parts from a foreign country like china. we're shipping jobs is out of u.s. to china. that's not right, not at a time where americans need jobs. i want to make a pernlt point. my dad left his home country of india many decades ago to work in a detroit foundry to mold the metal that makes those cars. . making metal, that's where the real value is in manufacturing. this free trade agreement allows the majority of u.s. manufactured cars to be made with parts from china. that's worse than nafta and i oppose that because we need jobs in america, not in china. >> congressman, you've about been an advocate of high-speed rail and infrastructure spending as a way to create jobs here in the country. why is government spending as opposed to tax credited as opposed to private businesses the answer? >> it's one answ

free trade agreement since nafta was signed in 1994. president obama said it will help level the playing field for american industries such as auto manufacturing. >> for farmers and ranchers here in the united states, it will increase exforts. from -- exports. it will increase manufacturing imports in aeroaryiary -- in aerospace products. >>> today, the labor department says applications were down by 1,000, putting them at 404,000. now, that number needs to drop below 375,000 and stay there to indicate a healthy economy. experts say the number of layoffs has declined in recent works. but there are no signs that hiring has picked up. >>> bay area executives are feeling pessimistic about the regional economy. and that could mean a shrinking work force here. a new survey by the bay area council shows 21% of businesses plan to hire new workers in the next six months but that's down since last spring when 33% of those asked had hiring plans. also 17% of companies say he -- say they will lay off workers by next april. last spring only 13% of

definitely, if you are here and you're in the right programs, and your nafta -- athlete, you're going to have all the baseball game you can have. that is the great thing about sports is that you can measure ability. you couldn't -- cannot deny a statistic. everything else is tougher to judge somebody is quality. sometimes it is not about ability, it is about being comfortable with people who are like me. tavis: when you have lived a rich and full life, -- >> i have plenty more to go. i know you mean well. [laughter] tavis: how'd you construct a one-man show? had you find what parts of your life to fit into this narrative? >> it is crazy. i had stopped performing. i am a perfectionist. sometimes that works against you. i got shut down. i got a stock during one of the shows and i did not want to perform. then i got asked to do college stuff. i was nervous and i would drink a little. i would talk and the kids started laughing. i recall certain events. that became the show. it was my career, the center. talking about working with al pacino, stevenson got, sean penn, brian de palma, what d

i voted for nafta years ago based on the promise that nafta would in some way help the economy of mexico and thus prevent or offer an alternative to this drugs as being a way of earning a living down there. did nafta have a positive impact , and can we make these economic agreements and expect that they will have a better impact of elsewhere than they have on mexico and feel free could occur whoever thinks can answer that. >> we are not the right people to answer that question however my wife says there's never an issue i shouldn't talk about so i will offer simple and views i spent three years in colombia actually trying to make a case for the fda which is finally found its way to this institution, so i will make that basic genetic case. free trade agreements for the most part are good for the economies of both countries involved, good for the economies of both countries involved because they allow the commerce -- >> can you compare that to mexico? degette the end of the day i don't want to cling to be an expert on nafta but i would say to you that the logic is by removing any of, you k

after nafta was signed in '93, the u.s.ost more than $879,000 directly to canada and mexico, and that $1.5 billion trade surplus we had with mexico soon turned into a $97 billion trade deficit. as for the deals today, the south korean deal alone, they're saying, could cost 159,000 jobs. in fact, the job losses from the new trade deals advocated by the republicans and the president were so bad that the democrats insisted on adding an extra sticker of spending to the trade deals to pay off the people who were going to lose their jobs through the job creating trade deals. joining us now, democratic congressman, brad miller, a man against these trade deals, and clyde presstowitz. let's be very clear. i think can i speak for the three of you and a lot of other folks. no one thinks that trade deals or doing trade deals is by any means a negative or positive event. it's like any deal, you're doing a deal. what is it about the way that we do deals, clyde, that gets us in so much trouble? >> well, we tend to do deals without looking

we just now at the update on nafta, where only 637,000 jobs had been displaced or lost as a consequence of that. it was promised, you recall, prosperity for mexico and increase jobs in places like ohio and michigan and even pennsylvania. the reality is that there is a constituency out there that understands what is going on, but leadership that just absolutely tapes. >> what should the leadership do? >> the leadership should confront china and say that the reality is that we are concerned with american jobs -- >> ok, so we say that you are very unhelpful people. they say, too bad. >> we will impose -- we will impose selective tariffs upon them. we are not the biggest -- >> then you get into a trade war. what will china do? >> because we have the biggest market -- >> then we go back to smoot- hawley -- >> we have done this in the 1930's -- >> no, we did something -- >> trillion dollars of our money as well -- >> you see american cars all over the place, american businesses doing business. why? it is the cost of labor, among other things. i was trying to make a phone call from my blackber

but ten years on as it only nafta more dangerous. culture is that so much different and there's a huge music to share a power line at the market what is the distance between the arab spring in arab democracy some people of the arab middle east have demonstrated they can rid themselves to dictate. the. eventual cause of this is evil get that same almost every month. tragedy struck his family two years ago when his daughter was seriously injured after husband shot her in a fit of jealousy. polio washed the bullet entered her temple exited from the back of her head and i mean it was for the doctors told me the injury was fatal and that she might die within minutes from what it was nothing my wife and i could do about it i sent my wife to hospital expecting her to bring the body back it but she's got over it. even had never been a follower of buddhism but he visited evil guinn skeat that sign on the advice of a woman he knew. there he was advised to pray in front of the un decaying body of dashi daughter show it to a body at buddhist lam

we had an update on nafta, or only 637,000 jobs displaced or lost asset consequence of that .the reality is that there is a constituency out there that understands what is going on, but leadership that just absolutely caves. >> what should deleted should do? >> -- what should the leadership do? >> the leadership should confront china and say that we are concerned about american jobs -- >> ok, we say you are very unhelpful people, and they say too bad. what do you do? >> we will impose selective tariffs upon them so that we are not -- >> then you get into a trade war. >> wouldn't they also impose -- >> because we are the biggest market -- >> you go back to smoot-hawley -- >> we did this in the 1930's -- >> no -- >> they are sitting on a $1 trillion of our money as well. ->> when you go, what you see? american cars all over the place. american businesses doing business there bank because of the cost of labor. -- there because of the cost of labor. i was trying to make a phone call from my blackberry, and every time i made the call, i was talking to somebody from manila. >> that