[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 76 (Thursday, June 9, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4302-H4318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING 
                      THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

  Mr. SHAW. 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of H.J. Res. 27 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 27

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Congress withdraws its approval, provided under section 
     101(a) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, of the WTO 
     Agreement as defined in section 2(9) of that Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Pursuant to House Resolution 
304, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), and the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHAW. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAW. 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. SANDERS. 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.

                              {time}  1030

  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

[[Page H4303]]

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. CARDIN. 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.

[[Page H4304]]

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. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I first yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for bringing this 
joint resolution to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today because I believe that WTO 
membership has been a disaster for the U.S. worker. Since WTO, 1995, 
America's annual trade deficit grew from $96 billion to $617 billion. 
My home State of North Carolina has lost over 251,000 manufacturing 
jobs. The United States has lost over 2.9 million manufacturing jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, it was not too long ago that, I did not vote for it, but 
we gave trade promotion authority to the President of the United 
States. I was opposed to it when Mr. Clinton asked for it. I was 
opposed to it when Mr. Bush asked for it. And let me tell the Members 
what has happened since trade promotion authority, August of 2002.

                              {time}  1045

  North Carolina has lost over 52,000 manufacturing jobs, and the 
United States has lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs.
  Let me take just a moment to talk about how WTO membership strips 
American sovereignty. If the United States does not change its laws to 
suit WTO, then America's businesses and consumers face trade sanctions. 
Trade disputes are decided by international panels that are hand-picked 
by the WTO. The identities of panel members are kept secret, and 
deliberations are kept confidential. These WTO panels have ruled in 
favor of the United States less than one-third of the time. They have 
ruled in favor of the United States less than one-third of the time.
  WTO panel rulings go far beyond trade. In fact, the WTO panel 
recently found a Utah law prohibiting Internet gambling to be illegal. 
What will the WTO do next?
  Let me quote from Robert Stumberg, a trade law expert at Georgetown 
University, from Business Week, March 7, 2005. I quote: ``If Bush 
successfully engineers the introduction of private Social Security 
accounts, WTO rules would require the feds to let foreign money 
managers and insurers bid to manage them.''
  How far do we have to go before we give up the sovereignty of this 
Nation? I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I think letting the 
Chinese manage American Social Security accounts is a bad idea. 
Unfortunately, under WTO, there is little we can do to prevent it. We 
have already outsourced 1.5 million jobs since 1989 to the Chinese. We 
do not need to give control over to the Chinese of Social Security 
accounts in America.
  Mr. Speaker, before I close, I want to make a real quick point. On my 
right, this chart shows on July 31, 2003, in North Carolina we lost 
6,450 jobs. It says, ``Five North Carolina plants close in the largest 
single job loss in the State's history.'' Just 3 weeks ago, Mr. 
Speaker, a plant in my district announced that 445 jobs would be going 
overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, I close by asking my colleagues that care about the 
American workers and care about the sovereignty of America to please 
join us in this effort.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of our position to remove 
ourselves from the WTO. My economic position is somewhat different from 
some of my allies, because I come at it from a free trade position.
  I happen to believe in minimum tariffs, if any, but I do not believe 
that the process of the WTO and world government is a good way to do 
it. I do not think the WTO achieves its purpose, and I do not think it 
is permissible under the Constitution. Therefore, I strongly argue the 
case that, through the process, that we should defend the position of 
the Congress which gives us the responsibility of dealing with 
international trade, with international foreign commerce. That is our 
responsibility. We cannot transfer that responsibility to the 
President, and we cannot transfer that responsibility to an 
international government body.
  Therefore, there are many of us who ally together to argue that case, 
although we may have a disagreement on how much tariffs we should have, 
because the Congress should decide that. We could have no tariffs; we 
could have a uniform tariff, which the Founders believed in and 
permitted; or we could have protective tariffs, which some of those 
individuals on our side defend, and I am not that much interested in. 
But the issue that unifies us is who should determine it. For me, the 
determination should be by the U.S. Congress and not to defer to an 
international government body.
  Now this always bewilders me, when my conservative friends and those 
who believe in limited government are so anxious to deliver this to 
another giant international body. For instance, the WTO employs over 
600 people. Free trade, if you are interested in free trade, all you 
have to do is write a sentence or two, and you can have free trade. You 
do not need 600 bureaucrats. It costs $133 million to manage the WTO 
every year. Of course, we pay the biggest sum, over $25 million for 
this, just to go and get permission or get our instructions from the 
WTO.
  We all know that we raised taxes not too long ago, not because the 
American people rose up and called their Congressmen and said we wanted 
you to repeal this tax and change the taxes. It was done in order to be 
an upstanding member of the WTO. We responded and took instructions 
from the WTO and adapted our tax policy to what they desired.
  One other issue that I think those who defend the WTO and call 
themselves free traders ought to recognize is that when we concede the 
fact that there should be a trade-off, it means they really do not 
believe in free trade. If you believe in free trade and the people have 
the right to spend their money the way they want, it would be as simple 
as that. It would benefit that country, because you could get your 
goods and services cheaper.
  But this whole concession to the management of trade through the WTO 
says, all right, we are going to do this if you do this, and it 
acknowledges the

[[Page H4305]]

