County Payments Reauthorization Act of 2011

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I would like to speak in opposition to these three pending free-trade agreements.

The bills look like they are about this size. These are the actual implementing of the three free-trade agreements. But one of the bills, and not the largest one--the one, in fact, of the three countries we are probably today passing trade agreements with, Colombia, South Korea, and Panama--the smallest by far in terms of its economy is Panama, and this is the trade agreement with Panama.

I remember all these conservative talk radio people saying: Have you read the bill? Have you read the bill? Have you read the bill? Every time it is a bill they don't agree with, they ask: Have you read the bill? This isn't just to eliminate the tariffs we have with the Republic of Panama. If these agreements were about eliminating tariffs with labor standards--and I know the Presiding Officer from Oregon shares that view about labor standards. If these agreements were about eliminating tariffs and labor standards, they would be about this big. They wouldn't be anything like this. But these are chock-full of special interest deals. It is what this body always does: the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico; the PNTR with China, a different kind of situation but leading to even more problems; the Central American Free Trade Agreement with six countries in Central America and the Dominican Republic. Rules that help the drug companies, rules that help the insurance companies, special interest provisions that help the banks, special interest provisions that undermine public health and undermine safely, that is what these free-trade agreements are about.

I get it. I get it that this is greased. I get it that this will pass with overwhelming numbers. I get it that this White House is only this much better than the last White House in pushing for these trade agreements. These are Bush trade agreements, Korea, Colombia, and Panama. President Obama inherited them, but he doesn't get off the hook because he has improved these slightly. We have a little bit of an improvement with Korea so a few more American cars can be sold into Korea, nothing like the number of Korean cars that can be sold in the United States because we didn't want to be that tough when we negotiated, so we just make slight changes. This President made slight changes, and I have seen this. I was in the House for 14 years, and in my first term in the Senate I have seen this kind of game played by administration after administration. This is technically my fourth administration I have worked with, third at some length, and I have seen this over and over and over again.

When I hear of these trade agreements coming forward, every President says this is going to create tens of thousands of jobs. NAFTA was going to create 200,000 jobs, almost immediately, the first Bush administration said. The Clinton administration said: Yes; that is right. It is going to create more or less 200,000 jobs immediately. Do you know what it has created? It has created a loss of 600,000 jobs under the North American Free Trade Agreement. We gain some jobs; we lose some jobs, but the net is always lost jobs.

How many times is an administration going to come forward and how

many times are we going to believe them? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. This body continues, as the House of Representatives does--they are a little smarter in the House; they don't pass these with quite the same numbers in the overwhelming margins, but they continue to do the same thing over and over and over.

The American public doesn't like these trade agreements. The American public, in large numbers, under poll after poll after poll--the American people don't like NAFTA, don't like CAFTA, don't like PNTR with China. Why do you think last night, finally, this body stood--63 Members of the Senate, almost 20 of them Republicans, voted to finally stand up on currency and try to create a level playing field in our trade with China? But we don't do it on these other trade agreements. With the lobbying efforts on NAFTA, on CAFTA, on PNTR with China, on the Panama Trade Agreement, on the Colombia Trade Agreement, on the Korea Trade Agreement, the lobbying is overwhelming. Special interest groups line up because they are so excited about passing these free- trade agreements. In the end, we lose jobs every single time.

When I came to the Congress 20 years ago, we had a trade surplus with Mexico and, if I recall, a small trade deficit with Canada. That means we sold more to Mexico than we bought from them. We bought more from Canada than we sold to them. Today, it is tens of billions of dollars' trade deficit we have trilaterally with those two countries.

The China trade deficit 10 years ago, when China got into the World Trade Organization because we passed PNTR in part--that is part of the reason they got in--our trade deficit with China was something like $80 billion; today, it is almost $300 billion, more than three times the trade deficit with China. So our answer is, let's do more of it.

So China undercuts our manufacturing. NAFTA takes away American jobs. CAFTA costs us jobs. Yet the geniuses around here, the people--and the majority leader 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 Republican 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 is working.

Give me one other issue where people in this body en masse, in huge numbers, say: This trade policy isn't working so let's try more of it. That is 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.

I am for more trade. Like most Americans, I want to see us trade more with other countries. But like most Americans, I have a problem with many of the rules that govern our trade policy because these aren't simple--eliminate tariffs. This is a trade policy that time after time favors corporate or investors' interests, and, in some cases, actually undermines our national security and undermines our national interests.

When we see the kind of job loss that NAFTA caused and CAFTA caused and PNTR caused, and these trade agreements with Panama and Korea and Colombia cause, we know this is not good for our national interests.

That is why I object to these trade agreements: They are more of the same broken promises, the same promises about: Oh, yes, it is going to create jobs. The same promise about: Oh, yes, it is going to expand our markets.

It may expand our markets a little bit, but it costs. We may sell some more, but we are buying a lot more from these other countries because the trade agreements simply aren't working.

Trade agreements are permanent. They often handcuff Congress and State legislatures from setting new priorities. North American Free Trade Agreement. I have heard Presidential candidates in campaigns say: Yes, they would work to renegotiate or even repeal NAFTA. Then they raise their right hand, get sworn in to be President of the United States, and they kind of forget they promised that.

These trade agreements undermine ``Buy American'' policy. How does that work? Because when we pass free-trade agreements, our FTAs, bilaterally or trilaterally with other countries, it doesn't give the same standing to our ``Buy American'' provisions. Do you think countries around the world don't have buy whatever their country is? You don't think the Chinese give special preference to ``Buy China''? You don't think other countries ever give special preference? But we couldn't do that here because that would mean we aren't practicing free trade.

Every country in the world practices trade according to their national interests. But what do we do in the United States of America? What do we do in the Senate? What do they do in the House? What do they do in the White House? They practice trade according to some economic textbook that was printed before these pages sitting in front of me were even born.

These trade agreements lack any meaningful way to withdraw if the promised benefits don't materialize. We passed these trade agreements in Ohio communities from Springfield to Chillicothe to Portsmouth to Ashtabula to Toledo. These Ohio communities can't understand why they are so buffeted by these trade winds that so often undermine their ability to make a living.

These trade agreements were originally negotiated by the Bush administration. I don't blame President Obama for that. But to the rest of the country, hearing the Obama administration talk about these trade agreements sounds like a continuation of the incoherent approach to America's engagement in the global economy that we saw with the Bush trade agenda.

Many of us on this floor have criticized the Bush trade policy. The Obama trade policy--I am a Democrat, he is a Democrat. The Obama trade policy is better than it was under the Bush trade agreement. The Obama administration has made these three trade bills a little better--at least Korea a little better than it was--a little better. The Obama administration has actually enforced trade laws when the Chinese cheat on tires, when they cheat on oil country tubular steel, when they cheat on glass, when they cheat on aluminum, when they cheat--not on glass; when they cheat on paper. We have made some progress.

There is a new steel mill in the Mahoning Valley in Youngstown, in large part, because President Obama enforced trade rules, trade laws with the Commission Department of the International Trade Commission. It is interesting, though. When the President went to Youngstown to talk about the opening of the steel mill, he talked about the Recovery Act, and the Recovery Act put some dollars and infrastructure around the steel mill, but he neglected to talk about trade policy, which he had enforced for these agreements. That is all behind us.

But these trade policies ignore the elephant in the room, which is our trade relationship with China. Last night, as I said, the Senate did the right thing on a strong bipartisan vote on Chinese currency. But, unfortunately, some of the opponents of cracking down-- unfortunately, I guess. Opponents of cracking down on China's currency manipulation are the same supporters of these trade agreements and, on both issues, respectfully, they miss the point. People have heard the same promises from NAFTA and CAFTA and China PNTR: Businesses promise more jobs from increased exports. Yet no one talks about the increased imports that pale in comparison.

So when I used to hear President Bush, Jr.'s predecessor, Bill Clinton, always talk about look how NAFTA and these agreements are increasing exports, well, they do increase exports, but they increase imports so much faster. It was President Bush, first, who said some years ago that for every billion dollars of trade, either surplus or deficit, it translated into 13,000 jobs. I don't know if that number is exactly correct--it probably is a little less than that now with inflation what a job is worth in dollars. But if $1 billion in trade surplus creates 13,000 jobs, that means $1 billion in trade deficits costs us 13,000 jobs.

So when I hear people say: Oh, these trade agreements, they are increasing exports, we have to tell the whole story.

It is akin to a sports reporter on the 11 o'clock news reading the baseball scores and saying: The Yankees scored seven runs tonight. That means maybe they won? Well, it turns out the Indians scored nine so the Yankees lost, which is a good outcome. But the fact is, when we are talking about trade, we don't just brag about exports. We have to look at what the value of the imports was too. We are not talking about that. No one likes to talk about the communities that are left cleaning up after a plant is abandoned, moved to somewhere else. No one likes to talk about the families who are devastated when the plant closes and they lose their jobs. Nobody wants to talk about what happens to our national security when a steel mill closes and the jobs go elsewhere.

To keep up, each month the economy must add 150,000 new jobs, just to keep up with population growth. There are 14 million who are unemployed and another 15 million who are underemployed or who have stopped searching for work. What do Korea, Colombia, and Panama trade agreements have to do with that? We did a great thing last night by standing up to China on currency, but then we are giving it away with trade agreements such as these that cost us jobs rather than increase jobs. I do not get it. A good week? It was not such a good week for international trade and for us creating jobs in this country.

