Providing for consideration of (H.J. Res. 27) withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by mentioning that this is a tripartisan resolution, and I want to thank our cosponsors: the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). I thank them very much for their support.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any great illusions that this resolution will win today. When the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) offered it 5 years ago, it only received 56 votes. I hope, however, that as many Members as possible will vote for it today for one simple reason. It is time to send the Bush administration a message and a wake-up call that our current trade policies have failed and need to be completely rethought so that they represent the needs of the middle class and working families of our country and not just the CEOs of large corporations.

Mr. Speaker, international trade is a good thing, if implemented properly, but the evidence is overwhelming that our current trade policies, including NAFTA, including permanent normal trade relations with China, and the current roles of the WTO are not working for average Americans, they are not working for the environment, and they are not working for human rights. If we do not fundamentally change those policies, we can only expect more of the same.

The WTO was signed in 1995, and our current support of unfettered free trade has gone on for some 30 years. And what has been the result of those policies for the middle class of this country? Let us discuss it.

In a period in which technology has exploded, in a period in which worker productivity has significantly increased, we would think that the middle class would be better off.

But the economic reality today is that what every American knows is that the middle class of this country is collapsing. Poverty is increasing, and the gap between the rich and the poor is wider today than at any time since the 1920s. Are our disastrous trade policies the only reason for this? No. But they are an extremely important part of that equation, and that is for sure.

Mr. Speaker, in 1995 when the WTO was established, our trade deficit was $96 billion. Today our trade deficit is a record-breaking $617 billion and is on pace to become $700 billion next year. Our trade deficit with China alone is $162 billion.

Mr. Speaker, while some of my colleagues are going to extol all of the wonderful virtues of unfettered free trade, perhaps they can explain why in the last 4 years alone we have lost 2.8 million good- paying manufacturing jobs, one out of six in this country. One out of six in the last 4 years. In my own small State of Vermont, we have lost 20 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the last 5 years. Many people know

that General Motors has just announced they are going to lay off another 25,000 American workers. GM is producing cars in China, and there is some reason to fear that in 10 or 20 years, Detroit and automobile production in this country will be diminished as car manufacturing moves to China.

When my friends come up here and they tell us how great free trade is for our economy, I want them to explain why real inflation accounted for wages in the United States today is 7 percent lower than they were in 1973 for the bottom 90 percent of workers. And why is it that million of workers today in Vermont and throughout this country are forced to work two or three jobs just to keep their heads above water if free trade and globalization are all so great?

When my friends talk about the so-called robust economy that has been created, perhaps they can explain to us why 4 million more Americans now live in poverty than just 4 years ago, 4 million more Americans in poverty; and why incredibly there are 24,000 fewer private sector jobs now than when George Bush first took office. If our trade policies are so successful, how could we have experienced an unprecedented net loss of private sector jobs over the last 5 years? The only new net jobs that have been created by the Bush administration have been government jobs, 917,000 of them. Maybe the Republican Party is becoming the party of big government and creating government jobs, but certainly it has not been private sector jobs that free trade is supposed to create.

Today the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. The richest 1 percent of our population now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, and unfettered free trade has only made that worse. The gap between the rich and the poor more than doubled from 1979 to 2000. According to the Institute for International Economics, 39 percent of the increase in income equality is due to unfettered free trade.

Further and most ominously, if our present trade and economic policies continue, the likelihood is that the next generation will be the first in the modern history of the United States to have a lower standard of living than we do. According to a recent report from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor statistics, over the next decade, seven out of the 10 fastest-growing occupations will be low-paying, low-skilled jobs that do not require a college education. Is that what free trade is giving to our kids, jobs at Wal-Mart, jobs at McDonald's, while the General Motors jobs, the General Electric jobs are going to China?

Mr. Speaker, it is not only blue collar jobs that we are on the cusp of losing. Millions of white collar information technology jobs are also on the line to go to China and India. Andy Grove, the founder of Intel, predicts that the United States will lose the bulk of its information technology to jobs to China and India within the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line of this debate, and I want my friends to answer this, is that American workers should not be asked to compete against desperate people in China who make 30 cents an hour and who go to jail when they stand up for their political rights. That is not what we should be engaged in. The race to the bottom has been a disaster for the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My good friend mentioned what has happened since China has joined the WTO. I think he has neglected to mention that our trade deficit with China has soared, that millions of jobs have left the United States to go to China.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire again as to how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) who has been leading this Congress in opposition to the disastrous CAFTA agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains for either side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

To begin with, at a time when there is so much animosity and partisanship in this body, I am very pleased that what we have brought forth together is a true tripartisan effort.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for cosponsoring this amendment and, as I think most people know, that covers a very, very broad spectrum of political thought.