fact that free trade does not work unless you get something for it. 
That may be appealing to some, but a free trader should not argue that 
way. Because free trade, if it is a benefit, it is simply a benefit.
  In the 1990s when the WTO was originally passed, the former Speaker 
of the House made a statement about this. I want to quote from him. 
This is from Newt Gingrich. He was talking about the WTO: ``I am just 
saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are 
transferring from the United States at a practical level significant 
authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I 
would feel better if the people who favor this would be honest about 
the scale of change. This is not just another trade agreement. This is 
adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 
1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying that we should 
reject it. I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very 
careful, because it is a very big transfer of power.''
  I agree with Newt Gingrich on this. It was a huge transfer of power. 
I happen to believe it was an unconstitutional transfer of power; and, 
therefore, we are now suffering the consequences because we have lost 
prerogatives and control of our own trade policy.
  Now the President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a free market 
think tank, from Auburn, Alabma said, ``The World Trade Organization is 
supposed to be the great apparatus to push the world to greater 
economic integration. In reality, it was nothing but the resurrection 
of the old central planning fallacy that the world needs a central 
authority to manage it. The WTO has ended up politicizing trade by 
putting the stamp of officialdom on some very bad policy.''
  So my message is to appeal to those who believe in limited 
government, free markets, free trade and the Constitution. I appeal to 
those who want to use tariffs in a protective way because they defend 
the process. But I am really appealing to the conservatives who claim 
they believe in free trade, because I do not believe what we have here 
is truly free trade.
  The WTO has already been able to influence our tax laws. Not too long 
ago, Utah repealed a ban on electronic gambling for fear the WTO would 
come in and find that violated free trade.
  Another area of importance to so many of us, both on the left and the 
right of the political spectrum, has to do with the Codex Commission 
regulation set up by the United Nations. How much regulation are we 
going to have on vitamins and nutrition products? The UN already 
indicated the type of regulation. Guess who may, most likely, be the 
enforcer of these regulations? It will be the WTO. The Europeans have 
much stricter regulations. This means that some day the WTO may well 
come to us and regulate the distribution of vitamins and nutritional 
supplements in this country, something that I do not think we should 
even contemplate. The case can be made that if they have already 
pressured us to do things, they may well do it once again.
  Our administration is not too interested in the Kyoto Protocol, but 
that may well come down the road, and the enforcement of the Kyoto 
Protocol many believe will be enforced by the WTO.
  So this is big government, pure and simple. It does not endorse free 
trade whatsoever. It endorses managed trade; and too often it is 
managed for the privileges of the very large, well-positioned 
companies. It does not recognize the basic principle that we should 
defend as a free society individuals ought to have the right to spend 
their money the way they want. That is what free trade is, and you can 
do that unilaterally without pain and suffering.
  So I ask Members to consider, why should we not reclaim some of our 
prerogatives, our authorities, our responsibility? We have given up too 
much over the years. We have clearly given up our prerogatives on the 
declaration of war, and on monetary issues. That has been given away by 
the Congress. And here it is on the trade issue.
  I can remember an ad put out in the 1990s when the WTO was being 
promoted and they talked directly, it was a full page ad, I believe, in 
the New York Times. They said, ``This is the third leg of the new world 
order.'' We had the World Bank, we had the IMF, and now we had the 
World Trade Organization.
  So if you are a believer in big government and world government and 
you believe in giving up the prerogatives of the Congress and not 
assuming our responsibility, I would say, go with the WTO. But if you 
believe in freedom, if you believe in the Constitution and if you 
really believe in free trade, I would say we should vote to get out of 
the WTO.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my remaining time be 
allotted to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and that he be 
able to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stress the importance of our country's 
participation in the World Trade Organization. Right now, it seems this 
resolution is destined for rejection. But addressing it today does give 
us a much-needed opportunity to focus on the WTO and how the U.S. can 
maximize its membership for the benefit of U.S. firms, workers and 
farmers.
  The success of U.S. participation in the WTO should be measured by 
our ability to liberalize markets and set fair trade rules for all WTO 
Members. Clearly, the United States has benefited greatly from its WTO 
membership and plays a leading role in shaping the way the world trades 
today.
  Since the creation of the WTO, U.S. exports and overall trade have 
expanded significantly, with a $283 billion or 64 percent increase in 
U.S. manufacturing exports; a $139 billion or a 70 percent increase in 
U.S. services exports; and an $18 billion or 39 percent increase in 
U.S. agricultural exports.
  Once WTO agreements are set and commitments are made, however, it is 
crucial that the U.S. ensure that the countries involved live up to 
their part of the deal. This is where we have fallen short.
  Here, the U.S. has several concerns, such as China's failure to 
follow through with its commitments to ensure that domestic and foreign 
firms can distribute products within that country as of December 2004; 
many countries have failed to meet their TRIPS commitments and have not 
effectively enforced intellectual property rights and the protection of 
data privacy; there is concern regarding the establishment of 
standards, licensing and customs barriers, including the EU's customs 
procedures and its proposed new chemical regulations; and there is 
concern about the continued proliferation of many agricultural 
barriers, such as the unscientific barriers to many agricultural 
products in Europe, China and elsewhere.
  The United States should continue to insist that all WTO members 
implement the WTO agreements in a timely and comprehensive manner.
  Like many of my colleagues, I hope the WTO will successfully conclude 
the Doha Development Round and continue to contribute to the dynamic 
global marketplace as a growth engine for WTO member economies.
  However, in the Doha Development Round, many developing countries 
expressed concerns regarding implementation of some commitments, and 
they have sought extensions and delays. Here, technical assistance and 
support for capacity building are critical tools needed to advance 
implementation goals.
  I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Committee on Ways 
and Means and in the Congress to ensure that the U.S. provides 
technical support and capacity building measures to assist developing 
countries in meeting their WTO commitments.

                              {time}  1100

  If trade is to be a tool of development and growth for our 
developing-country trading partners, we must play a central role in 
helping the WTO facilitate compliance with member obligations. I stress 
this today because I want our new USTR Ambassador Portman to know that 
this is and should always be

[[Page H4306]]

a priority for the United States at the World Trade Organization.
  Mr. SHAW. 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. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time, and I want to associate myself with his remarks, 
and I appreciate his leadership on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution calling for the 
U.S. withdrawal from the World Trade Organization.
  The WTO is the most important international organization that governs 
world trade. Decisions are made by the member countries. The WTO has 
148 members and 31 observer governments, many of those, most of those 
are applicants for membership. Its members represent over 95 percent of 
world trade. Trade agreements administered by the WTO cover a broad 
range of goods and services trade and apply to virtually all government 
practices that directly relate to trade; for example, tariffs, 
subsidies, government procurement, and trade-related intellectual 
property rights.
  U.S. membership and leadership in the World Trade Organization is 
essential. It is definitely in our national and our political and our 
economic interests to continue to be a member. Our membership 
translates into real economic growth in this country, as the gentleman 
from Florida very correctly said. During the 10 years of U.S. 
participation in the WTO, international trade and investment have been 
important forces driving our impressive economic growth. Over that 
period, trade accounted for one-quarter of all U.S. economic growth and 
supported an estimated 12 million jobs. Furthermore, trade promotes 
economic competition, which keeps inflation low.
  Now, let me take just one moment to rebut an all-too-often made 
allegation against U.S. membership in the WTO, namely, that membership 
is a violation of U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. WTO 
dispute panels cannot overturn or change U.S. Federal, State, or local 
laws. They have no authority to change a U.S. law or to require the 
United States or any State or local government to change its laws or 
decisions. Only the Federal or State governments can change a Federal 
or State law.
  If a U.S. law is inconsistent with the WTO, our trading partners may 
withdraw trade benefits of equivalent effect. However, under trade 
agreement rules, the United States retains complete sovereignty in its 
decision of how to respond to any panel decision against it. That was 
made abundantly clear the last several years as Congress grappled with 
changes to our corporate tax structures for foreign sales corporations, 
or FSC, to accommodate commitments we have made to our trading 
partners. Only Congress could make those changes to the law as we 
grapple, and we grappled, with that.
  Those who falsely portray the WTO as a violation of U.S. sovereignty 
are ones who simply want an unfettered ability to preserve or create 
more protectionism.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution and to continue 
the U.S. membership in the World Trade Organization.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the economic disaster wrought by a radical 
free trade policy on the working people of America is well documented, 
but I am going to focus on another aspect of this WTO agreement that 
the previous gentleman spoke about. He said that the secretive dispute 
resolution panel, which has no conflict-of-interest rules, does not 
allow outside interveners, only allows the two representative 
governments into the room, and deliberates secretly and comes up with a 
binding, a binding, decision and cannot change U.S. laws.
  Now, I raised this issue with the Clinton administration when they 
negotiated this misbegotten agreement; and I said, How can you enter us 
into an agreement where secretive panels can preempt our laws? They 
said, oh, you do not understand, you are wrong, just like the gentleman 
before me. Yes, it is technically true, they cannot reach into the 
United States and change a law. We can, if they find our rule to be 
non-WTO compliant, which they have more than 90 percent of the time 
when complaints are brought against the United States of America, we 
have an option. We can repeal the law, or we can pay a fine to keep it, 
a huge fine, in many cases. So environmental protection, consumer 
protection, buy America, buy Oregon, buy your State, all of those 
things, we can have those laws. That is right. He is technically right. 
We just have to pay massive penalties to foreign governments to keep 
them.
  This is an extraordinary undermining of the sovereignty of the United 
States of America and the interests of the American people. This is not 
about free trade; this is about corporate-managed trade through a 
secretive body which is dominated by those very same corporations and 
many dictatorial governments around the world; and the U.S. is bound by 
their secretive decisions. This is absolutely outrageous.
  To date, the WTO has ruled U.S. policies illegal 42 out of 48 cases, 
85.7 percent that has been brought against us. They ruled illegal 
regulation issued under the Clean Air Act; the United States Tax Code; 
laws to protect companies from unfair dumping or subsidized foreign 
products, among others. And it is true. We can keep those laws if we 
are willing to pay massive fines to keep them.
  Now, what kind of sovereignty is that? Next in their sights are buy 
America laws, those referenced by the gentleman from the Carolinas. 
What he said is he does not want to see a Social Security program 
administered from China. Now, people would have thought that was a 
weird thing to say. No. The WTO requires we cannot discriminate in 
terms of who the vendors will be. In fact, homeland security can be 
provided by the Chinese, or maybe even by Iran, under the rules of the 
WTO. Will that not be just peachy?
  This is an extraordinarily radical agreement which we do not need. 
The U.S. did just fine as the greatest trading Nation in the world with 
bilateral agreements. We can go back to that system, and we can do 
better than we are doing under this so-called rules-based system.
  Mr. SHAW. 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. CARDIN. 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.

