You have two of the three major /FAIL/ at web development -- fixed width layout with fixed metric (aka px) fonts. So right there from a design standpoint it's trash, and we've not even looked deeply at it.
The layout seems to be broken in 3 out of four browser engines here, with the header and footer not lining up with the content... Screencap of that problem in action:
It's image heavy so there is very little for search engines like Google to actually use to rank the page as having 'content of value'. More so since you have a distinct lack of ALT text on those images...
Peeking under the hood, the first line proudly proclaims much of the issues -- "Transitional", which is to say "in transition from 1997 to 1998 coding practices" -- quite literally that's what using said doctype means, which is why tranny was supposed to be for adding the new stuff to old documents, and was NEVER meant for building new sites.
I don't know what "WebAcappella 4.4.0 Premium professional" is, but it appears that whoever made it doesn't know enough about HTML and CSS to be making a program like that; though I can assume it's some form of WYSIWYG, which means it's completely incapable of building a website "properly" and you're basically shooting your horse in the foot seconds before the gate opens.
This is evident from the massively ridiculous 35.9k of markup to deliver 926 bytes of plaintext (so basically zero actual content) and 9 content images; basically anywhere from eight to ten times as much code as should have been used...
... and such code; endless pointless presentational nonsense in the markup that means to be brutally frank, the entire mess should be pitched in the trash and started over.
Though the design itself is filled with concepts that have no business on a website in the first place -- like perfect width images, perfect height layout areas, no real text on the page for non-sighted users and user-agents like search engines to use, and on the whole... well, what I expect from the "what it looks like first" approach to development, which is pretty much putting the cart before the horse and a back-assward way of building a site.
I'd toss it and start over from scratch, getting at LEAST 2k of copy on the page, in a logical document structure with semantic markup, separation of presentation from content, in a series of elastic, semi-fluid and responsive layouts... or at least that's the approach you should have taken if you actually care about users using the page and search engines having something to rank it with.
Looks like you were tricked into using some goofy tool that deludes people into THINKING they can build a website. Not your fault, there's a lot of predators out there... simple fact is there's more to a website than what it looks like on the screen you happen to be seated in front of, and that's the part you're really missing here.