Mr. Speaker, some have argued against this resolution by saying it

would be a disaster if it were passed, that we would be withdrawing from the international economy, but the reality is that what we are trying to do here is not to withdraw from international trade. Trade is a good thing. What we are saying is let us send a message to the President of the United States to wake up and to fully recognize that our current trade policies are an unmitigated failure and that we have got to renegotiate them. We cannot continue on the policy of the race to the bottom. That has got to change.

Some of my friends say what we are talking about is international rules, and of course we are talking about international rules. The problem is that the rules within this WTO are rigged against the middle class of America. If the United States Congress said, wait a second, we are going to pass a law because we think it is unfair that slave labor in China is producing a product that is exported to the United States, or that child labor around the world is competing against American workers, we will be ruled incorrect by the WTO. A complaint will be waged against us saying, gee, why are you protesting slave labor or child labor? You are violating international free trade.

Another issue that has not been touched on today, a moral issue, which is very important, when I was mayor of the City of Burlington in the 1980s, we passed, as did cities throughout the country, as did the United States Congress, legislation which said to the apartheid regime which had then imprisoned Nelson Mandela, we are going to impose trade restrictions against an apartheid regime. Mr. Speaker, if that occurred today, if the City of Burlington, Vermont, the State of Vermont, the United States Congress, said we want to bring down economically some type of fascistic government running the country, that country would go to the WTO and the WTO would say, gee, you are in violation of free trade agreements. It does not matter the morality of the issue. The only thing that matters is unfettered free trade.

Mr. Speaker, what my friends on the other side of this debate have really failed to discuss is the impact of the unfettered trade policies that we have been developing over the last 30 years. You have not heard them say really one word about that. Yes, they have talked about economic growth that is taking place in America, but they forgot to tell you who was benefiting from that economic growth. They have forgotten to tell you that for the average American worker his or her wages have gone down significantly in the last 30 years.

Yes, the wealthiest people in this country are making out like bandits. Yes, there has been a doubling in the gap between the rich and the poor. That is true. Yes, CEOs of large corporations make 400 times what their workers make. Is that the free trade agreement that we are fighting for?

The reality is, and they know it, Republicans know it, Democrats, conservatives, progressives, when going back to their district. In my State in the last couple of months, I had to talk to workers whose jobs are gone because those companies could not compete against imports coming in from China where workers are paid 30 cents an hour.

I would yield a moment to my friends on the other side if they want to tell the American people that they think it is fair that our working people should have to compete against desperate people working for pennies an hour who go to jail when they stand up for their rights. I would yield to the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman from Maryland, or anyone else who wants to tell me now that that is fair. I do not hear anybody saying that it is fair.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Taking back my time, and I thank the gentleman. He says that it is unfair. But we have had this trade agreement, we have been in the WTO for 10 years. We have had a Democratic President. We have had a Republican President. If it is unfair, why is the President of the United States not going to the WTO tomorrow? Why did Bill Clinton not go? I do not want to be partisan here. Why did neither of them go? And they are not going to go.

The issue here is that these trade agreements have been forced on Congress, not forced, Congress willfully did it, because of the power of big money. It is no secret. Some of us who were here for NAFTA, some of us here for the China agreement, we know the millions and millions of dollars in campaign contributions and huge lobbying effort on the part of the large corporations. Because the truth of the matter is that while unfettered free trade is a disaster for the middle class and working families of this country, it really does benefit the heads of large corporations. They are, in fact, doing very well.

We see General Electric, General Motors moving to China. That is not a good thing for Americans.

Let me conclude simply by saying, Mr. Speaker, let us send the President of the United States a message. Let us say that our current trade policies are failing. Let us stand up for working families around the country. Let us pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 304, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 27) withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 27, the joint resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this morning the House considers the withdrawal of the United States from the World Trade Organization. I strongly oppose this resolution and urge my Members to join me in this opposition.

As a member of the World Trade Organization, the United States is one of 148 member countries. Our role in this global body is tremendously important, not only for the future of the United States trade but for the continuation of global trade liberalization.

