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 can not do is dictate to other people what it is that they are going to do internally in their country .  you can set standards , you can cajole , you can create a mutual growth structure , you can bring money to the table to assist them in moving forward .  that is basically what the united states does with the rest of the world on bilateral and regional agreements .  and the cafta agreement is good for the united states in terms of the economics of getting into the central american marketplace so that we have a little more of a level playing field with other countries around the world .  but it also is a chance for these fledgling and growing democracies to have the input of knowledge , training , and financial assistance in growing their responsible labor structure as well .  most of this is tinted with `` protect america '' as the argument .  america does not really need protection .  america needs the opening of markets around the world in voluntary structures whether they be bilateral , regional , or multinational , as the wto is .  there will always be resistance .  china coming into the wto was a good thing .  are we having difficulties with them ?  yes .  will they continue to have difficulties with themselves as they advance as the world 's largest nation ?  yes .  but those discussions occur under a framework which over time has gotten better and will get better , especially with the united states leadership .  for the united states to walk away unilaterally from what is the best historical example of nations dealing economically in a meaningful and useful way makes no sense whatsoever .  and that is why overwhelmingly the vote today will be `` no '' on withdrawing from the wto .  does that resolve any of the ongoing difficulties we have in terms of our perception of the world , how fair the world is , how open markets in the world are , what instruments we need to use to try to push a more transparent and open marketplace , between countries , among countries , and in fact in all trading nations of the world ?  of course not .  all of those issues will continue to be before us , but they will be before us in a structure which allows us to measure , allows us to judge , and most importantly allows us to change as the key competitive component between nations of the world today and tomorrow will be the question of trade .  and ordered and structured competition is to the advantage of the united states .  and that is why overwhelmingly you will see support staying in the wto , nurturing and growing the wto , notwithstanding the fact that we have a whole lot of concerns about a whole lot of issues .  