[[Page H4307]]

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

                              {time}  1115

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

[[Page H4308]]

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. THOMAS. 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.

                              {time}  1130

  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.

[[Page H4309]]

  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. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) has 38 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin) has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I could hardly believe my ears to hear one 
of my colleagues say that America does not need protection from the 
WTO. We have lost almost 3 million manufacturing jobs. Tell that to 
those millions of families who have seen their lives destroyed by this 
trade structure which is based, inherently based, on inequality.
  We have a $617 billion trade deficit. America does not need 
protection?
  We have workers who are struggling to save their homes; but these 
trade agreements are causing jobs to be moved out and people do not 
have the opportunity to save their homes.
  I have been all over this country, and I have seen padlocks on gates 
and grass growing in parking lots where they used to make steel, where 
they used to make cars, where they used to washing machines, where they 
used to make bicycles. America does not need protection?
  Yes, it is time for us to get out of the WTO because the WTO has set 
the stage for a driving down of the quality of life in this country. 
Everyone in this House knows that we cannot write into our laws that 
workers' rights must be regarded, let us say, in China. I want someone 
here to contradict that because if we put that China must have the 
right to organize in any of their conduct of commerce in their country, 
that would be ruled WTO illegal and the United States would be subject 
to a fine or sanctions by the WTO just for standing up for workers' 
rights.
  There is a moral imperative here, and that imperative is as old as 
this country. But it is also consistent with basic Christian morality, 
and may I quote from a Papal Encyclical, Leo XIII, 1891 in Rerum 
Novarum said, ``Let the working man and the employer make free 
agreement and in particular let them agree freely as to wages. 
Nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more 
imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, 
that wages ought not be insufficient to support a frugal and well-
behaved wage earner if through necessity or fear of a worse evil the 
workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will 
afford him no better. He is made a victim of force and injustice.''
  I maintain that the WTO helps to keep in place a structure of force 
and injustice against workers because we in this country cannot pass 
laws that would lift the yoke of this force and injustice off workers 
anywhere in the world because the WTO does not permit, does not permit 
any type of workers' rights to be included or to be regarded. They are 
WTO illegal. We cannot pass workers' rights and put them in our trade 
agreements.
  Another Papal Encyclical from Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio: 
``But it is unfortunate that on these new conditions of society, a 
system has been constructed which considers profit as the key motive 
for economic progress, competition as the supreme law of economics, and 
private ownership with the means of production as an absolute right 
that has no limits and carries no corresponding social obligation.'' He 
goes on to say that ``this leads to a dictatorship rightly denounced by 
Pious XI by producing the international imperialism of money.''
  There is a moral imperative here that we have to recognize that we 
need trade agreements that have workers' rights, human rights, and 
environmental quality principles; and we cannot have that with the WTO. 
It is time to get out of the WTO and set up a trade structure based on 
those principles.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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).
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the pull-out of the U.S. of the WTO. 
This is a global economy that we live in. We have got to be at the 
table to work with the companies and work with the countries that are 
taking our jobs, and I believe the pull-out is the wrong thing to do.
  Should it be strengthened? Yes, it should and the administration 
should reject all principles that would make our trade laws weaker. If 
we talk about intellectual property rights, we need to enforce those 
that are in there. And the Bush administration and our U.S. 
administration, regardless of who sits in that White House, must make 
sure that those property rights are enforced internationally, and that 
is what the WTO should be about.
  In 1995 when the WTO was established, I thought then and I do hope 
now that dispute resolution procedures would be those where we could 
come to the table to resolve some of those disputes. The dispute 
process has become too cumbersome, too lengthy; and many times we find 
our companies, U.S. companies, not taking advantage and being very much 
put out of business.
  The steel industries in my district, too much dumping from some other 
countries into America. We ought to rectify that so that U.S. companies 
can take U.S. companies and that we be able to employ our citizens.
  Too many dislocated workers, the only way to address this is to stay 
in the WTO to work with the other countries. And our administration 
must see that our rules, our trade laws, our employees' rights are 
saved. We want to upgrade and lift up other countries, but we must save 
America.
  America is in crisis. Our workers, too many have lost their jobs and 
many more to come. I represent General Motors, and this week they 
announced the closing of more plants, dislocating more workers and at 
the same time put $2 billion in China last year.
  So I say stay in the WTO; make it better. This is a world economy, 
and the U.S. is the most powerful. I would hope that as we move forward 
in this discussion, and I know the vote will be overwhelming that we 
stay, that we build it and that we make sure that the countries that 
are taking our jobs have a responsibility to the workers of this 
country.
  However Members intend to vote on the resolution before us, the issue 
of trade remedies under the rules established by the World Trade 
Organization (WTO) is of paramount concern to the industries of my 
district in the years ahead. How we address this issue will be an 
important factor in determining whether we can retain support for open 
markets and the international trading system as we know it.
  Countries like China, Japan, and India that have most consistently 
dumped in this market

[[Page H4310]]

and violated international rules are pushed hard to have those 
disciplines eviscerated. That would be a disaster for U.S. 
manufacturers, agricultural producers and workers.
  Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy laws have already been critically 
weakened as a result of groundless WTO dispute resolution decisions. If 
we see yet another new trade agreement that limits the use of these 
laws, I am afraid they will become completely ineffective.
  Our trading partners, in the name of free trade, have been effective 
in putting forward a number of specific proposals that are designed to 
weaken U.S. trade laws. Congress is on record as opposing these efforts 
and I welcome this opportunity to advocate that our top priority should 
be to preserve core trade disciplines. However, our trade negotiators 
have not offered meaningful proposals to challenge those who would 
weaken our trade remedy laws. This is a recipe for failure.
  If the Administration comes back with an agreement that waters down 
our trade remedy laws even further, I am confident we will see a strong 
backlash in Congress--and a major effect on support for any new trade 
agreements.
  Support for the WTO cannot be taken for granted in Congress or in 
this country if we cannot maintain the assurance that unfair trade can 
and will be remedied. I urge the Administration to focus on this issue 
and to reject any WTO deal that would weaken U.S. trade remedy laws. 
Otherwise, we may well see the next WTO vote have a very different 
outcome than is likely today.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1994 I supported the establishment of the WTO. I 
supported the establishment of it because the creation of the WTO was 
supposed to lower trade barriers. The WTO was supposed to include 
developed and developing countries, and environmental and labor 
standards were expected to rise for all.
  The WTO was created with the assumption that the rules would be 
applied fairly to all. Today, I am voting against the WTO because it 
has failed to deliver on any of its promises. The WTO was created by 
sovereign nations to create a true international trade community, but 
today the WTO is manipulated by multinational corporations with a 
loyalty to nothing but their bottom line. These multilaterals are 
patronizing, not patriotic. They treat human labor as nothing more than 
disposable machinery. The only discernable labor standard under the WTO 
is exploitation.
  Under the WTO there are two environmental standards, pollute and to 
spoil. Moreover, there is no transparency at the WTO. Who is in charge?
  The WTO is grossly prejudiced against U.S. interests. As one of my 
colleagues mentioned earlier today, the U.S. has lost 42 of 48 cases.
  I am proud to be an American citizen. I understand, however, that the 
United States is not always right. But only 12\1/2\ percent of the 
time?
  Worse, the WTO struck down steel safeguards that were put in place 
after record levels of illegal steel dumping caused more than 40 steel 
companies into bankruptcy and more than 50,000 steel workers to lose 
their jobs.
  In 1994, the last full year before the WTO came into existence, the 
United States had a trade deficit, unfortunately, of about $150 
billion. During 2004 the U.S. trade deficit hit an all-time high of 
$650 billion, an increase of 333 percent. We have clearly benefited 
under the WTO.
  A more frightening figure is that the U.S. trade deficit last year 
with China alone was more than our trade deficit was with the entire 
world the year before the WTO was created. As we debate this resolution 
today, we will borrow an additional $1.7 billion in these 24 hours for 
our children to pay off for the rest of their lives just to finance the 
trade deficit we are accumulating today under the wanted WTO.
  I appreciate my colleague from Vermont for bringing this resolution 
to the floor. I support it and ask my colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. SHAW. 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.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good debate. It is a good, healthy debate that 
we are having here on the floor of Congress.
  The earlier speaker, the gentleman from Ohio, cited some papal 
encyclicals, but, as a practicing Catholic, I will be the first to 
defend his right to do that here on the floor, but I also think there 
are some bigger issues we need to talk about.
  First of all, how do we keep jobs in America? We all care about that. 
This is what we are talking about. I would argue we have got to do 
basically two things: stop pushing jobs overseas and stop countries 
from unfairly taking jobs overseas.
  How do we stop pushing jobs overseas? Well, for starters, we can 
address health care costs. We can address the fact that we tax our 
businesses and our jobs more than any other country in the world, save 
Japan. We can address tort costs, regulatory costs, have a 
comprehensive energy policy to make energy more affordable.
  How do we stop countries from unfairly taking jobs overseas? We have 
to remember, Mr. Speaker, that 97 percent of the world's consumers are 
not in this country. They are outside of this country. One in five 
manufacturing jobs are tied to exports. Exports, on average, pay more 
than other jobs. We cannot put our head in the sand. Pulling out of the 
WTO is the economic equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath 
water.
  What has happened since we have gone into the WTO? Let us look at the 
challenges that confront us.
  We talk about China, a very appropriate topic to discuss here. Since 
China joined the WTO, do my colleagues know how many laws we had to 
change and pass in America to go there? Zero. Do my colleagues know how 
many laws China had to change, laws and regulations, to enter the WTO? 
1,100. To get into the WTO, to join countries of fair trade, China had 
to change 1,100 laws. Are they following all these rules and 
agreements? Of course not. But because they are in the WTO, because we 
have the WTO, we finally have a forum, a mechanism, a system to bring 
these countries into compliance to play by the rules. If we did not 
have this system, all these countries could play by whatever rules they 
set.
  We are the economic superpower of the world. We play by the rules. We 
are the most transparent, most honest, most basic system in the world. 
We need other countries to play by the same rules, too, so we can all 
join together in growing economic growth here in America and across the 
world. Pulling out of the WTO would be the economic equivalent of 
biting off our nose to spite our face.
  Since we have had China in the WTO, I have been critical of the 
administration's stance in its first 3 years. I have joined with my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle criticizing the 
administration on their China policy. However, over the past year and a 
half, the administration, through the WTO rules, has brought 12 
different actions against China.
  We are making success. We are bringing accountability. Pull out now, 
and the situation gets much worse. Stay in it. Fight for fair trade. We 
can clean up these rules, and that is the only way to bring other 
nations into the fair trade arena.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support House Joint Resolution 27 
to withdraw the United States from the World Trade Organization.
  The WTO is not about free trade or fair trade. It is about corporate 
power. WTO rules allow America's labor, environmental and public 
interest laws to be challenged by multinational corporations seeking 
profits and power. Other countries have also seen their domestic laws 
challenged in order to