As the world's leading economy, the largest economy that has ever been on the face of this earth, we all too often focus our attention on the aspects of trade we disagree with. When Members of Congress meet with our international counterparts, we spend a large amount of time discussing specific trade barriers and little time supporting the broad range of cooperation and successes that we may share.

Continued membership in the World Trade Organization will allow the United States the opportunity to continue cooperating as we work towards free trade benefiting United States consumers, farmers, manufacturers and firms.

Currently, the World Trade Organization is negotiating the Doha Round. Congress has been deeply involved with the administration as the Round continues to move forward. It is tremendously importantly that we remain active in these negotiations and push for a completed Doha.

Finally, I congratulate Mr. Pascal Lamy of France on his selection as the new World Trade Organization Director General. I am hopeful his abilities will enable the World Trade Organization to balance the concerns of its members. I look forward to working with him in the future.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is my strong view that the United States greatly benefits from our continued participation in the World Trade Organization.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A lot of astounding remarks have been made since I stood up here and introduced this resolution, in the negative. There are a couple of things I think we need to really talk about.

What has been the economic growth of the United States? How fast is our economy growing? It is growing at the rate of 4 percent. How fast is the economy in Europe growing? It is 1 percent. How fast is the European economy growing? It is 1 percent. The China economy is growing at 9 percent, but let us look at what that means. Nine percent of the Chinese economy is less than 4 percent of our economy. So I can say with all certainty that we have, in terms of dollars, the fastest growing economy in the world. No question about that.

And of this economy, what percentage is exports? It is 25 percent. Are we not concerned about those jobs? And when we talk about the loss of jobs in the United States, we are not talking about a net loss; we are talking about, yes, there has been some loss of jobs and, yes, a lot of these jobs have been because of foreign competition, yes. But our economy has grown in other areas, so it has also created jobs. If we look at just the jobless rate of where we are now and where we were a few years ago, we are doing pretty darn good. If we look at the world economy, we are doing really good.

So why would we want to send a message to the administration by attempting to throw the world economy into chaos? It makes absolutely, absolutely no sense.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Speaker, just one moment, I think, to respond to the gentleman who was just in the well, and that is in the 10 years that we have been members of the World Trade Organization, our environmental laws have never been challenged, have never been challenged, nor will they.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, so that no one listening to this debate is confused,

this vote has nothing to do with DR-CAFTA, it has nothing to do with free trade, it is simply are we going to continue as part of the World Trade Organization.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman in the well that of the 50 cases we have brought before the World Trade Organization, we have won 46 which is a 92 percent success rate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

There is quite a bit of ground that we have covered here this morning. One is that somehow CAFTA has been brought into this debate by a couple of speakers.

I would like to submit for printing in the Record a letter dated June 8, 2005, which was just yesterday, from former President Jimmy Carter to Mr. Bill Thomas, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, in support of CAFTA.

In this letter, he says, If the United States Congress were to turn its back on CAFTA, it would undercut these fragile democracies, compel them to retreat to protectionism, and make it harder for them to cooperate with the United States.

This is the type of bipartisan cooperation that we are about here today. It is important, I think, to realize that this resolution came before the Ways and Means Committee because we were required to take it up if it were to be filed under the law originally bringing us into the World Trade Organization. On both sides of the aisle, I believe I am correct on this, that the decision by the Ways and Means Committee to report this out unfavorably to the House, which we had to do procedurally, but to report it out unfavorably, I think, was unanimous on both sides of the aisle.

There is criticism as to what is happening, and some people would like to change some of the things within the framework of the World Trade Organization, but the Ways and Means Committee, I think, was very, very responsible.

Now the question of jobs and the economy has been raised, and China has been brought into this debate. China has got some problems with their currency and some things we need to do and their enforcement of their own laws. I will yield that ground to those that bring that criticism to us. But I think it is important to realize where those jobs are coming from or where those exports, who are the winners and losers with regard to the Chinese exports.

The Chinese exports are draining off the exports from Japan, Korea and other Pacific Asian countries. That is where those jobs are coming from. If you talk about and look at exactly the exports into the United States from that region of the world, you will see that it is fairly flat, not for China, but China is increasing its exports at the expense of these other countries.