Most people, when they think about trade, think about goods and tariffs, but these agreements are not just about tariffs. If they were just about tariffs, as I said, these agreements would be relatively short, a simple declaration of tariff rates. Instead, as I said, these agreements are hundreds of pages on procurement rules and financial services and investor-state dispute resolution. What does that mean? What it means is a whole lot of corporate lobbyists lobbied the administration--the Finance Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, the Senate and House committees that work on these things--and struck gold. It means these corporate lobbyists had their way in Washington again, that these corporate lobbyists never lose on these trade agreements. In the end, they almost always get their way, but it so much and in so many ways undermines our public interest and certainly undermines jobs.

These are complex agreements. They do not have to be that complex. But then some of my colleagues say we are falling behind when Brazil and Korea and the European Union sign trade deals. What they do not say is that these are not the same kinds of agreements. If they were just about lowering tariffs in a reciprocal way--but they are not--if they were not the United States giving away the store for a little access, if they were just about tariffs, as I said earlier, and strong labor standards, we probably would have had a voice vote and passed them already. But these are not the same deals Brazil or the European Union signs with Korea. Let me explain that for a moment.

The European Union-Korea agreement does not have investor-state dispute resolution. Most countries have strong legal systems, and the EU and Korean negotiators decided they did not need to create a new privileged process under the trade deal to resolve disputes. In other words, if Korea has a food safety rule and the European Union has a food safety rule, they do not have to come into conflict because they do not have this dispute resolution that we do in our agreements. Then what happens when it is food safety or product safety? Do you know what happens? The country with the weaker rules wins.

What these trade agreements with the investor-state provisions-- something the Europeans and Brazilians didn't do with Korea--with these provisions, it means we are weakening food safety laws, weakening consumer protection laws, weakening the kind of sovereignty that I thought people--particularly conservatives in this body--cared about.

When an investor can challenge a law in Korea or the United States under the special privilege process, outside the normal legal system, it can have the effect of chilling nondiscriminatory safety rules. But having a special privilege system outside the normal legal process is exactly what some companies want in these trade deals. In other words, if a company in the United States cannot find a way--if they are unsuccessful at lobbying the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the President, unsuccessful in weakening consumer protection measures or undermining a food safety rule, if they have been unsuccessful doing that directly here, through these trade agreements they are able to do that.

If Panama has weaker rules on investor protections, has weaker rules on financial consumer protection, weaker rules on food safety laws, then, through these trade agreements, it gives these corporate interests a back door to weaken our safety rules.

We fight like crazy around here to have strong consumer protections, to have safe pharmaceutical rules, to have good, strong pharmaceutical safety rules. We fight for those things, but then we are going to allow these trade agreements to undermine that.

These agreements affect investment dynamics and corporate decisionmaking. They affect how a company makes decisions in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, so these are important long term for these companies. Yet Congress has a few hours to debate these and vote up or down, with no amendments. These agreements are permanent. They affect the flow of goods and services on a permanent basis across the world for decades to come. These agreements are hundreds of pages, and here we are fitting them into the workweek, voting them up or down. The vote tonight is at 6:30.

I don't hear Rush Limbaugh, I don't hear the Washington Post, I don't hear others--conservatives on the other side of the aisle say: I can't believe you are jamming this through so fast, which is what they said on health care, which took months and months. They jammed this through in 48 hours, but that is OK because it is a trade agreement, even though it is this long and nobody has read it. I am almost sure that there is not one Senator out of 100 and maybe none in the 435 in the House of Representatives who actually read this bill. And this is the least consequential. This is the Panama trade agreement. This is not Korea, which is much bigger. This is not Colombia, which is significantly bigger. Yet we decided it is OK to fit this because fast track--the way we do trade agreements--has a whole special set of rules.

In my mind, nothing I know of in this body has this special set of rules that trade agreements get. They have to be debated quickly. There is a time limit once they are sent up by the President. There is no hold allowed on a trade agreement. There is no filibuster allowed on a trade agreement. There is no 60-vote threshold. There is a 60-vote threshold on confirming a Federal judge out of Toledo, OH. There is a 60-vote threshold on an Under Secretary of Interior. There is no 60- vote threshold on an agreement of hundreds of pages that will last forever with the Republic of Panama or Colombia or Korea, no 60- vote requirement, no hold, none of the rules of the Senate that might slow this down. Do you know why? Because these are chock-full of special interest provisions that every insurance company and drug company and bank can get their way and get this in permanent law. No scandal there, not with that. We will do it on every other bill but not trade agreements.

Two things, and then I want to close with a story.

Think about what fast-track authority does. I want to pursue that with a little more detail, about how we have these special rules in the Senate only for trade agreements, for nothing else.

First of all, with fast-track authority, in addition to having rules in the Senate that are very different from other rules in order that these pass quickly, we also delegate authority to the executive branch--something we normally don't do. We allow the executive branch to set the substance of the negotiations. The executive branch is only required to notify Congress 90 days before signing the agreement. The executive branch writes the implementing legislation for each trade pact without the committees of jurisdiction having actual markups. In other words, it circumvents the normal committee process. Once the executive branch has submitted the bill, we have to vote for the implementing bill within 90 days. The votes in both Chambers are highly

privileged. Normal congressional floor procedures are waived, including unanimous consent. Debates are limited, and no amendments are allowed. The result is that Congress is given little time. In the present case, the Senate has 4 hours to debate each agreement.

I am amazed. I mean, where are the conservatives in this country who said: Don't give Barack Obama so much power. You just did when you passed this. Why? Because it is a trade agreement. The rules are always different. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, said his No. 1 goal in 2011 and 2012 is to make sure Barack Obama is a one-term President. We don't want to give him any power, we want to criticize him on everything--except, Mr. President, we would like to give you this, and you do whatever you want on these special trade agreements. Just the hypocrisy here on trade is beyond belief.

Let me close with what I think may tell the story of the importance of how we practice trade around the world. Some years ago, I flew into South Texas at my own expense, rented a car, and with two friends crossed the Texas-Mexican border just to follow up on what had happened with NAFTA. This was the mid- to late 1990s. I wanted to see how NAFTA was working out for the United States and Mexico along the border where there were so many manufacturing plants.

Right near the border, there was an auto plant, a GM plant. This GM plant looked just like a General Motors plant, not much different from Lordstown near Youngstown, not much different from the GM plant in my hometown of Mansfield, which unfortunately is now closed, not much different from any other auto plant. It was modern, the floors were clean, great technology. But there was one difference between the two plants, one major difference: The GM plant in Mexico didn't have a parking lot because the workers were not paid enough to buy the cars they made. That may tell you something.

I didn't do this, but go around the world, and in Malaysia, in the Motorola plant, the workers didn't get paid enough to buy a lot of the Motorola electronics they made. Then go back to Central America and go to Costa Rica, and the workers in the Costa Rica Disney plant were not making enough to buy the toys for their children that they made. Go to China, go almost anywhere in the world in these developing countries where we either have trade agreements or where our trade policy has such impact, where companies in the United States shut down--never in world history have companies in one country, to the degree they do here--they shut down in the United States and move to China, move to Mexico, move to Malaysia, move to Indonesia, and then they sell their products back to the United States.

How do you build a country's wealth when you do that? And the reason they do is because these workers in Mexico who are building cars, in Malaysia making electronic equipment, in Costa Rica making Disney toys--these workers don't share in the wealth they create. They are not making enough from the jobs they do to buy the things they make.

The beauty of our system and what has made the United States a prosperous country with a strong middle class is--partly because of unions, partly because of democracy--is our workers typically earn enough that they can buy the products they make. In other words, if the workers are creating wealth for the company, for their bosses, they get paid enough, they can extract enough of that wealth that they can have a decent standard of living. Not in Mexico, China, Malaysia, or many of these countries that are part of this free-trade regimen.

Let me take you to one more place on this little tour around the world. Let me take you to a midwestern meatpacking plant. Most of these meatpacking plants were union plants. They had very little turnover. Workers were making very good wages, and they were safe, by and large, because the workers had demanded safety and the U.S. Government had enforced it.

Well, what has happened in the last 10 or 15 years in these meatpacking plants is the union has been busted. Many of the workers are immigrants. They are immigrants who--probably some of them are not legal, but certainly these immigrants who are there are not about to form a union. They do not speak English, sometimes, very well. They are not so certain they are going to be able to stay in this country. They are just not going to speak out. They are hardly ever going to talk back to their boss and will never form a union.

Here is what happened. It used to be in those plants--pardon me if my numbers are not precise here because it has been a while since I thought about this--it used to be in these meatpacking plants that the workers would stand there, they would have the vinyl aprons and a sharp knife because they were processing beef, and the carcasses would be hung on the big hooks, and the carcasses would slowly go by, about 150 an hour, something like that. So these workers would be standing there and they would make their cut as the carcasses went by slowly, 150 an hour. After they busted the union, they sped up the line. When it is 150 an hour, that is about the right speed for them to do this work. They almost doubled the speed of the carcasses as they went by, and two things happened: Workers had to hurry, so they were more likely to hurt themselves because they would aim the knife, and because it was moving fast, they might end up glancing off the bone and cutting their leg. The other thing that would happen is workers were much more likely to drop their knives, quickly pick them up, wipe them on their apron, and go back to work. Here is the interesting thing. The line had sped up to 300, more or less, an hour. On Thursdays they slowed the line back. Do my colleagues know why? Because Thursday was the day these meatpacking companies were shipping those carcasses, that processed meat, to Europe, and Europe has higher food safety standards than the United States does. So if these workers could work fast, and if they dropped the knife and wiped it off, the meat might get a little contaminated. That is OK for U.S. food safety standards, but the Europeans, who had higher food safety standards, said, We are not buying your beef unless you slow the line down and make it safer.