[[Page H4311]]

expand corporate power. The WTO sacrifices the rights of workers, the 
protection of the environment and the health and safety of working 
families.
  WTO rules support corporations to move their operations from one 
country to another in search of the cheapest labor and the least 
government regulation. If a country enacts a minimum wage law, a 
corporation that does not want to pay a decent wage can simply move its 
factory to another country. If workers in that country organize a labor 
union, the corporation can move the factory to a third country. Many 
corporations prefer to operate in countries such as the People's 
Republic of China, which outlaw independent labor organizations. The 
WTO has no restrictions on sweatshops, child labor, prison labor or 
slave labor.
  WTO rules promote investment opportunities for multinational 
corporations without regard to their impact on workers, the environment 
or the public interest. Countries' labor, health and environmental laws 
can be challenged if they have a side effect of restricting trade.
  In the 10 years since the WTO was established, a wide variety of U.S. 
and foreign laws have been challenged. With only two exceptions, every 
health, food safety and environmental law challenged at the WTO has 
been ruled illegal. Meanwhile, multinational pharmaceutical companies 
have used WTO intellectual property rules to deny poor countries the 
right to provide live-saving medicine to people with terrible diseases 
like HIV and AIDS.
  They tried it with Brazil. The world protest against the attempt to 
keep Brazil from using generic drugs to save lives, prevent HIV and 
AIDS was fought off because of the protest, and they had to back down.
  But look what they did in South Africa. I wish I had time to tell my 
colleagues about it.
  In 42 out of the 48 completed cases brought against the United 
States, the WTO has labeled U.S. laws illegal. U.S. laws ruled illegal 
by WTO include tax laws, anti-dumping laws, sea turtle protections and 
clean air rules. And when the WTO ruled in favor of the United States 
in a case on bananas, it was to benefit who? A large corporation, 
Chiquita, that has now driven Grenada and some of these small countries 
into poverty. We do not produce any bananas here in the United States. 
We protected Chiquita, who mistreats its workers in Central America, 
and we put small Caribbean farmers out of work.
  Mr. Speaker, after the WTO rules a country's laws illegal, the WTO 
authorizes economic sanctions that cost the country millions of 
dollars. These sanctions put small businesses out of business and 
workers out of work. History has proven that the WTO does not prevent 
trade wars. It authorizes trade wars.
  The WTO puts profits of the world's wealthiest and most powerful 
corporations ahead of the health, safety and welfare and well-being of 
working families.
  I urge my colleagues to support the WTO Withdrawal Resolution. It's 
time to stop the global expansion of corporate power and put working 
families first.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my 
colleagues to reject any attempts to withdraw the United States from 
the WTO and vote no on final passage.
  When instituted correctly and fairly, trade agreements open up 
foreign markets to U.S. goods, create new opportunities for companies 
and their employees, and lift the standard of living for people in the 
country with whom we are trading. Economists estimate that cutting 
trade barriers in agriculture, manufacturing and services by one-third 
would boost the world economy by $613 billion, equivalent to adding an 
economy the size of Canada to the world economy. The WTO is needed to 
monitor this process and ensure a level playing field.
  However, in certain cases, there is not a level playing field. A 
great example of this is Airbus. Airbus is currently the world's 
leading manufacturer of civil aircraft, with about 50 percent of global 
market share. Airbus received approximately $30 billion in market-
distorting subsidies from the European governments, including launch 
aid, infrastructure support, debt forgiveness, equity infusions, and 
research and development funding.
  These subsidies, in particular launch aid, have lowered Airbus' 
development costs and shifted the risk of aircraft development to 
European governments, and thereby enabled Airbus to develop aircraft at 
an accelerated pace and sell these aircraft at prices and on terms that 
would otherwise be unsustainable. These unfair actions put Boeing at a 
major disadvantage and leads to a negative impact to workers and 
businesses in this country. By most conservative estimates, the unfair 
subsidies that Airbus receives have led the United States to losing at 
least 60,000 high-paying jobs.
  As a member of the House Committee on International Relations and the 
fact that John F. Kennedy International Airport is the economic engine 
of my district, it is imperative that this body support USTR Ambassador 
Robert Portman's efforts to have a WTO dispute resolution panel put an 
end to the unfair subsidies to Airbus.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire again as to how much time 
remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) has 27 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, it is with a combination of perhaps 
resignation and frustration with which I stand here.
  Will Rogers once said, in explaining the length of a political 
platform, that it takes a lot of words to straddle an issue, and I have 
every intention of using a lot of words here this morning.
  I think, like many people, like most of us, we have no fear of free 
trade, that the United States, playing on a level playing field, can 
easily compete in the world market, and I do not ascribe to some of the 
statements that I think have been somewhat overzealous or vitriolic in 
describing policies here. I also agree that in some respects moving out 
of the policy we have right now without a substantial alternative would 
be chaotic. Having said that, this is where the ``but'' comes in.
  I intend on either giving a symbolic vote or maybe a symbolic speech 
in place of that vote with concerns of sovereignty issues that are 
dealt with here and that some of those voices that are concerned about 
sovereignty issues are not just simply those fearful of the dark but 
there are legitimate concerns which require a periodic reanalysis of 
what we are doing.
  I speak specifically about a case which has sent the Attorney General 
from the State of Utah to join 28 Attorney Generals from other States 
in protest of the situation in which the World Trade Organization has 
thrown State statutes in jeopardy.
  Antigua, with which we had a policy dating back to 1993, has 
complained that laws prohibiting Internet gambling as well as gambling 
and betting paraphernalia, which have been for about 100 years the 
social policy of Utah, violate trade organizations; and the trade 
organization ruled in favor of Antigua.
  It is inherently wrong for any adjudicative panel of any 
organization, internationally or trade, to put in jeopardy the kinds of 
State laws that we have in place, especially when they deal with social 
policies that have been there for almost 100 years. Whether this is 
simply a glitch in negotiations that can easily be worked out or 
whether this is a systemic problem or whether, as the Attorney Generals 
are arguing, that the States need a greater voice in the organization 
and the application of these trade policies, especially if it is going 
to relate to State law, that is the discussion that needs to take 
place.
  My State may have lucked out because a clerical error in this 
particular case did not refer specifically to the Utah State law; and, 
therefore, it may not be applicable. But the fear factor is still 
there, that in the future State efforts, State regulations and State 
policies may be put in jeopardy not only by our trade policies but also 
by Federal regulations that affect those trade