The question has been brought into this debate as to the sovereignty of the United States. It is very clear to anyone, any of the lawmakers in this Congress, that Congress and the President make United States laws. The World Trade Organization cannot change laws either today or in the future. The World Trade Organization has no enforcement authority. It cannot impose fines, levies, sanctions, modify tariff rates or change the laws of any country. The only sanction for a violation of the World Trade Organization is that affected World Trade Organization

member, and that member country may in some cases impose retaliatory measures on trade of the country that violates the rules. But that is not enforcement by the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization agreement permits the United States to regulate and even stop trade to protect United States national security, public health and safety, natural resources and human rights. So we are not giving up any of our sovereignty by remaining in the World Trade Organization.

On the question of jobs and the exporting of American jobs, exports account for about 25 percent of the United States economic growth over the course of the past decade. Exports support an estimated 12 million jobs, and those workers' wages are estimated to pay 13 to 18 percent more on the average than nonexport jobs. United States exports directly support one in every five manufacturing jobs. Workers in most trade- engaged industries where combined exports and imports amount to at least 40 percent of their domestic industrial output earn an annual compensation package that is one-third more than the average compensation in the least trade-engaged sectors. A recent University of Michigan study shows that lowering remaining global trade barriers by just one-third would boost annual average family income by an additional $2,500.

So if you are interested in jobs, vote against this resolution. If you are interested in the economy and the growth of our economy of this United States, vote against this resolution. If you want chaos in world trade, vote for it, because that would exactly be what we would have. We would have total chaos. It would be the wild, wild west. I think that the only responsible vote here today for the American worker and the American economy is to vote no on this resolution.

June 8, 2005.

Hon. Bill Thomas,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

To Representative Bill Thomas: as you prepare for your

initial consideration of the Central American Free Trade

Agreement (CAFTA) with the nations of Central America and the

Dominican Republic, I want to express my strong support for

this progressive move. From a trade perspective, this will

help both the United States and Central America.

Some 80 percent of Central America's exports to the U.S.

are already duty free, so they will be opening their markets

to U.S. exports more than we will for their remaining

products. Independent studies indicate that U.S. incomes will

rise by over $15 billion and those in Central America by some

$5 billion. New jobs will be created in Central America, and

labor standards are likely to improve as a result of CAFTA.

Some improvements could be made in the trade bill,

particularly on the labor protection side, but, more

importantly our own national security and hemispheric

influence will be enhanced with improved stability,

democracy, and development in our poor, fragile neighbors in

Central America and the Caribbean. During my presidency and

now at The Carter Center, I have been dedicated to the

promotion of democracy and stability in the region. From the

negotiation of the Panama Canal Treaties and the championing

of human rights at the time when the region suffered under

military dictatorships to the monitoring of a number of free

elections in the region, Central America has been a major

focus of my attention.

There now are democratically elected governments in each of

the countries covered by CAFTA. In negotiating this

agreement, the president of each of the six nations had to

content with their own companies that fear competition with

U.S. firms. They have put their credibility on the line, not

only with this trade agreement but more broadly by promoting

market reforms that have been urged for decades by U.S.

presidents of both parties. If the U.S. Congress were to turn

its back on CAFTA, it would undercut these fragile

democracies, compel them to retreat to protectionism, and

make it harder for them to cooperate with the U.S.

For the first time ever, we have a chance to reinforce

democracies in the region. This is the moment to move forward

and to help those leaders that want to modernize and humanize

their countries. Moreover, strong economies in the region are

the best antidote to illegal immigration from the region.

In appreciate your consideration of my views and hope they

will be helpful in your important deliberations.

Sincerley,

Jimmy Carter.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me first point out to those who may be following this debate why we are here today. I am sure people are wondering why we have a resolution on the floor that would withdraw us from the WTO and how that comes to the floor from a recommendation of the committee of jurisdiction that it be reported unfavorably, that is, that we vote against this resolution.

The reason we have this resolution before us is that 10 years ago we passed legislation to gain access to the WTO. At that time Bill Clinton was the President of the United States. Congressman Gingrich thought it was important that because the legislative branch of government is the branch responsible for trade that there be a review process every 5 years as to whether we should remain within the WTO, to give Congress the ability to exercise its constitutional responsibility to oversight and be responsible for trade. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I must tell the Members I had certain concerns as to why we would want to have basically a nuclear option in pulling out from the WTO.

Today, I am pleased that we can review the WTO because I think it is important for us to have a debate as to where we are in the WTO. I would suggest, though, we should have a more sophisticated review process than just to vote to withdraw from the WTO. As the ranking Democrat on the Trade Subcommittee working with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), we very much oppose this resolution and urge the rejection of the resolution. We believe it is in the interest of the United States to be in a rules-based trading system and to withdraw from a rules-based trading system would be folly, it would be wrong. Do we need to improve it? Yes, we do need to improve the WTO. Can we strengthen it? Yes, we need to strengthen it.