That is what globalization would be. It is not just workers in Mexico who can't buy the cars; it is not just Motorola workers in Malaysia or Disney workers in Costa Rica who can't buy the products they make; it also undermines our food safety and drug safety and consumer protection.

These agreements are not trade agreements. They are special interest laws that never see the light of day because of the peculiar rules of the Senate.

We should be ashamed of ourselves for passing these agreements, period, and especially passing them under these provisions. I hope the administration learns something from this. I hope the administration decides, on these trade agreements, instead of being on the side of the largest corporations in the country and in the world, which don't always look out for American interests--I hope the administration and the Members of the House and Senate will decide they want to be on the side of American families, of American communities, of American workers, of American small companies that make goods and want to sell all over the world.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I rise to speak against this agreement. This, my friends, is the Panama trade agreement. There are 1,600 pages. If we want to get rid of tariffs and level the playing field, we would pass about three pages of tariff schedules and build in labor rights so that all of us would pass this by a voice vote.

This is 1,600 pages of rules to help insurance companies, to help drug companies, to undercut America's sovereignty. It is based on the same NAFTA trade model that doesn't work with investor-state relations. The same promises we hear in every trade agreement--the Clinton administration and the first Bush administration promised 200,000-plus jobs for NAFTA. We lost 600,000 jobs.

Vote no on Panama. It is more of the same. It doesn't work for America and small businesses, and it doesn't work for our workers.

I ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, this is the same story. This is Panama's agreement, but Colombia's is even longer--hundreds and hundreds of pages of rules.

I admire the Colombian people. They are our allies, but the Colombian Government not so much. Colombia remains the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist. There were 23 trade unionists killed in 2011, and 51 were killed in 2010. What is happening to them is working. Over the past 20 years, unionization rates in Colombia have been cut in half.

When you threaten trade unionists, when you actually murder them, of course, unionization rates are going to go down. The Labor Action Plan commits the Colombian Government to get better, but what we are doing by a ``yes'' vote is rewarding promises, as we always do in trade agreements. But we are doing nothing to establish and enforce concrete results.

If you care about human rights, if you care about workers having the ability to freely organize and collectively bargain, you will vote no on the Colombian trade agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, nearly 10 years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, every one of us in the Senate knows America continues to face threats of terrorism. Our allies know this, as well. The President's dogged pursuit and success earlier this month against Osama bin Laden does not mean we can become complacent or less vigilant. We must remain vigilant and ensure the men and women of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have all the appropriate tools necessary to protect our Nation and the American people. But as every Vermonter knows, tools are only useful if they are regularly checked and maintained. Otherwise they become blunt instruments that can do harm, rather than accomplish the job.

Congress recognized this basic notion in 2001, when we first wrote the USA PATRIOT Act. I worked with the then-Republican House majority leader, Dick Armey to include sunsets on certain surveillance authorities in the bill. Even though we had vastly different political philosophies, we both agreed we had to have sunset provisions. In 2006, when Congress reauthorized the USA PATRIOT Act, I worked to ensure that certain sunsets were renewed, and added audits on the use of powers with the potential to unnecessarily intrude on the privacy of Americans. We should not give a blank check to anybody--whether it is a Republican or Democratic administration. We are, after all, Americans who believe in our individual liberties.

Having granted the Government broad authority to gather vast amounts of information about the daily lives of Americans, I wanted to do what we could to ensure that unfettered information gathering did not occur at the expense of Americans' basic constitutional rights and civil liberties. The sunsets and audits provide Congress an opportunity to examine whether the PATRIOT Act tools are being used appropriately, and if not, to sharpen, refine, or restrain those tools accordingly.

The audits we added in 2005 or 2006 proved to be very helpful because they identified that there were abuses in the way the PATRIOT Act was being used, specifically with respect to national security letters and the use of ``exigent letters.'' Without this oversight, we probably never would have found out about those abuses. But we found out about them and we worked with the FBI to correct those matters.

That brings us to today. The Senate has the opportunity to reexamine and redefine key PATRIOT Act provisions, and I think we should take that opportunity to make improvements to our

current law. That is why I have led the Senate Judiciary Committee to diligently consider these matters through a series of hearings and meetings. The committee responded by reporting improvements, both last year and again this year, through bipartisan legislation. They are good measures, and we have worked to ensure that they would not compromise the effectiveness of our law enforcement and intelligence capabilities. In fact, much of the language was derived after consultation with the administration, including the intelligence community.

The Attorney General and others have repeatedly assured us that the measures to enhance oversight and accountability--such as audits and public reporting--would not sacrifice ``the operational effectiveness and flexibility needed to protect our citizens from terrorism'' or undermine ``the collection of vital foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information.''

In fact, the Attorney General has consistently said the bill passed out by the Senate Judiciary Committee struck ``a good balance'' by extending the PATRIOT Act authorities while adding accountability and civil liberties protections. For additional detail and legislative history, I refer Senators to the Senate report on the bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee this year, Senate Report No. 112-13.

I ask unanimous consent that a December 9, 2010, letter from the Attorney General to me making these points be printed in the Record, along with a February 19, 2010, letter from the Director of National Intelligence to House leaders.

Unfortunately, the bill now before the Senate merely extends the expiring authorities to June 1, 2015. Regrettably, these authorities have not been refined since 2006. If that remains the case through the extensions that are contemplated by this bill, it will amount to 9 years of this law without any legislative improvement. I think most of us understand that we can do better. The amendment I have filed seeks to change that by improving the PATRIOT Act.

I appreciate the efforts made by the majority leader to craft a compromise. I am sorry that the Republican leadership in Congress has insisted on an extension of authorities without any improvements. The amendment I have filed and wish to offer along with Senators Paul, Cardin, Bingaman, Coons, Shaheen, Wyden, Franken, Gillibrand, Harkin, Durbin, Merkley, Boxer, and Akaka, makes significant improvements to current law, promotes transparency, and expands privacy and civil liberties safeguards.

I ask unanimous consent to have a sectional analysis of the amendment printed in the Record.

One of the improvements Congress should make is to repair a constitutional infirmity in the current law. Three years ago, in Doe v. Mukasey, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the nondisclosure provision of the statute authorizing issuance of national security letters was constitutionally defective. If we do not make a change, that constitutionally defective part of the national security letter provision would remain. As part of the comprehensive set of reforms in the bill reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, I proposed a simple statutory fix that would enable the FBI to obtain the information it needs, while addressing the constitutional concerns. In fact, this proposal has never been controversial. In fact, during the last Congress, Senator Sessions and Senator Bond, the ranking Republicans on the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, cosponsored a bill incorporating the very legislative remedy I proposed.

This is a straightforward matter that needs to be fixed. The underlying bill does not fix the problem; our amendment would. I trust Senators would not want to proceed to vote on an unconstitutional law, one that violates our fundamental charter as a nation and, of course, the liberty of all Americans. No one who claims to honor the Constitution should proceed in so cavalier a manner. If we are to restore the constitutional underpinning of the NSL authority, the Senate should adopt this needed improvement.

I am also troubled by the refusal of the Republican leadership to agree on periodic audits on the use by the government of PATRIOT Act surveillance authorities. When I speak of the Republican position, I want to mention that this is not uniform within the Republican Party, as there are many Republicans who believe we should have these audits. Basic transparency and accountability are vital to ensuring that the government does not overstep its legal authority. We grant many authorities to our government, but we should do so with the confidence that if the Government oversteps its authority, Congress has the power to bring it back in line. In fact, it is only because of the audits that were mandated by the 2006 PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill that the American public became aware of some of the abuses and misuses of the national security letters, which were significant.

Without that public accountability and congressional oversight, the FBI would not have made improvements to its system of tracking NSL issuance. Because of those audits, we are more confident today that FBI agents are following proper procedures for obtaining private information about Americans--rather than improperly using ``exigent letters'' to circumvent the rules, or using Post-it Notes to keep track of records. Yet the underlying bill omits audits and public reporting; our amendment includes important audit requirements and public reporting to provide accountability and protect Americans' rights.

No one can seriously contend that audits by the inspector general of past operations present any operational concerns to law enforcement or intelligence gathering. Audits do not interfere; they provide accountability and ensure that government follows the rules.

Mr. President, you and I and 98 other Members of this body have to follow the rules. Certainly, those in law enforcement should have to follow the rules, as well. These audits have been demonstrated to be vital oversight tools, and they should be incorporated into the law. The language in our amendment is the product of more than a year and a half of extensive negotiations with Republicans and Democrats, the intelligence community, the Department of Justice. This year, the Senate Judiciary Committee bill won the support of Senator Lee. Last Congress, a virtually identical bill received the votes of Senators Kyl and Cornyn and was reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Senate. The bipartisan amendment we seek to offer is a reasonable package of reforms that preserves the ability of the government to use the PATRIOT Act surveillance tools, while promoting transparency, accountability, and oversight.

