The second stat is that the U.S., despite being only 4 percent of the world's population, is still responsible for over 20 percent of the world's consumption. So if you are in the developing world that we have heard much about tonight, if you have any hope of growing economically, you need access to our markets as well.

Despite those two facts, we have heard a lot about how, Yes, we support trade, but this isn't the way to do it because of all the challenges we face. But what I think we have to think about is under those terms, what would a trade agreement look like that the opponents support? What can we possibly do in a trade agreement to raise the labor standards throughout the developing world, throughout the world that does not have our standards, to our level? The answer, of course, is that we cannot. We are not going to get there. Fully 70 percent of the world is dramatically below us in labor standards.

Does that mean that we do not trade with them? Does that mean that we simply say we are going to erect a protectionist barrier? Certainly that is a trade agreement that I guess we would all like. You would like to be able to have access to other countries' markets without them having access to yours; but that is not realistic, and it is not good for global stability. I submit that we can move forward, that the world that has been described tonight by those who say that these trade agreements have destroyed us simply is not the one any of us lives in. We can compete. We have competed and succeeded. Under Bill Clinton's leadership, amongst others, we enjoyed the fastest economic expansion ever, and that was across the board. That was not just the wealthiest 10 percent. That was everybody. We can compete and win. We cannot shut out the rest of the world.

I urge a "yes" vote.