NEW YORK -- Since its birth, our nation has been defined by "freedom" -- a powerful word that can take on different meanings. Many people see the embodiment of this freedom in our capitalist values: we are free to buy and sell and pursue the American Dream. Others see freedom in human rights and equal treatment -- millions upon millions came through Ellis Island to realize this liberty.

Too often in recent years, our international trade policy has reflected a sentiment that these definitions of freedom are incompatible, that human freedom is a hindrance to financial freedom. This kind of thinking is not based in reality, and it is cynical and dangerous.

Opening up global free trade is vitally important for our economy, but it must aim to create long-term benefits for our economy, global prosperity and international stability.

One trade agreement that markedly tilted away from fair labor and environmental protections to the point of irresponsibility was 2005's Central American Free Trade Agreement. It involved countries where labor protections do not meet basic international standards, and it is shockingly devoid of an enforcement mechanism to protect workers or the environment. Rather, the agreement requires only that these countries "enforce their own laws," which are woefully deficient.

"Anything-goes" agreements like this may cut short-term costs for specific industries, but they actually undercut conditions for long-term economic strength. In fact, by opening these markets without installing fair labor rules, we trigger the starting gun on a race to the bottom. Who can produce the most for the cheapest becomes more important than creating conditions for a sustainable, vibrant global economy.

In America, hard-working laborers watch their jobs float away to foreign workers who are paid a pittance under inhumane conditions. To compete with lower prices from foreign companies using dirt-cheap labor, our companies either have to move operations overseas or lose profit.

Look at what has happened to manufacturing in our country: 2.9 million manufacturing jobs have been lost during the Bush administration alone. I have yet to meet an economist who advocates this kind of job loss or the five consecutive record annual trade deficits we have incurred.

In the other countries party to these agreements, workers receive little benefit in wages or working conditions. This does not improve their quality of life, and it prevents the growth of a vibrant middle class that would be able to buy U.S. goods.

Superseding all of these economic issues is the environment, an issue the Bush administration recklessly has ignored across the board. If we do not work to protect our planet, there will not be much of an economy to protect -- a fact that should resonate from Georgia to Guatemala to the Gulf of Oman.

Even without the economic and environmental arguments, we come back to the idea of human freedom and America's historical responsibility as the champion of liberty. Do buzz words like "compassion" and "values" truly have meaning if one day we use them as rhetoric and the next we push trade agreements that subject laborers across the globe to oppressive and dangerous working conditionsfi We must ask ourselves if America should support labor practices that devalue human life and even make fertile the grounds for human trafficking and forced labor.

What some proponents of our most imbalanced trade agreements have framed as a choice between economics and social policy is, in fact, a false choice. Fair labor and environmental standards and the welfare of our economy are not mutually exclusive. Especially now that the world is smaller than ever, doing business while protecting human rights and the environment is not just feel-good policy, it's smart policy.

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, D-N.Y., is the senior House Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. Readers may write to her at 2331 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515.