I have often said that the Senate should not shirk its duty to reexamine carefully and critically the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. We should consider ways to improve the law consistent with our core constitutional principles. That is what I have tried to do. That is what Vermonters expect. I intend to vigilantly guard Americans' privacy and civil liberties, while doing all I can to keep all Americans secure. That is what we expect in Vermont, and I must assume that is what we expect in the other 49 States. Without a single improvement or reform, without even a word that recognizes the importance of protecting the civil liberties and constitutional privacy rights of Americans, the underlying bill represents a missed opportunity. Let us provide our law enforcement and intelligence professionals with the tools they need and give these professionals the security and certainty they need to protect our Nation. But let us also at the same time faithfully perform our duty to protect the constitutional principles and civil liberties upon which this Nation was founded and on which the American people depend.

The vast majority of the 300 million Americans in this great country are law-abiding, honest men and women. We should protect against arbitrarily lumping them all into the category of potential lawbreakers, or enabling the government to search homes or businesses without proper reason. We fought a revolution in this country to stop that from happening, and it is no different today.

One of the things that has kept us so strong as a nation is our ability to protect the individual rights of all Americans. We can go after the lawbreakers, just as we got Osama bin Laden, while at the same time protecting the principles of our country. We must not let the terrorists win by compromising our own rights and liberties in this country. The terrorists who seek to harm us would certainly take away from all of us--women and men alike--the constitutional rights we hold dear. We must not allow that.

The American people expect us both to protect our rights and to keep us safe, and I believe our amendment does just that. That is why I hope all Senators will support the Leahy-Paul amendment.

Exhibit 1

Washington, DC, December 9, 2010.

Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Leahy: This responds to your letter of March

17, 2010, which asked the Department of Justice to consider

implementing administratively certain enhanced civil

liberties protections that were included in S. 1692, the USA

PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act, as reported by the Senate

Judiciary Committee.

In my letter of November 9, 2009, I expressed strong

support on behalf of the Department for the bill as reported,

which would reauthorize several important Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorities while

enhancing protections for civil liberties and privacy in the

exercise of these essential national security tools.

The bill would reauthorize section 206 of the USA PATRIOT

Act, which provides authority for roving surveillance of

targets who take steps that thwart FISA surveillance; section

215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which provides authority to

compel production of business records and other tangible

things with the approval of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Court (the FISA Court); and section 6001 of the

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which

provides authority to target with FISA searches or

surveillance non-United States persons who engage in

international terrorist activities but are not necessarily

associated with an identified terrorist group. Earlier this

year, Congress acted to extend the expiring authorities until

February 28, 2011. As that date approaches, I strongly urge

that Congress again take action to ensure that these

provisions remain in force.

Assuming these authorities are reauthorized, the Department

has determined that many of the privacy and civil liberties

provisions of S. 1692 can be implemented without legislation.

Indeed, in a number of instances, we have already taken steps

to do so. I am confident that these measures will enhance

standards, oversight, and accountability, especially with

respect to how information about U.S. persons is retained and

disseminated, without sacrificing the operational

effectiveness and flexibility needed to protect our citizens

from terrorism and facilitate the collection of vital foreign

intelligence and counterintelligence information.

National Security Letters

Your letter seeks our response regarding several matters

related to National Security Letters (NSLs): notification to

recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest the

nondisclosure requirement; issuance of procedures related to

the collection, use and storage of information obtained in

response to NSLs; retention of a statement of specific facts

that the information sought is relevant to an authorized

investigation; and increased public reporting on the use of

NSLs.

You will be pleased to know that as of February 2009, all

NSLs are required to include a notice that informs recipients

of the opportunity to contest the nondisclosure requirement

through the government initiated judicial review. In most

cases, this notice is automatically generated by the NSL

subsystem. Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide

(DIOG) 11.9.3.E. The FBI also will ensure that in any case in

which a recipient challenges a nondisclosure order, the

recipient is notified when compliance with the order is no

longer required. Thus far, there have been only four

challenges to the non-disclosure requirement, and in two of

the challenges, the FBI permitted the recipient to disclose

the fact that an NSL was received. If and when the volume of

such requests becomes sufficiently large that solutions

beyond ``one-off' notifications are required, the FBI will

develop appropriate policies and procedures to notify the

recipient when non-disclosure is no longer required.

I also am pleased to report that I approved Procedures for

the Collection, Use and Storage of Information Derived from.

National Security Letters on October 1, 2010, and these

procedures have been provided to the Judiciary and

Intelligence Committees. The FBI's current practice is

consistent with the procedures and the FBI is working on

formal policy to implement them. In addition, DOJ and ODNI

will shortly complete work on a joint report to Congress on

NSL ``minimization'' as required by the PATRIOT

Reauthorization Act of 2005.

As to the information retained internally in connection

with the issuance of NSLs, it is current policy for the FBI

to retain a statement of specific facts showing that the

information sought through NSLs is relevant to an authorized

investigation. DIOG Sec. 11.9.3.C.

The Department appreciates the desire of the Committee for

enhanced public reporting on the use of NSLs. Accordingly,

although the FBI cannot provide information regarding

subcategories of NSLs in a public setting, it will continue

to report publicly the aggregate numbers of NSLs on an annual

basis and will evaluate whether any additional information

can be publicly reported.

Section 215 Orders

Your letter also raises a number of matters related to

section 215 orders. You seek assurances that the government

will not rely on the conclusive presumption in section 215

and will present the FISA Court with a complete statement of

facts sufficient to show relevance of the tangible things

requested to an authorized investigation. It is current FBI

practice to provide the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Court with a complete statement of facts to support issuance

of an order. The FBI is reviewing the DIOG to determine

whether changes need to be made to reflect this practice.

With respect to section 215 records that contain bookseller

records, or are from a library and contain personally

identifiable information about a patron of the library, we

are prepared to require a statement of specific and

articulable facts as would have been required under S. 1692,

and to notify Congress should it become necessary to change

that practice.

You ask the Department to issue policy guidance providing

that certifications accompanying applications for section 215

nondisclosure orders must include an appropriately thorough

statement of facts that sets forth the need for

nondisclosure. I am pleased to report that this is current

FBI practice, and the FBI is reviewing the DIOG to determine

whether revisions should be made to reflect this practice.

You also ask the Department to institute guidelines to

require court-approved minimization procedures for section

215 orders and pen register and trap and trace (PR/TT)

devices. Minimization procedures are already required by

statute in relation to section 215 orders. 50 USC

1861(b)(2)(B). The proposal to extend this requirement to PR/

TT orders is intended to apply only to certain intelligence

collection activities. Procedures governing these operations

are currently in effect, having been proposed by the

government and approved by the FISA Court.

Finally, you ask the Department to consider providing an

annual unclassified report on the use of FISA authorities and

the impact on privacy of United States persons. I believe

that providing greater transparency regarding the U.S.

government's exercise of FISA authorities is an important

objective, and will show the care taken by officials to

implement and comply with constitutional and statutory

requirements to protect the privacy of United States persons.

Although the Department has concerns that there may be little

additional information that can be provided in an

unclassified format and that such unclassified information

could be unintentionally misleading, we are prepared to work

with the committee and our partners in the Intelligence

Community to determine whether there is a way to overcome

these difficulties and make additional information publicly

available regarding the use of these authorities.

Taken together, I believe these measures will advance the

goals of S. 1692 by enhancing the privacy and civil liberties

our citizens enjoy without compromising our ability to keep

our nation safe and secure.

I hope this information is helpful. The Department stands

ready to work with Congress to ensure that the expiring FISA

authorities are reauthorized in a timely way.

Sincerely,

Eric H. Holder, Jr.,

Attorney General.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak for a couple of moments about the three pending trade agreements that the Senate is considering, those with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. I wish to start by highlighting what I believe the American people are most concerned about right now--certainly the people I represent in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Wherever I go, other than sending us a message that they want us to work together to solve problems they confront in their lives, the No. 1 issue, the No. 1 priority in terms of the work we can and should be doing, and thankfully are starting to move forward on, is a series of steps to improve the job market and to reduce the unemployment rate.

As we have so often said, we have more than 14 million Americans out of work. In Pennsylvania, we were on the way last year of lowering the rate of that number substantially. We went from approaching 600,000 people out of work to going below 500,000. Now, unfortunately, the number has shot back up to above 500,000 people out of work. So the No. 1 issue, bar none, is jobs, and that is why this debate about trade and these agreements is so important.

Jobs are the key consideration for Americans. They should be the key consideration for us, and they are, in short, the biggest challenge we have. So we need to ask a series of questions, and I have at least three major questions about these trade agreements, but all center on that issue of jobs.

We have had a series of debates in the last couple of weeks which I think have been pretty instructive on both jobs and on efforts to achieve bipartisanship. We had a significant period of time we spent on trade adjustment assistance legislation. I was one of the leaders of that, and, thankfully, we were able to pass trade adjustment assistance to help workers who are displaced by unfair trade and, in many cases, have tremendous challenges getting from here to there--getting from a position of joblessness because of unfair trade to training and education and preparation for a new job or a new career.

We also just completed a debate about China's currency policy. We know our recent history proves that when China cheats on its currency, which it has over a long period of time, we lose American jobs. So the Senate spoke in a loud voice, in a bipartisan way, to indicate that we are overdue. It is long past time to get tough with China. If they are going to cheat, there will be consequences when they cheat on their currency. So we have had some interesting debates, and we have focused on jobs and we have focused on working together.