Quite frankly, I think that we should be working more aggressively with our trading partners to enforce our existing trade rules. When we see the manipulation of currency by China and we take no action against it, that is wrong. When we see other countries infringe on our intellectual property rights and we do not enforce our existing rules to make sure that we do not allow the stealing of our intellectual property rights, that is wrong. When we see Europe provide subsidies for everything from aircraft to agriculture products and we do not take efficient action against them, that is wrong. When we do not enforce our own anti-dumping laws which are permitted to be enforced to stop the surge of products into this country, that is wrong.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do think we need to strengthen these laws, but it would be wrong for us to withdraw. We want a rules-based system, but we want to strengthen that system.

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I think we should be spending more time talking about the Doha Round. That is the next stage of trying to move internationally under the WTO to expand opportunity for American manufacturers, farmers, and producers. The so-called Doha Development Agenda negotiations have reached a critical phase. It is generally agreed that in order to have a successful meeting of the ministers this December in Hong Kong, the members of the WTO will have to come to a significant level of agreement by July on three key areas.

First, agriculture. I must tell the Members I am concerned we have not made anywhere near the progress on agriculture that we need to do. I welcomed the announcement last week that the next director-general of the WTO will be Pascal Lamy, the former trade commissioner of EU, who comes from France. Obviously, Mr. Lamy will have a special burden to demonstrate that he can make progress in this area where the European Union has been so outrageous in its subsidies. We need to narrow that gap. We will wait to see whether, in fact, that can be accomplished.

The second area is in manufactured goods. There are two challenges here: tariff reductions particularly by the advanced developing countries and the elimination of the so-called nontariff barriers, the NTBs. And in both of these areas, much work remains to be done if we are going to have a successful Doha Round. I am particularly concerned about the negotiations on the NTBs which lie far behind at this time. This is a critical area for U.S. manufacturing, particularly in large markets such as Japan, Korea, and China.

And, finally, in the area of services, we are far behind where we should be in expanding opportunity for services by U.S. companies in other markets. I hope that our negotiators will be able to make up for lost time in the next couple of months so that an ambitious services package will be approved in Hong Kong.

There is one other area I want to mention, Mr. Speaker, as we review our participation in the WTO, and that is the dispute settlement system. The dispute settlement system is absolutely critical to a successful WTO. I must tell the Members I have major concerns as to how the dispute resolution system is working within the WTO. Under the old GATT system, silence in an agreement meant that a country could do what it deemed appropriate.

Under the decisions of the appellate body and the panels of the WTO, silence has been altered to mean that the appellate body and panels do what they think is appropriate. That is just wrong.

The number of cases are disturbing. In 33 cases brought against the United States since 1995, panels or the appellate body have overreached, overreached, in 22 of them. That is two-thirds. We need to have a way to review what the appellate body and dispute resolution panels are doing, and we are not doing that.

The consequences of this overreaching are clear. In 10 years the WTO has not affirmed a single safeguard measure as applied by the United States or any other country. In trade remedy cases involving the United States, anti-dumping duties, countervailing duty measures, and safeguard cases, the WTO has upheld the United States decision in two of 17 cases. That is an 88 percent loss ratio, clearly one that we need to take a better look at.

A growing number of observers are coming to recognize that the extraordinary loss rate is because the WTO panels and its appellate body do not respect the letter of the WTO agreements and are filling in the gaps beyond what the U.S. negotiators agreed to in the Uruguay Round.

Mr. Speaker, I mention this because this is another area that we have to make up for lost ground in our negotiations under the WTO. So make no mistake about it, we should reject this resolution overwhelmingly because it is in the interest of the United States to participate in a rules-based international trading system. I represent a community that includes the port of Baltimore. I want products coming into the United States. I also want products leaving the United States through the port of Baltimore. It is important for our economy. But we have to do a better job in our negotiations within the WTO, and that is what we need to concentrate on. That is what we need to work together on. And if we do that, it will be a win-win for this Nation. We will be able to increase jobs through manufacturing, through production, and through farming.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the former ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Trade, one of the senior members of the committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I agree with my colleague that we should be negotiating higher labor standards, at least international labor standards; but I would suggest the way to do that is engagement, not to pull out of the WTO and to do better in our bilateral agreements. I agree with him on CAFTA and to elevate the WTO to do better on international standards.

