Providing For Consideration Of H.J. Res. 27, Withdrawing Approval Of The United States From Agreement Establishing The WTO
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 27, WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION -- (House of Representatives - June 08, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues look around the world today, I have no doubt most would agree that whether the subject is fully engaging our allies on matters of national security and diplomacy, working to protect our shared environment from global warming and other threats or striving to grow our economies in a fashion that is both efficient and humane, the United States should be playing a larger role in the world arena, not withdrawing from it.
Clearly, there are many areas in which the WTO needs reform. However, our continued participation is far too important for walking away to be considered a real option. Simply put, if America were to pull out of the WTO, we would be relegated to the small community of nations who are not members, losing any ability to influence the organization and its negotiations on a wide range of issues.
Ninety-seven percent of all U.S. trade is with other WTO members. No matter where you fall on trade issues these days, it is clear that our economic interests continue to lie with engaging our preeminent trading partners. And we must keep working to ensure that American companies that create jobs here at home by doing business overseas are able to do so in the most transparent, lawful, and predictable business environment possible.
In short, America's long-term economic interests are too important to disengage from this organization, and America is too great a Nation to send yet another signal to the world that we are withdrawing from the community of nations. In recent years we have already done that all too often.
So I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and all of the members of both parties on the Committee on Ways and Means for unanimously reporting this legislation with an adverse recommendation. I am pleased that both parties are prepared to make a strong statement about the importance of this Nation's continued engagement in the world economy.
Trade issues today are stirring a great deal of concern among Members of both parties, and my opponents in this debate are men and women of goodwill with real concerns that the American people's ability to maintain appropriate standards for their communities on issues from food safety to environmental protection will be undermined by the lower standards of other countries. These are worthy and real concerns, concerns that reflect the complexity and seriousness of these issues which have real consequences for our economy and our citizens.
America must be tough and smart and represent the interests of all our people in the trade arena, especially as we negotiate new trade agreements. Many Members of both parties in this Chamber have valid and important questions about whether our trade policymakers are doing that. But withdrawing from the WTO is not the answer.
Americans are right to demand that our negotiators look out for the broader community as the United States engages the world economically, but engage it we must. I am hopeful that today the House is prepared to reject this resolution on a bipartisan basis with a vote that will help preserve our leadership role in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
The WTO reflects many years of development resulting in broad and bipartisan support for expanded trade. Participation is vital to America's interest, be it economic, strategic, or as an avenue to strengthen the rule of law in the world. There is certainly a need to improve the WTO, something I believe can be done.
But this will only be the case if we maintain an active presence in the WTO, engage in negotiations to strengthen American interests. In a few weeks, trade issues will again be before us as this Chamber considers the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.
We should not confuse the debate today about the WTO and the upcoming debate on CAFTA. These are both avenues to advance America's interests through trade partnerships. But CAFTA is a very good example of what can happen when the United States is not looking out for the interests of all of our people and the dangers that can pose for standards that previous generations of Americans worked so hard for and that we benefit from today.
CAFTA would undercut existing protections for workers and United States trade law by requiring only that countries enforce their existing labor laws, which in many cases fail to provide the most basic and internationally recognized protections. Our trade policy should benefit workers, not undermine them.
That is another debate for another day. I mention it only to demonstrate that issues related to international trade are complex, serious, and with real consequences for our economy and our people.
Participation in the WTO is vital to America's interest, be it economic, strategic, or to strengthen the rule of law in the world.
I would like to note while this rule provides for 2 hours of debate, that under our House rules, this resolution and other bills we debate under the procedures established by the Trade Act of 1974 are entitled to 20 hours of debate. While in this case, 20 hours is certainly not necessary, many Members of both parties in this Chamber have valid and important questions about whether our trade policymakers are protecting our interests.
I would hope that when other trade agreements come before this body, and they will, that Members will be able to fully debate the issues and not be limited by stringent time constraints.
I intend to vote against the underlying resolution because I believe that the WTO is essential to a strong rules-based trading system. I hope my colleagues would do as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
The WTO reflects many years of development resulting in broad and bipartisan support for expanded trade. Participation is vital to America's interest, be it economic, strategic, or as an avenue to strengthen the rule of law in the world. There is certainly a need to improve the WTO, something I believe can be done.
But this will only be the case if we maintain an active presence in the WTO, engage in negotiations to strengthen American interests. In a few weeks, trade issues will again be before us as this Chamber considers the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.
We should not confuse the debate today about the WTO and the upcoming debate on CAFTA. These are both avenues to advance America's interests through trade partnerships. But CAFTA is a very good example of what can happen when the United States is not looking out for the interests of all of our people and the dangers that can pose for standards that previous generations of Americans worked so hard for and that we benefit from today.
CAFTA would undercut existing protections for workers and United States trade law by requiring only that countries enforce their existing labor laws, which in many cases fail to provide the most basic and internationally recognized protections. Our trade policy should benefit workers, not undermine them.
That is another debate for another day. I mention it only to demonstrate that issues related to international trade are complex, serious, and with real consequences for our economy and our people.
Participation in the WTO is vital to America's interest, be it economic, strategic, or to strengthen the rule of law in the world.
I would like to note while this rule provides for 2 hours of debate, that under our House rules, this resolution and other bills we debate under the procedures established by the Trade Act of 1974 are entitled to 20 hours of debate. While in this case, 20 hours is certainly not necessary, many Members of both parties in this Chamber have valid and important questions about whether our trade policymakers are protecting our interests.
I would hope that when other trade agreements come before this body, and they will, that Members will be able to fully debate the issues and not be limited by stringent time constraints.
I intend to vote against the underlying resolution because I believe that the WTO is essential to a strong rules-based trading system. I hope my colleagues would do as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/