Finally, let me make a point before I get to the three basic questions I have. The Joint Economic Committee, which I chair, released a report today, and the report is entitled ``Nowhere to Go: Geographic and Occupational Immobility and Free Trade.'' It is dated today, October 12. I commend to my colleagues this report by the Joint Economic Committee. I won't go through the whole report, but here is the conclusion of the report itself:

Given the already high national unemployment rate and

depressed home values still evident in most states, policies

that seek to liberalize trade may impose even larger costs

on--

older workers and workers who don't have a college education, therefore--

bolstering the need for additional investments in training or

other forms of trade-adjustment assistance.

So when people lose their jobs as a result of unfair trade and because of the ravages of what happens in the international marketplace, what happens to an individual, to a company, and to a community, if they are older workers and if they don't have an education level that is commensurate with allowing them to adjust and to be able to respond to those dramatic changes, they will be much worse off. I think that is why these trade agreements are so important to debate.

We have limited time for debate and we have limited time for full consideration, but I think we are going to have a number of hours to put some questions on the table. The first question I have is will these trade agreements protect and create jobs in Pennsylvania, the State I represent, and across the country?

We know manufacturing is the core or probably the most important part of our job creation analysis. If we are making things, producing goods, engaged in advanced manufacturing, in new manufacturing--that we are seeing all over the country--if we are doing that at high levels and with big job numbers, we are moving in the right direction. But, unfortunately, economic policies and trade policies have inhibited and badly damaged our ability to create manufacturing jobs.

I know in Pennsylvania manufacturing is especially critical to what is still the largest source of jobs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--that sector of our economy. The benefits to manufacturing jobs, of course, extend beyond individual companies, individual businesses. The economic benefits of a strong manufacturing sector are experienced throughout the economy. They have a ripple effect, multipliers beyond just that company.

In Pennsylvania, according to research commissioned by the Pennsylvania Industrial Resources Centers, for every $1 increase in demand for products manufactured in this country, that leads to a gain in gross value to the economy overall of $2.52. So $1 in by way of manufacturing and $2.52 in return.

Furthermore, manufacturing jobs create and support middle-income families. We know the wage level is higher and, therefore, those families can benefit tremendously. In 2008, the average annual compensation of a worker in the manufacturing sector was over $65,000. The average pay for the rest of the workforce was $10,000 less. Each good-paying job in the country allows for more money to flow back into the economy. We know that.

Given the importance of protecting these critical manufacturing jobs, we must ask ourselves: Will the trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama create jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is no. All we need to do is look at the history. This is not theory. All we need to do is look at recent history.

Trade-related job expansion has been, unfortunately, an unfulfilled promise to the people of Pennsylvania and across the country. In 1993, the United States entered into the so-called NAFTA agreement, North American Free Trade Agreement, which promised to deliver hundreds of thousands of jobs across the United States. Those gains were not realized, especially in a State such as Pennsylvania. From 1993 to 2002, 525,094 workers were certified as displaced under NAFTA, according to the Department of Labor.

Overly optimistic job creation estimates were not the only flawed projection. At that time, leaders suggested that NAFTA would expand demand for American exports. That never came to be. In 1993, the United States had a small trade surplus with Mexico. Let me say that word again: We had a ``surplus'' in our trade with Mexico. By 2010, just 17 years later, according to Census Bureau statistics, we had amassed a trade deficit of $66.4 billion with Mexico. Our trade relationship with Canada tells the same story--a widening trade deficit from $10 billion in 1993 to $28.5 billion in 2010.

So we know and everyone knows this, that a trade deficit does lead to job losses. In Pennsylvania, we have seen a dramatic decline in manufacturing employment since NAFTA was implemented, losing a total of 308,100 manufacturing jobs. That is one State in that time period; so more than 300,000 jobs lost just in Pennsylvania.

With this experience, we need to take a close look at the government's projections for the pending agreements that are before us right now. While the International Trade Commission predicts our bilateral trade with Korea will improve--that is the assertion--the total U.S. trade deficit is predicted

to get larger which, if past experience is any gauge, will mean job losses, not job gains.

According to the International Trade Commission, the agreement with Colombia means--and I am quoting--

There is likely to be minimal to no effect on output or

employment for most sectors in the U.S. economy.

That is according to the International Trade Commission.

About the Panama agreement, the same commission concluded that the impact of the Free Trade Agreement ``would likely be small because of the small size of the Panamanian market relative to total U.S. trade and production.''

Simply put, even the always optimistic International Trade Commission does not see these agreements as job-creating measures. That is question No. 1, a direct question on jobs.

Question No. 2: Will this agreement create a level playing field? I would assert the answer is no to that question.

Panama, while a very small economy, has one advantage to lure foreign investment. It remains a tax haven for companies that incorporate within its borders. As recently as 2009, Panama was listed on all major tax haven lists maintained by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the so-called OECD; Global Forum on Taxation; the National Bureau for Economic Research; and the Internal Revenue Service. While the tax information exchange agreement signed since then may address these issues, this same organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, has yet to evaluate whether Panamanian law will allow for effective enforcement pursuant to these agreements. Given the lack of definitive progress, I am concerned that the Panama trade deal remains silent on this very basic issue.

Let me move to the question of what happens as it relates to Colombia on this basic question about a level playing field.

Additionally, as it relates to Colombia, despite efforts to move that country toward a regime that tolerates workers' rights, Colombia remains one of the most dangerous places in the world for union workers to be working. While it has been greeted with great fanfare, nothing in the so-called labor action plan negotiated between the United States and the Colombian Government--nothing--has required Colombia to establish a measurable system for enforcement of these labor rights prior to ratification or implementation of the agreement. In fact, Colombian companies can skirt many of the provisions in the so-called action plan--for example, by forcing new hires to sign a pledge offering higher salaries based upon a number of conditions, including not joining a union.

Given the weakness of this plan, it is not surprising that violence against union workers remains commonplace in Colombia. Twenty-two union members and organizers have been killed in Colombia this year. Six Catholic priests known for working for the rights of the poor have also been targeted for assassination this year, leading the Catholic Bishops Conference of Colombia to call for protection of its clergy. Imagine that: union workers and priests needing protection in a country such as Colombia.

Additionally, a June 8 study by the International Trade Union Confederation condemned the ongoing problems for labor organizers in Colombia.

One simple comparison speaks volumes. In total, 49 union members were murdered in Colombia in the year 2010--49 people. All other countries combined had 41 killings of this kind. I do not think that needs any more emphasis.

I am going to move now to a couple of comments as they relate to this level playing field question as it relates to South Korea.

We had a long debate and a good debate and a good consensus on a bipartisan basis as it relates to China's currency policy. I believe we took a positive step forward in passing through the Senate a bipartisan bill to get tough with China when they cheat on their currency.

All the while, we did not say much about another country that has had currency problems, and that is South Korea. We know they have their own record on currency, and I am troubled by South Korea's currency manipulation over time. They devalued their currency at least in very specific time periods that we are aware of at least twice--once in 1998 and once in 1988. In fact, the most recent Treasury ``Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies''--a long name for a currency report--this report is dated May 27, 2011. It noted that South Korea intervened ``heavily'' in its currency market during the financial crisis and has continued uninterrupted since. So it has a history, but we also have current information, current evidence, recent evidence that South Korea has been intervening heavily in its currency market. Treasury urged--urged--South Korea to ``adopt a greater degree of exchange rate flexibility and less intervention.'' I think we could get a little tougher than that, be a little more direct and maybe have some consequences, but that is the extent that Treasury is willing to go.

So as we debate a trade agreement with a major country such as South Korea, we ought to know something about their currency policies, especially in the aftermath of bipartisan currency legislation as it relates to China.

I am pleased the Senate has passed this currency legislation this past week, and we are all hoping the House of Representatives will move quickly to consideration and passage of the currency legislation. But we should not be entering into a trade agreement with South Korea at a time when we know their currency policies are at best suspect and I think worse than that.

Finally, let me lead to the last question of the three. The third question I have is: Does the agreement provide new opportunities for manufacturers in Pennsylvania as well as other States to export their goods?

The benefits of the agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama have been, in my judgment, overstated, while the risks have been largely ignored. Rather than opening a new market for Pennsylvania farmers or Pennsylvania manufacturers, I fear the benefits to the United States are likely to be minimal at best.

There are specific reasons the South Korea deal fails to deliver for Pennsylvania exporters as well. First, the most recent benefits are based upon an overly optimistic projection for agriculture. These projections, compiled by supporters of the agreement, assume that a cut in tariffs will immediately equal a growth in market share. We know from past experience that Asian markets, including South Korea, have come up with a host of unjustified nontariff restrictions to keep U.S. goods, particularly beef, out of their country. These barriers to free trade are likely to limit export potential and are largely unaddressed in the agreement.

There are other troubling clauses, as well, dealing with, in this case, the beef industry. The South Korea agreement will allow American beef packagers to use Canadian or Mexican cattle and then export the packaged Mexican and/or Canadian beef as ``American'' beef. This policy, while great for beef packagers, undercuts U.S. ranchers.

Another problem with the Korea deal is which goods will qualify for the ``Made in South Korea'' designation or sticker. Which will qualify for that? And therefore, if they have that, they are allowed to enter the U.S. duty free. Under the rules of origin in annex 6-A of the agreement, 65 percent of the value of many goods, including automobiles, shipped duty free to the United States can come from outside--just imagine this--outside of South Korea and still be considered ``Made in South Korea.'' That defies description. It is internally inconsistent at best, and it is contradictory for sure. This standard is lower than the European Union agreement, where only 55 percent of content can be foreign and once again places our companies at a comparative disadvantage to international competition. Furthermore, this policy opens the door for products primarily made from Chinese parts to enter the United States duty free. That makes no sense at all.