The withdrawal would leave these countries without any opportunity to improve labor standards.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I once again rise to urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. It is important that we work within a rules-based trading system in order to expand opportunities. Only by working within a rules-based trading system can we raise the international bar on labor standards, on environmental standards. If we were to pull out of the WTO, we would have no opportunity to raise at all the labor standards in other countries or the environmental standards. We need to be within a rules-based trading system to reduce barriers.

The U.S. market is the most open market. We want our trading partners to open up their markets. Staying within the WTO offers us that opportunity. We need effective enforcement of our agreements. We need to work within the WTO in order to accomplish those objectives. And, Mr. Speaker, here is an area where we must exercise more of our responsibility by changing laws and strengthening laws so that we can enforce the obligations that we have negotiated within the WTO. I will be introducing legislation to do that, and I urge my colleagues to work with me so that we can enforce the agreements that we have reached with other countries.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. Let us work together to open up markets.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I believe that is unfair. I agree with my colleague completely. The question is, why are we not negotiating with our trading partners to do something about that?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) on that clarification, because I find it kind of ironic, the fact that we are on a fundamental question, should the United States continue to belong to the World Trade Organization or not, complaining about degrees of differences in various pieces of trade legislation.

That is, in fact, how we got here in the first place. Prior to World War II, in fact, many historians argue the reason we got into the Great Depression as deeply as we did is because the United States chose to throw up significant tariffs and barriers to commercial interaction among nations.

Following World War II, there was an agreement that we should not do that again; and we created a rather imperfect agreement called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It was as good as we could get at the time. As we continued to operate under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, with so-called rounds named after various cities, which has become a tradition now, the Uruguay Round, the Tokyo Round, the Rome Round, we decided that we need to move to another level, a higher level of integration and coordination; and that became the World Trade Organization.

The United States was somewhat frustrated, one, in our dispute resolution mechanism, and the problem was we were winning with no substantive result in those disputes. We thought we needed a better dispute resolution mechanism.

Marginally, the one we have today, I believe is better. Is it good? Not yet. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) indicated, I think there needs to be a much higher degree of transparency, especially on the resources used to research decisions. That will be an ongoing point of discussion.

But what is good primarily I think for the United States and the World Trade Organization restructure from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is that agriculture became one of the points of discussion and importantly for the U.S. services and financial instruments and in the protection of intellectual property rights. Those were critical. These were, in essence, new additions; and we are continuing to try to expand those areas that countries sit down and discuss under a structure.

The decision today is, should that imperfect structure remain and we continue to work toward a better structure or should we simply withdraw? That really is not a difficult decision for most Members; and, overwhelmingly, we will agree to stay in the World Trade Organization when we vote on this particular measure.

But what you are hearing primarily are complaints and concerns that we have about the ongoing world trade relationship; and, heaven knows, I can wheel out all of my arguments as well. But, as correctly pointed out by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), this is narrowly on the WTO issue.

But let me just select a couple of areas of trade action by the United States in the last several years.

First of all, under the Constitution, all trade-related activity with foreign countries is constitutionally the responsibility of Congress.

Now how many trade agreements do you think we would reach if we went to a country and said, come on in, negotiate with the House and the Senate, wait until we go through a conference committee in deciding what that agreement is going to be, and you ought to agree ahead of time before you see the final product?

Now, obviously, that led to a desire to restain the responsibility but provide the administration the ability to do the negotiating nation to nation. We are currently under the trade promotion authority structure. Can you imagine the World Trade Organization where every country has a veto, you can only to things by unanimous agreement, and how rapidly you can advance concerns that you have when the primary criteria is unanimity?

So one of the reasons we continue to use bilateral country-to-country relationships and regional agreements, in part, so that we do not get bogged down by waiting for the WTO, but also to a certain extent, since we believe in transparency, since this country is the most open large country of trade, import, export, of any in the world, that open markets all over the world are good.

So when you examine a bilateral agreement, for example, like the United States and Singapore, Singapore obviously is not too worried about agricultural product protection. They are worried about intellectual property rights. They are worried about services.

We were able to enter into an agreement with Singapore, the United States and Singapore, to set a mark for other countries on what is the best way to deal with those particular concerns; and that is down now as an agreement which we can point to as a model that we should move forward on dealing with other countries.