[[Page H4312]]

policies when they ought not to be. That is the issue that needs to be 
periodically addressed.
  I recognize that this particular resolution is very narrow in its 
application. It may not be specifically on that point, but it does at 
least give us the opportunity of saying not only is that an issue and a 
concern for the future but it is an issue that we should take seriously 
and we should discuss seriously and we should address seriously so that 
these particular problems, especially as it deals with State issues and 
State rights, will not be put in jeopardy with the future.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, although I disagree with much of what the 
WTO does, I do not think it is in the best interest of our Nation to 
withdraw from that organization at this time. Doing so would give the 
United States little bargaining power as we work to promote a global 
economy that is both free and fair. Withdrawal would put in jeopardy 
negotiations that are necessary to meet that goal.
  However, my support for the long-term goal of more equitable 
international trade does not translate into blanket support, but it is 
difficult to ignore the fact that the U.S. is increasingly the target 
of WTO action. We are sued more than any other country, and our laws 
seem to be condemned by the WTO every month. We have been the defendant 
in 19 of the last 36 cases decided by the appellate body. These 
negative decisions have threatened American products and American 
businesses with sanctions. For example, in recent years the WTO has 
disapproved everything from our tax policies and trade laws to our 
sovereign right to regulate activity such as Internet gambling and set 
tariffs against unfair pricing by foreign countries.
  It is becoming all too clear that these decisions are not the result 
of any shortcomings by this country or any true violation of 
international rules; rather, one must wonder if we are facing a forum 
that sees our country's prosperity and economic success as an 
opportunity to further bolster their own industries and markets. It 
seems as though nations are using the WTO to gain through litigation 
that they could not secure through negotiation.
  But to help our economy, we cannot turn toward a simplistic, 
bellicose jingoism approach that blames the WTO and seeks protectionism 
as the answer to all. What we need to do on our own is to pass our 
energy policy that is otherwise costing us millions of jobs and to pass 
our own health care reforms to cut costs and not cut care.
  Free trade is in everyone's best interest, and the WTO negotiations 
are vital to securing new markets for American products and creating 
new jobs for American workers. The negotiations must ultimately bring 
us to a system that is fair for all member countries while respecting 
the fundamental rights of a nation to determine its own law.
  This administration needs to pay very close attention to the issue as 
we cannot sit idly by while the world unfairly threatens U.S. laws and 
remedies designed to protect our Nation against unfair practices.
  The WTO clearly is not operating always in the best interests of the 
United States of America. However, it is the forum that exists; and as 
such, we need to remain partners with those that are vigilant and 
vigorous defenders of both free and fair trade in that forum for the 
benefit of our Nation.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the good work 
of my friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Committee on Appropriations passed 
an amendment to prevent the U.S. trade representative from using trade 
pacts as a tool to block prescription drug reimportation. The fact that 
appropriators in this body felt compelled to take this dramatic step 
points to a larger issue. Congress should not have to police the U.S. 
trade representative to make sure he or she is acting in the best 
interests of U.S. consumers. We should not have to instruct our trade 
representative to make sure that he is looking out for U.S. workers and 
U.S. manufacturers. We should not have to tell the trade representative 
to protect the environment and our food supply.
  Congress should not have to scour every trade pact to make sure that 
some patent extension or importation barrier or other Big Government 
crutch designed specifically for the drug industry has not been 
inserted into the trade agreement by the U.S. trade representative or 
by the President or by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  Congress should not have to take the U.S. trade representative to 
task for trying to reverse the world's progress against the global AIDS 
epidemic, progress partially financed with U.S. tax dollars. Congress 
should not have to fight the U.S. trade representative in order to 
ensure jobs for our Nation's workforce, affordable medicine for our 
Nation's consumers, and manufacturing capacity for our Nation's 
protection.
  Who does the U.S. trade representative work for?
  The USTR should be acting in the interest of all Americans. If the 
international drug industry benefits too, all the better. Instead, the 
multinational drug industry's interests trump those every day of 
everyday Americans. The tail is wagging the dog. In fact, our trade 
representative's office includes a position, and I am not making this 
up, our trade representative's office includes a position called U.S. 
Trade Representative for Asia, Pacific and Pharmaceutical Policies. So 
we are bringing the drug industry into the USTR to make sure these 
trade agreements protect the drug industry, usually at the expense of 
American consumers who pay twice as much, three times as much, four 
times as much for prescription drugs, and even more seriously, frankly, 
who harm the world's poorest people.
  In the CAFTA agreement, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) 
said earlier, in Africa, in Asia, the world's poorest people have to 
pay more for prescription drugs because the U.S. has, in our trade 
representative's office, a U.S. trade representative for Asia, Pacific 
and pharmaceutical policy. It begs the question, What are our trade 
agreements for?
  Mr. Speaker, it is not like they are working. Look what has happened 
to our trade deficit in the last 12 years. I came to Congress in 1992. 
We had a trade deficit of $38 billion. In 2004, 12 years later, our 
trade deficit was $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion, and 
my friends are arguing our trade policy is working?
  Look at our stagnating wages, the fact that the top 10 percent of 
people in this society are doing very well. Their incomes are going up 
and up and up. The 90 percent of the rest of the country, their wages 
are stagnant and partly because of trade policies. Look at our 
crippling job loss in my State, and especially in manufacturing.
  Not only has our trade deficit gone from $38 billion to $618 billion 
in only a dozen years, look at what has happened in manufacturing. The 
States in red have all lost 20 percent of their manufacturing in the 
last 5 years. My State of Ohio, 216; Pennsylvania, 200; Michigan, 210; 
Alabama and Mississippi combined, 130; Illinois, 225; Virginia, 80,000; 
New York, 220,000. Our trade policy, Mr. Speaker, simply is not 
working.
  When Members think about this, maybe in fact some people would say 
our trade agreements are working. After all, these trade agreements do 
work for the pharmaceutical industry.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in thoughtful support for H.J. 
Res. 27, and I say thoughtful because I believe we should take a good 
look at what we are doing and what has been proposed and try to figure 
out what is going to happen in the future, and what are the ideas that 
these decisions are based upon.
  We are living in a time when a significant number of Americans are 
rushing forward to support any effort to transfer sovereignty from 
elected officials in the United States to unelected officials elsewhere 
at a global level who will exercise power and control,