Earlier I posed these questions. The first I posed was: Will these agreements create a substantial number of new jobs? They will not. If previous agreements are any indication at all, the South Korea, Colombia, and Panama agreements will not create jobs in the

way they are projected to and will, in fact, lead to job losses, especially in manufacturing.

The second question: Will the agreements help create a level playing field? They will not. The agreements fail to address critical issues such as violence against union members, as well as currency manipulation by, for example, South Korea.

The third question: Does the agreement provide new opportunities for American manufacturers to export? Proponents have overstated the benefits. Certain industries and firms are likely to benefit for sure, while others will not.

While it is clear that in its failure to address nontariff barriers to trade, the agreement leaves American firms unprotected on an unlevel playing field.

Finally, based upon this set of questions and, more importantly, the answer to those questions, I will vote against the agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

It is my job as a Senator from Pennsylvania to fight for Pennsylvania jobs, and for too long the needs and the concerns of the jobs of Pennsylvania's workers have been last on the list when it comes to trade agreements. The fact is that past trade agreements have failed Pennsylvania and our workers, and I refuse to support new foreign trade agreements without reasonable debate and adequate answers for the questions that I pose and especially as it relates to jobs and the impact on workers.

Instead of moving ahead quickly with what is a broken model, we need to focus on the biggest picture: formulating a strategy that helps American manufacturers, that leads to job creation, and that creates a stronger middle class. We need a trade policy in the United States of America. We do not have one right now. We need one that is bipartisan in nature.

To make real, sustained progress, Washington needs to have a strategy. We must develop and commit ourselves to a national manufacturing strategy as part of a trade policy that includes job- creating trade agreements, not job-killing trade agreements. Manufacturing is the heart and soul of our Commonwealth and our country. Our future's success depends upon developing policies that allow our people to create jobs and compete in the global production of goods. I know our workers are up to it. If we give them the tools and the agreements and the policies to do just that, they will outcompete anybody in the world, any country in the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am happy to rise today to speak about the three trade agreements that are working their way over to the Senate. At a time when unemployment is over 9 percent and we have over 14 million Americans out of work, it is past time for us to take up these three important agreements. These agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama are going to create jobs and put Americans back to work. That is why it is so important we move, and move on a bipartisan basis, to get them done.

With 95 percent of consumers living outside of our borders, we need to proactively help American workers, farmers, and service providers sell their products all around the world. The President himself has said that repeatedly. Just last month he came to Ohio and said he wants to be sure more products are stamped with the three proud words ``Made in America.'' I couldn't agree more.

One way to do that is to get these trade agreements done. Finally, we have the opportunity to vote on them. This will help us to gain market access for U.S. workers to about 100 million consumers.

Unfortunately, while these agreements have been sitting on the shelf for over 4 years, our workers, our farmers, and our service providers have lost market share. They have fallen behind because other countries have completed agreements, and their workers and their farmers, their service providers have gained market share that

we should have had. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, by waiting for 4 years to take up these agreements, American workers have lost over $12 billion in wages.

So I am glad the agreements are here. They should have been here sooner. Again, this, to me, should be a lesson that we learn as a Congress, a Senate. We need to have more agreements, and we need to have them negotiated constantly on behalf of our businesses and our workers.

While we have waited for the President to submit these agreements to Congress for a vote, other countries have moved forward and have gained footholds in other markets. The European Union and Korea, along with Canada and Colombia, have negotiated, completed, and put into force their own trade agreements they started to negotiate after we were done with ours. In other words, we finished our negotiations, they then began negotiations, they ratified their agreements, and they are now in effect taking market share away from us.

We have seen the U.S. market share be reduced in Colombia and in Korea because of these agreements. A good example would be our exports of agricultural products to Colombia. We have seen them drop from 70 percent of the market for corn, wheat, and soybeans to less than 30 percent of the market just since we completed the agreement with Colombia. Because, again, the President did not send these agreements forward for ratification, we have been on the sidelines while farmers in my State and around the country have lost out.

We are falling behind in Korea too. When we started discussing an agreement with Korea, the United States was Korea's biggest trading partner. Since then we have slid down the ladder, with China, Japan, and the Europe Union jumping ahead of us. According to the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, in just over a decade, our share of Korea's goods imports has fallen from 21 percent of their market to 9 percent of their market, while China's share of the Korean market has increased from 7 percent to 17 percent. We are now at 9 percent; China is now at 17 percent. This has happened, again, since we began negotiations or discussions about negotiations with Korea. By standing still we are still allowing China and our competitors to get a leg up in this crucial Asian market.

According to the President's own metrics, these three agreements together will create over 250,000 new jobs. Conversely, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, if we fail to move forward on these agreements, we would lose 380,000 jobs--again, because we would lose market share that we already have to these other countries that are negotiating agreements while we sit on the sidelines.

The nonpartisan U.S. International Trade Commission says these three agreements will increase U.S. trade exports by nearly $13 billion each year.

When I was the U.S. Trade Representative, I had the privilege of launching the Korea agreement, actually in a room right next to the Chamber. This agreement is called KORUS. I did so with Korean Trade Minister Kim in February of 2006. At that time, many people said this agreement would be very difficult to negotiate. Some criticized us for launching it thinking this economy was too big, to complicated, that we would not be able to get a meaningful agreement. We took the chance because we saw the incredible potential for trade liberalization, and it would drive greater economic growth in the United States and U.S. job creation--and also because of the importance of the alliance with the Republic of Korea.

It turns out the skeptics were wrong, and we now have before us this week, in the Senate, to vote on the largest free-trade agreement, largest export agreement this Congress has looked at in almost two decades.

Korea is a vital market for U.S. exports already. It is America's seventh largest trading partner, and their economy is now growing by more than 6 percent per year.

KORUS eliminates tariffs on over 95 percent of U.S. exports of industrial and consumer goods to Korea within the first 5 years of the agreement. The agreement's intellectual property rights provisions contain stringent protections for American intellectual property-- extremely important to some of our service companies and other exporters. This gives American companies additional access to Korea's $850 billion services market.

America has a large services trade surplus, actually, in services right now, both globally and with Korea, and this agreement will allow American service companies that are the best in the world to expand and sell more products to a country of more than 48 million people.

KORUS is supported by the United Auto Workers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many other business and export-related groups. Let me read an excerpt, if I could, from the United Auto Workers' statement earlier this year about the Korean agreement. The UAW said the Korea agreement and related auto provisions ``will protect current American auto jobs . . . will grow American auto industry jobs . . . includes labor and environmental commitments, and . . . has important enforcement mechanisms.''

The KORUS agreement opens an important market for American farmers and ranchers as well. According to the International Trade Commission, KORUS will expand American agricultural exports by $1.9 billion to $3.8 billion per year. In my own State of Ohio, KORUS, along with Panama and Colombia, will increase Ohio's agricultural exports by nearly $55 million annually--just to Ohio.

KORUS will eventually phase out the 40-percent Korean tariff on U.S. beef and will immediately eliminate the 5-percent Korean tariff on soybeans, resulting in a $3 million annual increase in Ohio soybean exports. Soybeans are the biggest export crop in Ohio. In fact, 1 of every 2 acres of soybeans in Ohio is planted now for export.

KORUS also opens the door for American manufacturing jobs. In Ohio over 25 percent of manufacturing jobs now depend on exports. Over $31 billion of U.S. manufacturing goods were exported to Korea last year. In fact, Korea was our fastest growing export destination in the world, with a 37-percent increase over 2009. When American-manufactured goods are exported to Korea, they face an average tariff now of about 9 percent. With passage of this agreement this 9-percent tariff will fall to zero and in most cases immediately. However, due to this agreement we talked about earlier between the European Union and Korea going into force about 100 days ago, on July 1, EU exports to Korea are now on the rise because 90 percent of their goods can now enter Korea duty free. Again, it is important we move forward, and move forward quickly, to avoid losing more American share which is difficult for us to regain.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote an editorial recently entitled, ``Korea Free Trade Deal Will Help U.S. and Ohio.''

The piece talked about the benefits of the Korean agreement, particularly for manufacturers and autoworkers. The editorial concluded by saying:

Trade can help drive recovery. This deal with a longtime

ally will help.

They are right.

Another important agreement is the U.S.-Colombia trade promotion agreement. Colombia is a growing economy in Central and South America, to which the United States exported over $121 million in goods last year. This agreement with Colombia is a clear victory for U.S. workers. Due to preference programs that are already in place, nearly 90 percent of the exports from Colombia to the United States have entered our market tariff free. So we largely have a one-way free-trade agreement with Colombia already. Due to these preference programs, this agreement will be a huge benefit to U.S. workers and U.S. businesses, because U.S. exports to Colombia have faced an average tariff of about 14 percent. So, historically, 90 percent of their goods come in duty free while ours face much higher tariffs when they enter Colombia. This isn't fair trade, and this agreement will fix that. It will assure that the one-way trade that advantages Colombian exports instead of American exports is balanced.

The agreement will lower the 14-percent average Colombian tariff to zero, allowing over 80 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial products exported to Colombia to become duty free immediately. The agreement also immediately eliminates duties on about 70 percent of U.S. farm exports, including

soybeans, wheat, barley, flour, and beef.

