mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , let me first point out to those who may be following this debate why we are here today .  i am sure people are wondering why we have a resolution on the floor that would withdraw us from the wto and how that comes to the floor from a recommendation of the committee of jurisdiction that it be reported unfavorably , that is , that we vote against this resolution .  the reason we have this resolution before us is that 10 years ago we passed legislation to gain access to the wto .  at that time bill clinton was the president of the united states .  congressman gingrich thought it was important that because the legislative branch of government is the branch responsible for trade that there be a review process every 5 years as to whether we should remain within the wto , to give congress the ability to exercise its constitutional responsibility to oversight and be responsible for trade .  at that time , mr. speaker , i must tell the members i had certain concerns as to why we would want to have basically a nuclear option in pulling out from the wto .  today , i am pleased that we can review the wto because i think it is important for us to have a debate as to where we are in the wto .  i would suggest , though , we should have a more sophisticated review process than just to vote to withdraw from the wto .  as the ranking democrat on the trade subcommittee working with the gentleman from florida ( mr. shaw )  , we very much oppose this resolution and urge the rejection of the resolution .  we believe it is in the interest of the united states to be in a rules-based trading system and to withdraw from a rules-based trading system would be folly , it would be wrong .  do we need to improve it ?  yes , we do need to improve the wto .  can we strengthen it ?  yes , we need to strengthen it .  quite frankly , i think that we should be working more aggressively with our trading partners to enforce our existing trade rules .  when we see the manipulation of currency by china and we take no action against it , that is wrong .  when we see other countries infringe on our intellectual property rights and we do not enforce our existing rules to make sure that we do not allow the stealing of our intellectual property rights , that is wrong .  when we see europe provide subsidies for everything from aircraft to agriculture products and we do not take efficient action against them , that is wrong .  when we do not enforce our own anti-dumping laws which are permitted to be enforced to stop the surge of products into this country , that is wrong .  so , mr. speaker , i do think we need to strengthen these laws , but it would be wrong for us to withdraw .  we want a rules-based system , but we want to strengthen that system .  mr. speaker , quite frankly , i think we should be spending more time talking about the doha round .  that is the next stage of trying to move internationally under the wto to expand opportunity for american manufacturers , farmers , and producers .  the so-called doha development agenda negotiations have reached a critical phase .  it is generally agreed that in order to have a successful meeting of the ministers this december in hong kong , the members of the wto will have to come to a significant level of agreement by july on three key areas .  first , agriculture .  i must tell the members i am concerned we have not made anywhere near the progress on agriculture that we need to do .  i welcomed the announcement last week that the next director-general of the wto will be pascal lamy , the former trade commissioner of eu , who comes from france .  obviously , mr. lamy will have a special burden to demonstrate that he can make progress in this area where the european union has been so outrageous in its subsidies .  we need to narrow that gap .  we will wait to see whether , in fact , that can be accomplished .  the second area is in manufactured goods .  there are two challenges here : tariff reductions particularly by the advanced developing countries and the elimination of the so-called nontariff barriers , the ntbs .  and in both of these areas , much work remains to be done if we are going to have a successful doha round .  i am particularly concerned about the negotiations on the ntbs which lie far behind at this time .  this is a critical area for u.s. manufacturing , particularly in large markets such as japan , korea , and china .  and , finally , in the area of services , we are far behind where we should be in expanding opportunity for services by u.s. companies in other markets .  i hope that our negotiators will be able to make up for lost time in the next couple of months so that an ambitious services package will be approved in hong kong .  there is one other area i want to mention , mr. speaker , as we review our participation in the wto , and that is the dispute settlement system .  the dispute settlement system is absolutely critical to a successful wto .  i must tell the members i have major concerns as to how the dispute resolution system is working within the wto .  under the old gatt system , silence in an agreement meant that a country could do what it deemed appropriate .  under the decisions of the appellate body and the panels of the wto , silence has been altered to mean that the appellate body and panels do what they think is appropriate .  that is just wrong .  the number of cases are disturbing .  in 33 cases brought against the united states since 1995 , panels or the appellate body have overreached , overreached , in 22 of them .  that is two-thirds .  we need to have a way to review what the appellate body and dispute resolution panels are doing , and we are not doing that .  the consequences of this overreaching are clear .  in 10 years the wto has not affirmed a single safeguard measure as applied by the united states or any other country .  in trade remedy cases involving the united states , anti-dumping duties , countervailing duty measures , and safeguard cases , the wto has upheld the united states decision in two of 17 cases .  that is an 88 percent loss ratio , clearly one that we need to take a better look at .  a growing number of observers are coming to recognize that the extraordinary loss rate is because the wto panels and its appellate body do not respect the letter of the wto agreements and are filling in the gaps beyond what the u.s. negotiators agreed to in the uruguay round .  mr. speaker , i mention this because this is another area that we have to make up for lost ground in our negotiations under the wto .  so make no mistake about it , we should reject this resolution overwhelmingly because it is in the interest of the united states to participate in a rules-based international trading system .  i represent a community that includes the port of baltimore .  i want products coming into the united states .  i also want products leaving the united states through the port of baltimore .  it is important for our economy .  but we have to do a better job in our negotiations within the wto , and that is what we need to concentrate on .  that is what we need to work together on .  and if we do that , it will be a win-win for this nation .  we will be able to increase jobs through manufacturing , through production , and through farming .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  