[[Page H4313]]

mandate policies and shape our lives; yet they are not elected by the 
people of the United States of America, as if we should expect them in 
the WTO or even the United Nations to watch out for our interests.
  Mr. Speaker, it is our job to watch out for the interests of the 
American people. We are elected to do so. Transferring our sovereignty 
and decisionmaking power to the WTO, to the United Nations, or any 
other international body is not in the long-term interests of our 
people.
  The United States did this back in the 1950s or 1940s with the United 
Nations, and it too was a dream, a dream for a better world, a new 
order that would bring about prosperity and peace. What do we see now 
in the United Nations, corruption at the highest levels and arrogance. 
We see United Nations peacekeeping troops stand by as people are 
massacred. They themselves have participated in atrocities, and yet we 
see cover-up at the United Nations and corruption. Is that the type of 
people we want to give sovereignty to? No.
  So why do we think the WTO is going to be any different? The WTO is 
made up of nondemocratic countries as well as democratic countries, 
just like the United Nations. We are not going to bring them up; they 
will bring us down if we give up our decision-making process to 
unelected bodies that have been set up.
  They call it the new world order. The new world order, what is that 
going to bring the American people? A loss of sovereignty, a loss of 
our ability to control our own destinies. We will see the WTO 
manipulated by special interests in the same way we have seen other 
bodies manipulated by special interests, but the WTO will be made up of 
organizations that are comprised of governments that do not believe in 
democracy and honesty and free press and free speech and the standards 
we believe in.
  Mr. Speaker, 10 years from now as the WTO evolves, and even today, we 
will find our huge international corporations and international 
corporations in general going to these bodies and manipulating them and 
bribing them. And why not accept the bribes? The people of Burma or 
China or these other countries who are not democratic, who are not 
honest, that is their way of life. So why are we transferring 
authority, putting our faith in an organization, even if today in the 
short run we can see some examples where it might be in our benefit? In 
the long run it is not to the benefit of the American people to give up 
this kind of decisionmaking.
  If we want more trade in the world, we should establish bilateral 
trade agreements with other democratic countries. That way we can 
control the decision-making process. The major economic countries of 
the world will enter into those agreements.
  I say we should have free trade between free people. We should not be 
establishing superpowerful, unelected bodies by the WTO to control our 
destiny in the United States and determine what economic policies we 
will have in the long run. These things make no sense to me, and it is 
a great threat looming over us. Whatever examples can be given today of 
some good things that are happening, just remember what will happen 10 
years down the road once these panels and bodies have been corrupted by 
the vicious dictatorships that we have let into the WTO.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this resolution because 
it is a little too radical for where I am now, but I am tempted to vote 
for it because of the failure of our current policies and the blindness 
of those who defend them.
  Those who defend our current policies acknowledge that free trade 
puts pressure on countries to race to the bottom on environmental and 
labor standards so they can be the low-cost, high-value producer. But 
the real disconnect is between the theory of free trade and on-the-
ground business reality.
  Those who defend the WTO live in a world of theory in which business 
and consumers will buy American goods if they are good values, subject 
only to the written transparent regulations and tariff laws of their 
country. This theory is true in the United States where our businesses 
and consumers are happy to buy. We have lowered our tariffs, we have 
lowered our regulations and barriers, and there has been an explosion 
of imports to the United States.
  But the theory is false as to China and many other nations. In those 
countries, their written laws are almost irrelevant; and so we 
negotiate hard, we open our markets in return for a change of China's 
written laws, and then we are surprised when changing those laws does 
nothing to open their markets and the average person in China buys less 
than 3 cents, I believe it is, of goods and services from America every 
day.
  Why is this? Because their businesses are told orally, do not buy 
from America unless you get a co-production agreement, do not buy from 
America unless you get a disclosure of our technology and our 
manufacturing techniques. So when an airline in the United States goes 
to decide which airplane to buy, it does so on economic factors. When 
China buys, they demand that more and more production be shifted to 
China. No wonder we have this huge trade deficit and the dollar is 
certainly in peril.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains for either side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) has 15 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw) has 7 minutes remaining.
  The Chair will recognize the closing speeches in the reverse order of 
the openings: the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) 
has the right to close.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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. SANDERS. 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

[[Page H4314]]

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.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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. SANDERS. 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. SHAW. 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

[[Page H4315]]

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. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about H. 
Res. 27. H. Res. 27 would withdrawal the United States from 
participation in the World Trade Organization. I did not support a 
similar resolution five years ago, and I do not support this resolution 
today,
  International trade is not just inevitable, it is a good thing. We 
live in a world today where more people can afford ever cheaper goods. 
But lowering the cost of goods and increasing their availability is not 
the single goal of trade. Trade done right helps lift the global 
standard of living and works to protect the irreplaceable environment 
we inherited. Trade is about values. I want to make sure the United 
States not only exports our-world class agriculture, but also our 
respect for the natural environment and enforceable labor laws. We 
should make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who 
produce them.
  That is why we must use the WTO to address these labor and 
environmental concerns. But if we walk away from the WTO, we won't be 
able to address any of these issues, Where else can we give voice to 
issues of child labor or environmentally destructive practices of some 
industries? The WTO--imperfect as it may be--is the forum that we, 
along with the other members of the international community, 
established to enforce trade rules and more importantly allow for an 
open dialogue on the trade issues that concern us.
  We need to realize that even if there are legitimate problems with 
the WTO, and I agree that some exist, the solution is not to 
unilaterally withdraw from the WTO. Withdrawing from the WTO would not 
help to solve any of these problems. Not one. We cannot stop trade, and 
we cannot end the global economy. What we can do is work within the 
World Trade Organization to address these concerns. We should not allow 
any others to dictate to us about what is in our national interest, but 
we must recognize that we cannot accomplish our national goals in 
isolation from the rest of the world. We can only work to protect 
American workers from anticompetitive practices of foreign countries 
from within the WTO, not by sitting on the sidelines. We should be 
working with our trade partners and with the WTO to enforce our 
existing trade rules. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
resolution.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 27, which 
withdraws approval of the United States from the agreement establishing 
the World Trade Organization.
  The WTO was created to oversee and regulate international commerce 
through the establishment of universal trade agreements. The 
institution of these agreements would provide assurance and 
accountability between member nations, with the prospect of future 
economic prosperity. The goal of these trade practices is to ease 
facilitation of global business for producers, exporters, and 
importers.
  My opposition to this resolution and consequent support of the WTO is 
not without qualification.
  While there is great value in continuing multilateral trade 
regulations and mailltaining the general integrity of the WTO, this 
organization has consistently foundered in its role of impartial 
adjudicator and continues to undermine the domestic trade sovereignty 
of our Nation.
  Over the past decade, we have witnessed a massive increase in the 
U.S. trade deficit, an alarming number of dislocated American workers, 
and consistent threats to the autonomy of U.S. domestic trade policy.
  The international community has seen the numerous shortcomings of the 
WTO system, including poorly enforced labor laws that afford many 
countries an unfortunate competitive advantage in the global 
marketplace. The premise of independent unionization and equitable 
development has not been realized in the past 10 years under the WTO 
and continues to underscore the need for a reevaluation and 
modification of the institution.
  Though the World Trade Organization has failed to deliver on the 
promises of economic gains to developing countries and general 
worldwide trade policy, the solution is not to withdraw U.S. support or 
approval. We must continue to work inside the infrastructure of the WTO 
and towards progressive policies. As a principal partner in the WTO, we 
must not disassociate ourselves from the organization or we will 
realize the regression of our global economy. Our obligations to the 
American worker necessitate a competent and responsible trade policy 
that can only be achieved through the refinement of the current system.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution but reserve judgment over the 
current policies and procedures of the World Trade Organization. It is 
in the best interests of our nation to continue our active involvement 
in the WTO, while reconsidering and reworking current international 
trade policies.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 27, 
which would withdraw the United States from further participation in 
the World Trade Organization (WTO). I do so not because I am against 
international institutions, or even the stated purpose of the WTO. I am 
voting yes today to voice my opposition to U.S. trade policies that 
continue to augment the ``race to the bottom'' international trade 
culture that has sent good-paying American jobs overseas in pursuit of 
ever-lower wages and lax labor and environmental standards. Instead of 
pursuing policies that lift up and improve the lives of workers in this 
country and