The Colombia agreement also establishes new transparency rules on nontariff barriers to trade; in other words, not a higher tariff, but other barriers in the country, so-called nontariff barriers, that keep our products out.

Further, it establishes new commitments on the environment and labor, an area on which Colombia is improving and proactively addressing.

The agreement also protects U.S. intellectual property with enhanced protection for copyrighted entertainment products, software, and U.S. trademarks.

Finally, we have an important agreement with Colombia's Latin American neighbor, Panama, another key ally to the United States. Panama is one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America. Last year, $46 million worth of Ohio goods were exported to Colombia. Panama is a vital strategic partner for the United States, since nearly two- thirds of the Panama Canal's annual transits are either from or to U.S. ports.

Moreover, the ongoing $5 billion Panama Canal expansion project presents unique opportunities for American exporters such as Rockwell Automation, which employs nearly 3,000 Ohioans. At Rockwell's Twinsburg facility in northeast Ohio, they produce controllers and automation systems that open and close the doors of the Panama Canal's locks and divert the water. They are bidding on more work in Panama. However, they say they are currently working with one hand tied behind their back because their competitors have an advantage in Panama, because we don't have a trade agreement. So this Panama export agreement will help companies such as Rockwell by cutting tariffs, protecting their intellectual property, and giving them more investment certainty.

Upon entry into force, Panama will immediately eliminate its tariffs on over 87 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods and on more than half of U.S. agricultural exports. Eighty-five percent of U.S. exporters to Panama are small and medium-sized companies. That is over 7,000 American small and medium-sized companies that export to Panama and will thus benefit from this agreement.

Let me speak about a couple of Ohio products that are exported to these markets. The Step2 Company, headquartered in Streetsboro, OH, is the largest American manufacturer of preschool and toddler toys. They employ over 800 Ohioans. They like to export to Korea and Panama, and they want to take advantage of these agreements. Lincoln Electric's 3,000 employees in Euclid and Mentor export welding products and equipment to Korea, Colombia, and Panama from northeast Ohio. These agreements don't just help Lincoln Electric export more, they also will help Lincoln's customers export more.

Another Ohio company is PRO TEC Coating, a U.S. Steel joint venture company located near Findlay. PRO TEC Coating employs about 250 Ohioans and creates steel that meets the most demanding specifications of U.S. automakers. The Korean agreement will open a big potential market for U.S. auto exports, which will help companies throughout the automotive supply chain to be able to get more business, and PRO TEC Coating is one.

Gorilla Glue, one of my favorite named companies in Cincinnati, OH, my hometown, has over 100 employees and they export their premium line of adhesives and tapes to Panama, Colombia, and Korea. They want this agreement because they will be able to expand their exports and create more jobs in Cincinnati.

While these agreements bring large economic benefits, those responsible for our national security also recognize the geopolitical benefits of building economic ties with key regional allies. In testimony earlier this year before the Senate Armed Services Committee, GEN Douglas Fraser, who is Commander of U.S. Southern Command, described the Colombian agreement as ``a very positive, beneficial aspect for our cooperation because of a growing capacity to support the capabilities of the armed forces and law enforcement.''

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly support these agreements, noting the importance of an effort that leverages all elements of national power to protect our interests overseas. Secretary Panetta confirmed the role these increased economic ties have on promoting regional security, with Colombia as a prime example of a key ally in a continent with ever changing political dynamics. When it comes to international economics and security, there is no question of the critical role Panama plays. With 20 percent of our trade to Asia passing through Panama, building on this historically strong relationship will signal our commitment to engaging with Central America.

When President Obama submitted these agreements to Congress last week, he said, ``The agreements I am submitting to Congress today will make it easier for American companies to sell their products in South Korea, Colombia, and Panama and provide a major boost to our exports. These agreements will support tens of thousands of jobs across our country. . . .''

While these agreements are late, the President is right. These are important job-creating and export-opening agreements. They have strong support from Members of both parties and, more importantly, they are supported by American workers and businesses.

Again, the lesson we should learn here is that we need to give the President the authority he has yet to ask for to negotiate further agreements. Because in these last 4 years while these agreements have been pending, while the President has not sent them during his administration--and prior to that when President Bush was blocked by the House from moving them forward--we have not been negotiating additional agreements. I am told there are over 100 bilateral trade agreements being negotiated right now. The United States is not a party to any of them. That is not acceptable because we are losing out. Our workers, our service providers, and our farmers are losing out and we will not have the sustained recovery we all hope for unless we engage more in these international markets.

I wish to commend so many in this body who have been patient, persistent, and even passionate in promoting these agreements over the years. When I was U.S. Trade Representative, I worked closely with then Chairman Grassley, with Chairman Baucus, with Senator Hatch, and others on the Finance Committee to promote these agreements. Those Senators are to be commended today. We will hear a lot from Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch, I am sure, about the importance of these agreements, but I want to underscore the key role they played even early on in ensuring that these agreements could be here before us today.

I commend the staff of the Finance Committee, who have worked tirelessly over the years to ensure that we could be here with this opportunity today. Other Senators played a key role--Senator Blunt, Senator Kerry, and others whom I should be naming but I am not--to make sure we have this opportunity to move our country forward by enacting these agreements.

Finally, I wish to thank the dedicated staff at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative who make these agreements possible. Again, I had the privilege to lead this nimble and effective agency, comprised of remarkable public servants who relish the agency's mission, which is to knock down barriers to U.S. products so we get a fair shake. They balanced this challenge with aggressively enforcing our international trade laws, which is also part of the mix. We need to both expand exports in open markets and ensure that trade is fair, and that we are enforcing both the international standards and U.S. laws with regard to trade. They do it very well. Without our negotiators' commitments to resolving some of these very complex and sometimes controversial economic issues, we would also not be here today. So I commend them. For all of those professionals with whom I have had the honor to serve and for those who are there now serving under Ambassador Ron Kirk, who has also been a strong promoter of these agreements, I thank you for your efforts.

Finally, I urge my colleagues who are on the fence--and some of them have talked to me--to take a strong look at the economic and geopolitical benefits of these agreements. We don't do much around here that is bipartisan these

days. Yet we have a country that is crying out for it. This is an example of where we can come together as Republicans and Democrats, realizing that for 14 million Americans out of work, we need to move our economy forward. This is a clear example of where we can indeed take steps that are bipartisan, where we have a consensus to be able to create jobs and opportunity in the United States of America.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Let me begin by concurring with much of what the Senator from Pennsylvania has said. I think he is right-on. Like him, I rise today in strong opposition to the unfettered free-trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama. Let's be clear. One of the major reasons why the middle class in America is disappearing and why poverty is increasing and why the gap between the very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider is directly related to our disastrous, unfettered free-trade policy. If the United States is to remain a major industrial power, producing real products and creating good-paying jobs, we cannot continue the failed, unfettered free-trade policies that have been in existence for the last 30 years.

We need to develop trade policies--I know this is a radical idea-- that work for working people and not just the CEOs of large corporations. What we must do is rebuild our manufacturing sector and once again create millions of good-paying jobs where workers are producing real products made in the United States of America.

Over the last decade, more than 50,000 manufacturing plants in this country have shut down. Let me repeat that. In the last decade, more than 50,000 factories in this country have shut down. Over 5.5 million factory jobs have disappeared.

Back in 1970, 25 percent of all jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs, often paying workers a living wage, decent benefits, pensions. Today, that figure is down to just 9 percent.

In July of 2000, there were 17.3 million manufacturing workers in this country. Today, there are only 11.7 million.

According to a recent study conducted by a well-respected economist at the Economic Policy Institute, permanent normal trade relations with China has led to the loss of 2.8 million jobs. In fact, the United States has lost an average of about 50,000 manufacturing jobs per month since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

I was in the House of Representatives when PNTR with China was passed. I can remember all of the fine speeches from the President on down, Republicans, Democrats: Permanent normal trade relations with China is going to open up that great market, going to create millions of jobs in America. It was not true. Free trade with China ended up costing us 2.8 million jobs. You don't have to be an economist to understand that; all you have to do is walk into any department store in America and buy a product. Do you know where that product is made? It is not made in the United States of America, it is made in China.

We all now understand what that trade agreement was about. It was not to open markets in China for American products, it was to open China so corporations in this country could shut down here, throw American workers out on the street, and move there in order to pay workers pennies an hour. That is what those trade agreements are about. There is no doubt in my mind that--certainly to a much lesser degree because they are smaller trade agreements--trade agreements with Korea, Panama, and Colombia will continue that same process.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has reported that over the last decade, U.S. multinational corporations slashed 2.9 million jobs. Now the biggest advocate of unfettered free trade, of NAFTA with Mexico, of PNTR with China, of these trade agreements, is corporate America. It is the chamber of commerce, it is the National Association of Manufacturing. They spend huge sums of money on lobbying and campaign contributions in order to make Congress vote for these great trade agreements.

Let me repeat. Over the last decade, these very same corporations that want us to pass these disastrous trade agreements slashed 2.9 million American jobs. Furthermore, what we have learned is that during that same period of time--and here is the kicker--these same corporations have created 2.4 million jobs. The only problem is that those jobs were created in China, Mexico, and other low-wage countries.