A regional agreement would be the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and what is left out of the discussion with CAFTA are just a couple of points I would like to mention.

One, before we decided to deal with the region, we told those countries, initially the five Central American countries, they had to deal with each other. That El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, et cetera, all had to come together as a region, which, first of all, is fundamentally significant. They are not looking at themselves as individuals. The final question was an individual one, but they looked at themselves as a region. Once they did that, we then entered into trade negotiations with them.

You need to know something about those trade relations. They were not driven by the Central American countries' desire to get into the U.S. marketplace. Normally, we can say an opportunity to get into the U.S. marketplace is a pretty good club in which we can get them to agree to various things we want them to agree to. Obviously, it is voluntary on both sides, but the incentive of getting into the U.S. market is a terrific reason to push the agreement probably farther than they would want, because the reward is getting into the U.S. market.

Not the case in Central America. We gave away the U.S. market for security, humanitarian reasons. Their products come into the United States tariff free already. If there is no CAFTA, their products still come into the U.S. market virtually tariff free.

Basically, what we are trying to do is open up the Central American market to U.S. goods and services where they have high tariffs. And when you negotiate freely, one of the things you cannot do is dictate to other people what it is that they are going to do internally in their country. You can set standards, you can cajole, you can create a mutual growth structure, you can bring money to the table to assist them in moving forward. That is basically what the United States does with the rest of the world on bilateral and regional agreements.

And the CAFTA agreement is good for the United States in terms of the economics of getting into the Central American marketplace so that we have a little more of a level playing field with other countries around the world. But it also is a chance for these fledgling and growing democracies to have the input of knowledge, training, and financial assistance in growing their responsible labor structure as well.

Most of this is tinted with ``protect America'' as the argument. America does not really need protection. America needs the opening of markets around the world in voluntary structures whether they be bilateral, regional, or multinational, as the WTO is. There will always be resistance. China coming into the WTO was a good thing. Are we having difficulties with them? Yes. Will they continue to have difficulties with themselves as they advance as the world's largest nation? Yes. But those discussions occur under a framework which over time has gotten better and will get better, especially with the United States leadership.

For the United States to walk away unilaterally from what is the best historical example of nations dealing economically in a meaningful and useful way makes no sense whatsoever. And that is why overwhelmingly the vote today will be ``no'' on withdrawing from the WTO. Does that resolve any of the ongoing difficulties we have in terms of our perception of the world, how fair the world is, how open markets in the world are, what instruments we need to use to try to push a more transparent and open marketplace, between countries, among countries, and in fact in all trading nations of the world? Of course not.

All of those issues will continue to be before us, but they will be before us in a structure which allows us to measure, allows us to judge, and most importantly allows us to change as the key competitive component between nations of the world today and tomorrow will be the question of trade. And ordered and structured competition is to the advantage of the United States. And that is why overwhelmingly you will see support staying in the WTO, nurturing and growing the WTO, notwithstanding the fact that we have a whole lot of concerns about a whole lot of issues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposal that we withdraw from the WTO. I urge that we look at this basic question: on balance, would we be better off if there were not a WTO? And I think the answer to that is we would not be.

Expanded trade has occurred in this country and in this world. It is not a win-win proposition, as some people like to say. There are losers as well as winners, both individually and in nations. It is not an easy proposition, expanded trade. However, globalization is here to stay. There is no turning back the clock. The question is to try to make the hands tick well and in the right direction.

There has been some argument about sovereignty. It is not true that WTO decisions do not impact U.S. laws. That is not true. I supported the GATT agreement; I helped to shape the implementation language. Did it have some impact on U.S. laws? Yes. Were there some requirements that U.S. laws be changed? Yes. By definition, tariff agreements require changes in laws here and everywhere else, unless they are decreed by edict. The WTO changed from GATT, and so now there is a final dispute settlement mechanism. I think on balance that was a good idea because, otherwise, every country could veto, and that was not workable.

But we have to look at the problems as well as the promise, the problems as well as the achievements.

The dispute settlement system is flawed. The answer is not to withdraw from the WTO; it is to work hard to change the dispute settlement system. As was said earlier, it is very opaque, that is true. There is not an openness that there should be; and when it comes to our safeguard provisions that many of us worked hard to put into law, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who is the ranking member, was part and parcel of that, as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and those on the Republican side, we worked hard to put safeguards in. Every challenge to safeguards has been upheld by the WTO. We have lost every case. We have not known what went into the consideration of the decision fully, we did not see all the briefs, and we did not know the basis for the decisions, in many cases. In some cases they went beyond the language of the WTO agreements.