[[Page H4316]]

around the world, we have crippled U.S. communities while enabling the 
exploitation of foreign workforces.
  I believe Congress must send a strong signal to the current 
administration that the past ten years have demonstrated the serious 
failures of U.S. trade policy. In light of our massive trade deficit, 
loss of manufacturing jobs and the ongoing currency manipulation by 
foreign countries, my vote today supports the hard working families in 
America. To have fair, sustainable, and balanced international trade, 
we need a fundamental review of U.S. international trade policies, and 
Congress and the Bush administration should take this opportunity to 
lead this effort.
  There are serious national security considerations inherent in our 
trade policy, and I believe we ignore these ramifications at our own 
risk. Our social fabric is also endangered--as jobs leave the country, 
as people that have worked hard their entire lives lose their pensions 
and healthcare, what are these families to do? What made the U.S. the 
greatest country in the world is the ability of high school educated 
Americans to make a good living in the manufacturing and industrial 
sectors. These jobs increasingly have moved overseas, and it is hard to 
support a family on service sector wages. Meanwhile, I have tried twice 
in the last year to pass an amendment to simply study the issue of the 
outsourcing of American jobs, and have twice been defeated on close 
votes.
  Mr. Speaker, voting yes today will not solve these problems, but it 
will signal that we will reevaluate the trade policy of this nation. I 
urge my colleagues to undertake this work and vote yes on H.J. Res. 27.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to H.J. Res, 27, a resolution withdrawing the U.S. approval of the WTO.
  While there are legitimate disagreements about how world trade is 
organized, and how trade agreements are negotiated, I think that it is 
important to have a forum and structure for international trade. And 
that's the World Trade Organization.
  Let's not overlook the fact that in the 10 years since the WTO's 
inception, we've seen global tariff rates fall and U.S. exports rise.
  Moreover, ninety-seven percent of our international trade is with 
other WTO nations. Withdrawing from the WTO would upset relations with 
these important partners and markets.
  That being said, the WTO is by no means a perfect institution. It is 
important that we are having this debate today.
  In the ongoing Doha round of trade negotiations, the U.S. and our 
global partners have the opportunity to substantially improve the WTO 
by reaching agreements on service negotiations, the reduction of 
tariffs and non-tariff barriers, and the authority of the WTO dispute 
resolution system. We need to see these negotiations through to a 
satisfactory end.
  Nevertheless, despite its imperfections, the WTO provides a stable 
and predictable global trading system that benefits the U.S. both 
economically and strategically.
  And although I will be watching the Doha Round with keen interest, I 
support U.S. participation in the WTO and therefore oppose this 
resolution.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to 
question whether or not the United States should remain in the WTO. 
Among them: the current trade deficit of $618 billion; the 
disappointing enforcement efforts of the Administration on past trade 
agreements; and the lack of consensus in the WTO on how to move forward 
with the Doha Round. But at this point, it is too early to give up 
hope. The WTO is essentially our only chance to address the major 
distortions in world agricultural markets.
  The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is a group 
of 30 countries including the United States, most European countries, 
Japan, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand. It is widely regarded as the 
most reliable source of objective information comparing subsidy levels 
of various developed countries.
  Perhaps the most useful number the OECD calculates is one that 
compares the amount of each dollar that a farmer receives due to 
government policies, such as tariffs or farm support programs, versus 
the amount the farmer receives from the marketplace. They call this 
number the Producer Support Estimate.
  In its 2004 report on Agriculture, the OECD notes that the Producer 
Support Estimate for the United States decreased in recent years, and 
that this is a part of a long term trend in U.S. agricultural policy. 
As the OECD points out, support in the U.S. to producers decreased from 
25% in 1986-88 to 18% in 2003, and has remained below the OECD average. 
Europe has increased support to 37% in 2003.
  What this means is that European farmers rely on the government for 
twice as much of their income as do U.S. farmers--or 37 cents from each 
dollar versus 18 cents for U.S. farmers.
  What relevance do all these statistics have to the current WTO 
negotiations on agriculture? The framework agreement provides for 
harmonization in all three major areas of negotiation. On domestic 
subsidies, the framework states: ``Specifically, higher levels of 
permitted trade-distorting domestic support will be subject to deeper 
cuts.''
  In the section of the WTO framework agreement on export competition, 
it is agreed that export subsidies will be eliminated. The EU remains 
the largest user of export subsidies in the world, and the elimination 
of export subsidies will eventually apply additional pressure to its 
domestic subsidy programs.
  In the section of the WTO framework agreement dealing with market 
access, there is language calling for a tiered formula with ``deeper 
cuts in higher tariffs''. Average U.S. tariffs on agricultural products 
is 12% versus 30% in Europe and 50% in Japan. The world average tariff 
on agricultural products is 62%. This means that the U.S. tariffs on 
agricultural imports should be cut less than European, Japanese, or 
other countries tariffs on our exports to them.
  As with all negotiations, the framework agreement reached last July 
on agriculture allows for a best-case and worst-case scenario to exist, 
which future negotiations will determine. In these negotiations, we 
will depend on our U.S. Trade Representative to achieve a result that 
upholds the principle of harmonization that was set out in the original 
U.S. negotiating position in June of 2000. If that principle is upheld 
in the final agreement, we will be glad we rejected this resolution 
today. If not, it will be time to give serious consideration to leaving 
the WTO.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on H.J. Res. 
27, which seeks to withdraw the approval of the United States from the 
Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.
  During my first term in Congress, I witnessed firsthand the breakdown 
in affairs at the World Trade Organization's trade negations in Mexico. 
Negotiations collapsed as delegates from many underdeveloped countries 
celebrated their perceived success as an increasingly powerful band of 
poor farming countries, known as G-21, held strong to prevent talks 
from proceeding.
  It is important that each participating country have a voice in 
negotiations, but by banding together to divert trade talks, 
underdeveloped countries ultimately hurt themselves. No one in Europe 
or the United States will starve to death because of their efforts, but 
the citizens in their own countries will be put at risk.
  What occurred puts the viability of the WTO in question, but it also 
allows the U.S. to go forth with trade promotion authorization on its 
own. While I believe the WTO needs reform, I do not want us to abandon 
our place at the table. If America were to pull out of the WTO, we 
would lose the ability to influence the organization and its 
negotiations internally.
  Our farmers and producers in Iowa and across the country are some of 
the most efficient in the world and are capable of competing and 
winning in world markets, so long as they do not face unfair foreign 
government policies. The enforcement of a rules-based trading system 
through the World Trade Organization is our best opportunity to gain 
access to these markets for our Nation's farmers and rural communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against H.J. Res. 27 because it is 
clear that our economic interests continue to benefit from engagement 
with trading partners.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, today the House will undoubtedly vote down 
this resolution and signal strong support for remaining in the World 
Trade Organization. This is the right decision to make.
  It is the right decision to make because the WTO, and its 
predecessor, the GATT, have served as a catalyst to reduce both tariff 
and non-tariff barriers for U.S. exports. Since the formation of the 
GATT, average tariffs in industrialized countries have gone down from 
40 to less than 4 percent; since the creation of the WTO in 1994, U.S. 
exports have increased by $300 billion. Of course, the WTO has also 
served as a useful forum to breakdown barriers to U.S. agricultural 
exports where bilateral negotiations could not.
  While I will vote against this resolution today, it is not without 
any reservation. Mr. Speaker, I believe the resolution on the floor 
today provides the ideal time to pause and reflect on the shortcomings 
of the current WTO system and on ways both the Congress and the 
Administration can make changes to the WTO structure so that it works 
better and rebuilds confidence in the system among our constituencies.
  I find the lack of any serious effort to reform the current WTO 
culture and structure to fix the flaws with the unsatisfactory. There 
are a host of problems with the WTO, and the number of problems is only 
growing.
  The WTO completely lacks any degree of transparency; hearings are 
closed to the public and public transcripts are not released. Where, in 
a very limited manner, WTO rules permit limited transparency by 
allowing the assistance and resources of private parties who

