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 do n't have time to develop expertise and procedural and technical aspects of the dispute settlement system. '' and we are going to have them judge the boeing , the complicated boeing case , for example ?  we need to change , and work harder to change , the dispute settlement system , not to withdraw from the wto .  so there are some major structural problems .  also , relating to china , i have been very dissatisfied with the way the wto has handled the annual review of china 's obligations that we worked so hard to bring about .  part of the problem is with the wto in geneva , part of the problem has been our administration that has not vigorously , and the gentleman from maryland ( mr. cardin )  has worked so hard to illustrate this , the administration has not worked actively enough to get china to live up to its agreements .  so more needs to be done by the administration , and we have been losing too many cases , and we have been filing too few cases .  so my suggestion is that we focus today on the accomplishments , but also the barriers , to effective operation of the wto .  one issue the wto has totally failed to address relates to core labor standards .  on environment , they have kind of a group that looks at environmental issues .  on core labor standards , there has been resistance to address this .  years ago , there was a proposal by the clinton administration to set up a working group within the wto .  that was resisted , resisted by many , including developing nations .  i think now , as developing nations have to compete with each other , including china , where labor standards essentially are nonexistent , those developing nations are beginning to say , well , maybe the wto should address it .  but it has not .  the argument was , okay , let us use bilateral agreements as building blocks in a number of areas , including core labor standards .  and that is why i want to say just a few words now about the failure of this administration to use bilateral agreements effectively as a building block when it comes to basic core labor standards , the ilo labor standards , child labor , forced labor , nondiscrimination , and the right of workers to assemble , to organize , to have unions if they desire , and to bargain collectively .  cafta is a vital agreement in terms of where globalization is going .  in latin america , there is growing unrest and changes in government , in part because of the failure to have the large numbers of people , the largest proportion of people , share in the benefits of globalization .  so what did this administration do under these circumstances ?  it negotiates a standard , enforce your own laws .  enforce your own laws is only used as to core labor standards , not as to intellectual property or tariffs or anything else .  and the tragedy of it is that the laws in central america , to some extent the dominican republic , do not meet the basic standards giving people the freedom in the labor market .  that is the basic fact .  the ilo reports say so , despite what the administration tries to say .  their own state department reports say that , despite what the administration and our new ustr , mr. portman , said this morning .  what is at stake is the development of a middle class that is so critical .  and i am going to say more about this later today .  the experience in countries is that workers are a critical part of the evolution towards a strong middle class .  there was a reference by mr. portman  to jordan .  and what he said , that cafta is stronger than jordan , it is simply not true .  it is not correct .  jordan has reference in its agreement to the core labor standards , that is not true of cafta .  and the enforcement capability in jordan was left to each country to undertake .  so i just wanted to comment on this , because the bilateral agreements were supposed to be a building block where the wto did not address an issue ; and there is a failure at this critical point of globalization , a critical missed opportunity in terms of helping the benefits of globilization being widely shared .  i want to close , and i will say more about this later today , why it matters to the u.s. it matters in terms of central america , which , as i say , has such income disparities that are true of latin america generally .  what it means is , as to central america , if workers are not going to be able to participate , to have freedom , to be able to associate , to become a part of the workplace , and are going to remain in poverty , it is bad for those workers , it is bad for those countries that desperately need a middle class , it is bad for our workers who will not compete with countries where workers are suppressed , and it is bad for our companies if there is no strong middle class to purchase our products .  so i am deeply disappointed by this effort to skirt this basic issue at this important time .  a building block ?  no , cafta moves backwards from the present status instead of moving forward .  and this notion that we are going to give more money to our labor department to enforce the laws , when they are cutting the budget , this congress and the administration , are cutting these moneys for ilab and other parts of the labor department .  you can not 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 .  