A Wall Street Journal article earlier this month had this statement about panelists: ``They don't have time to develop expertise and procedural and technical aspects of the dispute settlement system.'' And we are going to have them judge the Boeing, the complicated Boeing case, for example? We need to change, and work harder to change, the dispute settlement system, not to withdraw from the WTO.

So there are some major structural problems.

Also, relating to China, I have been very dissatisfied with the way the WTO has handled the annual review of China's obligations that we worked so hard to bring about. Part of the problem is with the WTO in Geneva, part of the problem has been our administration that has not vigorously, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has worked so hard to illustrate this, the administration has not worked actively enough to get China to live up to its agreements. So more needs to be done by the administration, and we have been losing too many cases, and we have been filing too few cases.

So my suggestion is that we focus today on the accomplishments, but also the barriers, to effective operation of the WTO.

One issue the WTO has totally failed to address relates to core labor standards. On environment, they have kind of a group that looks at environmental issues.

On core labor standards, there has been resistance to address this. Years ago, there was a proposal by the Clinton administration to set up a working group within the WTO. That was resisted, resisted by many, including developing nations.

I think now, as developing nations have to compete with each other, including China, where labor standards essentially are nonexistent, those developing nations are beginning to say, well, maybe the WTO should address it. But it has not.

The argument was, okay, let us use bilateral agreements as building blocks in a number of areas, including core labor standards. And that is why I want to say just a few words now about the failure of this administration to use bilateral agreements effectively as a building block when it comes to basic core labor standards, the ILO labor standards, child labor, forced labor, nondiscrimination, and the right of workers to assemble, to organize, to have unions if they desire, and to bargain collectively.

CAFTA is a vital agreement in terms of where globalization is going. In Latin America, there is growing unrest and changes in government, in part because of the failure to have the large numbers of people, the largest proportion of people, share in the benefits of globalization.

So what did this administration do under these circumstances? It negotiates a standard, enforce your own laws. Enforce your own laws is only used as to core labor standards, not as to intellectual property or tariffs or anything else. And the tragedy of it is that the laws in Central America, to some extent the Dominican Republic, do not meet the basic standards giving people the freedom in the labor market. That is the basic fact. The ILO reports say so, despite what the administration tries to say. Their own State Department reports say that, despite what the administration and our new USTR, Mr. Portman, said this morning.

What is at stake is the development of a middle class that is so critical. And I am going to say more about this later today. The experience in countries is that workers are a critical part of the evolution towards a strong middle class.

There was a reference by Mr. Portman to Jordan. And what he said, that CAFTA is stronger than Jordan, it is simply not true. It is not correct. Jordan has reference in its agreement to the core labor standards, that is not true of CAFTA. And the enforcement capability in Jordan was left to each country to undertake.

So I just wanted to comment on this, because the bilateral agreements were supposed to be a building block where the WTO did not address an issue; and there is a failure at this critical point of globalization, a critical missed opportunity in terms of helping the benefits of globilization being widely shared.

I want to close, and I will say more about this later today, why it matters to the U.S. It matters in terms of Central America, which, as I say, has such income disparities that are true of Latin America generally.

What it means is, as to Central America, if workers are not going to be able to participate, to have freedom, to be able to associate, to become a part of the workplace, and are going to remain in poverty, it is bad for those workers, it is bad for those countries that desperately need a middle class, it is bad for our workers who will not compete with countries where workers are suppressed, and it is bad for our companies if there is no strong middle class to purchase our products.

So I am deeply disappointed by this effort to skirt this basic issue at this important time. A building block? No, CAFTA moves backwards from the present status instead of moving forward. And this notion that we are going to give more money to our Labor Department to enforce the laws, when they are cutting the budget, this Congress and the administration, are cutting these moneys for ILAB and other parts of the Labor Department. You cannot pour money to enforce inadequate laws and have it work out well.

So, in a word, what we need is a trade policy built on a bipartisan foundation, which is not true today. What we need is a trade policy that helps move globalization forward, that makes sure that more and more people share in the benefits of globalization. Pulling out of the WTO is not going to accomplish that. Instead, we need to work together to make the WTO more responsive in all respects and also to make sure that our bilateral agreements meet the challenges that the WTO is not meeting today. On the latter, this administration continues to fail.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).