What we have here is that key advocates for continuing this disastrous trade policy are precisely the people who have been slashing jobs in America, closing down factories, and hiring people abroad. And I would suggest that Members of the Senate might want to think twice about listening to the advice of people who have been laying off millions of American workers.

Oddly enough, again we have one of the leading advocates for these disastrous trade agreements--it is the chamber of commerce. Well, some years ago, the chamber of commerce, to its credit, was pretty up front. They said outsourcing is a good idea. They recommended to American corporations: Shut down in America and move abroad. It is good for your stockholders.

Do you really want to take the advice of people who believe that outsourcing and throwing American workers out on the street is a good idea? I do not think so.

Today we are hearing all of this talk about how these trade agreements are going to create new jobs. We heard it before. It is the same old movie. The American people understand it is a bad movie. It is an unfactual movie.

During the Clinton administration, we were told by Republicans and Democrats and then-President Clinton that NAFTA would create 100,000 American jobs over a 2-year period. That is what we were told about NAFTA. Well, results are in on 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.

I do not understand why, when you have a policy that has failed and failed, you want to continue that policy. Football teams that have coaches with losing records get rid of those coaches. When you have a trade policy that has

resulted in millions of American workers losing their jobs, you do not continue that same philosophy.

The issue here is not just Mexico and NAFTA, it is not just PNTR with China, it is obviously what is going to happen with the trade agreements that are before us today, Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

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 7-year period. Why would you want to go forward with those ideas? Why would you want to go forward with a trade agreement that will increase our trade deficit?

President Obama has estimated that the Korea Free Trade Agreement will support at least 70,000 American jobs. But the headline of a December 7, 2010, article in the New York Times says it all: ``Few New Jobs Expected Soon From Free-Trade Agreement With South Korea.'' According to this article, the Korea 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.''

Let me touch on one particular aspect of the Korea Free Trade Agreement that I find especially troubling and that I think the American people, to the degree they understand this and learn about it, will also find troubling; that is, this particular free-trade agreement will force American workers to compete not just against the low-wage workers in China or Vietnam or Mexico, they are going to be forced to compete against the virtual slave labor that exists in North Korea, the most undemocratic country in the world and a country itself whose government will financially benefit from this, with the dictatorship of Kim Jong Il.

We all know that under current law the United States has an embargo on all North Korean goods--for a very good reason. Workers in North Korea are the most brutalized in the world, have virtually no democratic rights, and are at the mercy of the most vicious dictator in the world. But after the South Korea Free Trade Agreement is signed into law, the United States would have a new obligation to allow South Korean products to come into our country tariff-free that contain major parts made by North Korean workers who make pennies an hour.

According to a January 2011 report from the Congressional Research Service, ``There is nothing to prevent South Korean firms from performing intermediate manufacturing operations in North Korea and then performing final manufacturing processes in South Korea.'' In other words, there is a huge industrial park in North Korea. South Korean companies own that park. Workers there are paid horrendously low wages, and some of those wages go right to the North Korean Government. Products made in that industrial park in North Korea will go to South Korea and then will come back into the United States as part of that so-called free-trade agreement.

Today, over 47,000 North Korean workers currently are employed by more than 120 South Korean firms, including Hyundai, at the Kaesong Industrial Complex in North Korea.

This facility is located just 6 miles north of the demilitarized zone, with direct road and rail access to South Korea and just an hour's drive away from Seoul.

These North Korean workers officially make a minimum wage of 35 cents an hour, but they actually make less than that.

Instead of paying these workers directly, Hyundai and the other South Korean firms pay the North Korean Government. How is that? South Korean companies--major companies--pay the North Korean Government. They take a piece of the action, which is going to the most undemocratic, vicious dictatorship in the world. The products then go to South Korea, and they are part of the free-trade agreement with South Korea.

In 2007, Han Duck-soo, who was then the Prime Minister of South Korea and is the current South Korean Ambassador to the United States, said this:

The planned ratification of the South Korea-U.S. free trade

agreement will pave the way for the export of products built

in Kaesong [North Korea] to the U.S. market.

So what we have now is American workers being forced to compete against desperate people all over the world, who are making a tiny fraction of the wages that are paid in America, and forced to compete against countries where there are no environmental standards, where worker unions are not recognized or respected.

But now it gets even worse. American workers are now being forced to compete against the virtual slave labor in North Korea as part of this trade agreement.

What about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement? It is understandable why the CEOs of multinational corporations would like this free-trade agreement. After all, Colombia is one of the most anti-union countries on the planet.

Since 1986, over 2,800 trade unionists have been assassinated in Colombia--more than the rest of the world combined. Think about it for a moment. If we found out that 50 CEOs had been assassinated in Colombia last year instead of trade leaders, do you think we would be on the verge of approving a free-trade agreement with that country? Frankly, I don't think so.

Lastly, let me say a brief word about Panama and the Panama free- trade agreement. Panama's entire economic output is only $26.7 billion a year or about two-tenths of 1 percent of the U.S. economy. Nobody can legitimately claim that approving this free-trade agreement will significantly increase American jobs.

Then why would we be considering a stand-alone free trade agreement with Panama? It turns out that Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade U.S. taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. The Panama Free Trade Agreement will make this bad situation much worse.

Each and every year, the wealthiest people in our country and the largest corporations evade about $100 billion in U.S. taxes through abusive and illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and other countries.

According to Citizens for Tax Justice:

A tax haven . . . has one of three characteristics: it has

no income tax or a very low rate income tax; it has bank

secrecy laws; and it has a history of non-cooperation with

other countries on exchanging information about tax matters.

Panama has all three of those. . . . They're probably the

worst.

Let me conclude--and I will be back on the floor later to amplify on these remarks. I will conclude by saying this: If you go out to any community in America and you ask the people in those communities-- especially working people--do you think our current free-trade agreements, such as NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China, have worked, and have they been creating jobs in your community or have you seen factories shut down, I suspect that in almost every instance people will say these free-trade agreements are not working for American workers. They are costing us jobs.

That is what the American people understand to be true because it is true. So it seems to me that when you have a history of failed trade policies--policies that have enabled and encouraged large corporations to shut down in this country and move abroad, it is insane to continue that policy if you are serious about creating jobs in America, rebuilding our manufacturing sector, and trying to address the crises facing the middle class today.

We need new trade policies. Trade unto itself is a good idea. Everybody believes in trade. But you need trade policies that are designed to help ordinary working people and not just wealthy CEOs.

I feel very strongly that the policies we are debating today--trade policies with Korea, Panama, and Colombia--are nothing more than extensions of disastrous trade policies of the past. They should be defeated. We should come together and develop new approaches to trade, which will benefit all our people and not just CEOs or multinational corporations.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I always enjoy the Senator's remarks. However, I cannot quite agree with the thrust of his statement.

In my view, the current trade policies in this country are a disaster. The evidence is very clear that they have cost us many millions of jobs and to continue that same unfettered free-trade philosophy, in terms of trade agreements with Korea, Panama and Colombia, makes absolutely no sense at all. When we have a policy that is failing, we change it; we don't continue it.

Let us be very clear. I think most Americans understand that our economy today is in disastrous shape. Our middle class is disappearing. Recent statistics have told us poverty levels are at an alltime high, and the gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider.

In my view, one of the reasons--not the only reason--for the collapse of the middle class has to do with the loss of millions of good manufacturing jobs, attributable to these disastrous trade policies. If we are serious as a nation in wanting to rebuild the middle class, lower our poverty rate, what we have to do is move forward in a new direction in trade, based on fair trade principles, and end this unfettered free trade, which has been such a disaster for American workers.

Over the last decade, we as a nation have lost 50,000 manufacturing plants in our country. I will repeat that because that is such a staggering number that it needs to be said over and over. Fifty thousand manufacturing plants in this country have shut down over the last 10 years alone. We have lost, during that same period, 5.5 million factory jobs. Many of those jobs were good-paying jobs. They were jobs that provided people with good wages and good benefits. Those jobs are gone and, in many cases, have been replaced by Walmart and McDonald's- type jobs, with low wages and minimal benefits.

To give us a sense about how significant the decline of manufacturing in this country is, the reality is, in 1970, 25 percent of all jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs. Today, that number is just 9 percent. In July of 2000, there were 17.3 million manufacturing workers in this country. Today, there are only 11 million manufacturing workers. In my small State of Vermont--which is not as big as Ohio or Michigan and has never been one of the great manufacturing centers in the country, but even in a small State such as Vermont, what we have seen is a huge decline in good-paying manufacturing jobs, which have certainly impacted our middle class.

Mr. President, 10 years ago, we had approximately 45,000 manufacturing jobs in Vermont. Last year, we had 31,000 manufacturing jobs in Vermont. We have lost about one-third of our manufacturing jobs. I should tell everyone that 7,800 of those jobs were lost as a result of the trade agreement with China and another 1,300 were lost as a result of NAFTA.

The key issue is whether we continue our disastrous trade policy, which includes NAFTA, permanent normal trade relations with China, and CAFTA. Do we add on to trade policies that have failed? For the love of me, I cannot understand why anybody would want to do that.

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 well-respected economists at the Economic Policy Institute, permanent normal trade relations with China led to the loss of 2.8 million American jobs--2.8 million American jobs. I remember because I was in the House when that debate took place. I heard the same thing then as I hear now--Members of Congress getting up and talking about all the new jobs that were going to be created. It wasn't true then and it is not true now.

How could we defend a trade policy based on the same principles as