[[Page H4317]]

are supportive of the U.S. government position, the Administration has 
chosen not to utilize this allowance.
  Transparency is not the only problem contributing to the WTO's 
failure to move rules-based trade forward globally, but it is the 
central factor allowing the WTO and its bureaucrats to escape the 
scrutiny which would quickly eradicate other abuses in Geneva. Through 
the lack of transparency, the WTO dispute settlement and Appellate 
bodies are emboldened to disregard the proper standard of review in 
disputes involving trade laws, for example. In this way, past WTO 
panels have issued rogue decisions against the U.S. with no basis or 
standing in the context of previously negotiated Agreements. This 
rampant judicial activism is rapidly undermining the support for the 
WTO.
  As the WTO is particularly prone to Yankee-bashing, support for the 
current, broken system is perhaps fading fastest here at home. A slew 
of activist decisions against the U.S., attacking our trade remedy laws 
and another decision amounting to micromanagement of U.S. tax policy 
have come at a steady pace.
  These decisions have been particularly frustrating to many Members of 
Congress because of limited opportunity for oversight by Congress of 
the WTO or its decisions which affect our domestic laws and domestic 
employers. I, along with several of my Ways and Means colleagues, last 
Congress introduced the Trade Law Reform Act. This legislation included 
a provision to establish a WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission. 
This Commission, composed of retired federal judges, would report to 
Congress after reviewing WTO decisions adverse to the U.S. in order to 
determine whether the relevant decision makers failed to follow the 
applicable standard of review or otherwise abused their mandate.

  Today, we have spent two hours debating whether Congress should 
withdraw from the WTO. Yet, absent a new entity to administer and 
advance rules-based trade, there is no question that we must remain 
committed to, and engaged in, the WTO. I would submit that instead of 
debating whether to withdraw from the WTO, Congress should have an 
active debate on ways we can make the current system work properly, as 
it was designed to do, and ways to make it better.
  The U.S. must move swiftly to put an end to judicial activism in the 
WTO and reorganize the structure and culture of both the Appellate Body 
and the dispute settlement body. Additionally, the USTR should deputize 
private parties with a direct and substantial interest in a case to 
appear and participate in WTO proceedings and devote greater resources 
to litigation in WTO disputes. Mr. Speaker, Congress must also 
establish new mechanisms to increase oversight of the WTO.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I concur with my Ways and Means 
Democratic colleagues regarding the United States continued 
participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO). I do not agree 
with House Joint Resolution 27 and withdrawing Congressional approval 
of the WTO agreement.
  Our society is becoming global. There is growing interdependence of 
countries, resulting from the increasing integration of trade, finance, 
people, and ideas in one global marketplace. So, as international trade 
expands due to globalization, we need a set of trade rules and an 
international body to enforce those rules--the WTO.
  The WTO, and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade, have opened foreign markets around the world for U.S. goods and 
services. This has created new opportunities for U.S. businesses, 
farmers, manufacturers, and workers. The U.S. economy is stronger 
because of the WTO.
  There are improvements, however, that can be made. There has to be 
better collaboration in understanding the relationship between trade 
and labor issues. We must ensure that core labor standards are 
enforced, particularly in developing economies. We must have more 
meaningful dialogue about environmental issues in trade discussions. We 
can accomplish this by fully integrating the work of the WTO Committee 
on Trade and Environment into the work of WTO negotiating groups.
  Furthermore, the WTO needs to be fully aware of the vulnerability of 
our domestic steel industry. Ohio is the nation's leading producer of 
steel. China's strategy of undervaluing their currency, the yuan, and 
dumping steel into our domestic market puts Ohioans in danger of losing 
their jobs. Ohio manufacturers produced $4.59 billion in value-added 
steel production and processing last year. The steel industry generates 
over 110,000 jobs in the State of Ohio. We cannot compromise the 
strength of our domestic steel industry. The WTO must be cognizant of 
the trade challenges faced by U.S. steel manufacturers.
  I believe that the United States should continue to be a member of 
the WTO and remain committed to free trade. However, we must ensure 
that our domestic concerns are properly addressed within the WTO.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 27. Withdrawing from the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
would be an abandonment of America's leadership in trade and an 
economic disaster for our nation.
  For decades, the United States has been the leading voice in the 
world for the free market system and economic cooperation among nations 
because capitalism works for America. We were one of the founders of 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade as well as its successor, 
the WTO. America has consistently pushed for a rational, rules-based 
approach in dealing with international trade because we know our 
unique, competitive, vibrant, and innovative economy will allow most 
U.S. economic sectors to compete successfully against any nation 
provided we have a fair playing field and open access to foreign 
markets.
  If we abandon the WTO, we abandon those years of leadership in trade. 
Do we want the Europeans or the Japanese to be the economic model other 
nations look to emulate? Do we really want them to decide the rules by 
which the rest of the world economy will run? If we shut ourselves out 
of the process, we put our farmers, manufacturers, businesses, an 
workers at a strategic disadvantage compared to others in the world.
  North Carolina's economy depends on exports, and we need to break 
down barriers to overseas markets so that our technology, agriculture, 
manufacturing and other sectors can expand on our progress in 
international competition. Studies show that one in five manufacturing 
jobs in North Carolina depend on exports. These jobs on average pay 13-
18 percent more than the U.S. average. Every $1 billion in exports 
creates 20,000 jobs in the United States.
  The United States represents only 4.7 percent of the world 
population. If we want our economy to continue to grow, we need to be 
able to sell to the other 95.3 percent of the world. The WTO, for all 
its flaws and faults, remains the best venue for leveling the playing 
field and gaining access to new markets. That is why I urge my 
colleagues to vote down this resolution.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify my 
opposition to H.J. Res. 27, a resolution to withdraw U.S. approval of 
the Uruguay Round Agreement Act establishing the World Trade 
Organization (WTO).
  Although I oppose the resolution, I am glad we are having this debate 
today. The 1994 law that helped create the WTO included an important 
provision that allows Congress to reassess U.S. participation in the 
organization every five years. The constantly shifting global trade 
landscape makes regular Congressional review of U.S. participation in 
the WTO especially critical.
  Like many of my constituents, I am concerned about investment and 
jobs moving to other countries that have weaker labor and environmental 
standards. I am also concerned about the growing U.S. trade deficit, 
WTO pressure to downgrade our consumer protections, and challenges to 
our federal laws posed by the WTO's closed dispute resolution 
tribunals.
  But retaining U.S. participation in the WTO doesn't mean we can't or 
shouldn't work to improve global trading system. The objective should 
be to mend it, not end it. The WTO is the only international 
organization dealing with the global rules of trade between nations. 
Over 90 percent of all world trade is conducted within the WTO.
  Withdrawal from the WTO would isolate the U.S. from the international 
economy. It would also eliminate the best recourse American businesses 
and workers have when faced with unfair trade barriers: dispute 
resolution. If we were to withdraw from the WTO, other countries could 
impose unfair tariffs or other barriers to American goods, or ``dump'' 
goods, and we could only retaliate in return and risk getting into a 
potentially dangerous trade war.
  If we want to grow and expand our economic opportunities, we must 
engage with the rest of the world. I believe that abandoning a rules-
based trade system would be detrimental to American families, workers, 
business, and national security. We need to do all we can to ensure 
Americans benefit from the global economy. But shutting our doors on 
the WTO isn't the answer.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 304, the joint 
resolution is considered read for amendment and the previous question 
is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.

                              {time}  1230

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the 
passage of the joint resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.

[[Page H4318]]

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 86, 
nays 338, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 239]

                                YEAS--86

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardoza
     Coble
     Costa
     Costello
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Evans
     Everett
     Feeney
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hinchey
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lynch
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pombo
     Rahall
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tierney
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

                               NAYS--338

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Lipinski
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cox
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Hastings (FL)
     Hobson
     Hulshof
     LaHood
     Menendez
     Tiberi

                              {time}  1257

  Mrs. CUBIN, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota and 
Messrs. ROGERS of Alabama, BACHUS, BRADY of Texas, KINGSTON and SHADEGG 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. GARRETT of New Jersey, SULLIVAN, FRANKS of Arizona, GINGREY, 
BARRETT of South Carolina and MOLLOHAN changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the joint resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________