<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><i class="">Article on the series of Ways & Means letters is below…</i></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><a href="https://waysandmeans.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/ways-means-committee-democrats-emphasize-importance-enforcement" class="">https://waysandmeans.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/ways-means-committee-democrats-emphasize-importance-enforcement</a><br class="">
<h1 class="title" id="page-title" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 36px; margin: 10px 0px 0px; font-family: Montserrat, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.4; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); border-bottom-style: none; padding: 0px 12px; text-transform: uppercase;">WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS EMPHASIZE IMPORTANCE OF ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS IN RENEGOTIATED NAFTA</h1><div class="block-without-title block block-system block-main block-system-main odd" id="block-system-main" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: none; background-attachment: scroll; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 1.5em 1em; border: medium none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Montserrat, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat repeat;"><div class="block-inner clearfix" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="content clearfix" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="boxton clearfix panel-display container" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto; padding: 0px; width: auto;"><div class="row-fluid" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="boxton-content-region span12 boxton-container boxton-content panel-panel" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="panel-pane pane-node-created" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding-right: 8px; display: inline;"><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline;">Apr 25, 2019 </div></div><div class="pane-token panel-pane pane-node-content-type" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline;">Press Release </div><div class="pane-entity-field panel-pane pane-node-body" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="field-label-hidden field-name-body field field-type-text-with-summary" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 15px; padding-top: 0px;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline;"><div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class=""><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">WASHINGTON, DC – </strong>Today, Ways & Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA), Trade Subcommittee Chairman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), and Committee Democrats sent <a href="https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/2019.04.25%20WM%20Dem%20Ltr%20to%20Amb%20Lighthizer%20re%20NAFTA%20Enforcement.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 98, 160); text-decoration: none;" class="">a letter</a> to U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert E. Lighthizer highlighting their concerns with the current enforcement provisions in the replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The letter is part of the Committee’s ongoing engagement with the Administration to secure congressional support for a NAFTA replacement – it follows <a href="https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/2019.04.09_Ltr%20from%20Chairman%20Neal%20to%20Amb.%20Lighthizer%20re%20NAFTA%20Replacemen....pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 98, 160); text-decoration: none;" class="">a letter</a>that Chairman Neal sent to the Ambassador on April 9, 2019 to bring the Ambassador’s attention to Committee Democrats’ main concerns as they consider the NAFTA replacement; an <a href="https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/2019.04.11%20WM%20Dem%20Ltr%20to%20Amb%20Lighthizer%20re%20NAFTA%20Labor.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 98, 160); text-decoration: none;" class="">April 11, 2019 letter</a> to the Ambassador that highlights Committee Democrats’ concerns with the new agreement’s labor provisions; and an <a href="https://waysandmeans.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/ways-means-committee-democrats-raise-concerns-environmental-provisions" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 98, 160); text-decoration: none;" class="">April 17, 2019 letter</a> raising Committee Democrats’ concerns with the renegotiated agreement’s environmental provisions. </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">Full text of today’s letter can be found <a href="https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/2019.04.25%20WM%20Dem%20Ltr%20to%20Amb%20Lighthizer%20re%20NAFTA%20Enforcement.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 98, 160); text-decoration: none;" class="">HERE</a> and below:</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class=""><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">The Honorable Robert E. Lighthizer<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">U.S. Trade Representative<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">600 17th Street, NW<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">Washington, D.C. 20508</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">Dear Ambassador Lighthizer: <br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class=""> <br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">As our Committee prepares to consider the renegotiated trade agreement with Canada and Mexico (“the new Agreement”), we write to express our concerns regarding the enforceability and eventual enforcement of the new Agreement. The question of enforceability relates directly to the value of the deal that has been negotiated: will the commitments each of the parties signed onto have meaning? What happens when a party fails to deliver on its commitments, whether because it has overlooked a promise, its system has produced an imperfect result, or because it no longer wishes to be bound by the promise?</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">Our concerns are most pointed with respect to the enforceability of the new Agreement’s labor and environment commitments. But they also apply more broadly to all commitments enshrined in the new Agreement.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">Since the debate and consideration of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) over 25 years ago, Committee Democrats have persisted in advocating for not just strong, but also enforceable labor and environment provisions in U.S. trade agreements. Our efforts resulted in labor and environment cooperation provisions in side agreements to NAFTA in 1993. Those provisions were subject to special enforcement mechanisms different from the mechanism applicable to other commitments in the NAFTA, which were never fully pursued or utilized.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">In the early 2000s, labor and environment provisions found their way into the main text of U.S. trade agreements, subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism as other obligations in the agreement. However, the commitments were largely limited to the requirement that partner countries “effectively enforce” their own labor and environmental laws and try not to weaken those laws to encourage trade or investment. And the enforceability of those commitments was qualified by the requirement that failures be sustained or recurring.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">In 2007, after Democrats assumed the majority in the House, Committee Democrats led the negotiations of the May 10 Agreement with the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans. As a result of May 10, four pending trade agreements were reopened to, among other things, strengthen their labor and environment commitments and the enforceability of those commitments.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">Despite the incorporation and advancement of labor and environment provisions in our trade agreements, since 1993, no environmental disputes have ever been litigated and only one labor enforcement dispute has ever been pursued under a U.S. trade agreement. That case, brought against Guatemala under the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), failed to secure affirmative findings of breach, despite clear evidence of the Guatemalan government’s failure to ensure compliance with court orders, conduct labor inspections, impose penalties, and register legitimate unions. This record of general non-enforcement and one deeply disappointing result, has led Democrats to question whether labor and environmental provisions are at all enforceable or will ever be enforced.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">Our questioning is compounded by the fact that the new Agreement’s mechanism for resolving disputes carries over NAFTA’s flawed procedures. Those procedures are easily frustrated by a responding party that wishes, for whatever reason, not to be sued. </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">In the first years of NAFTA, three state-to-state disputes were fully litigated between the parties. In the fourth instance, a case that Mexico brought against the United States, the United States managed to prevent the formation of the arbitral panel. That case was never able to proceed further and no other case has ever been resolved through NAFTA’s state-to-state mechanism since. </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">With the same procedures in place in the new Agreement, what reason do we have to believe that any disputes over broken promises in the labor, environment, or any other chapter in the agreement will lead to recourse or remedy? What reason do we have to believe that the new Agreement will truly modernize the terms of North American trade or level the playing field for our workers and communities?</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">We look forward to engaging with you on addressing our concerns and questions. Our interest is in replacing NAFTA with an agreement that remedies the well-known flaws of NAFTA.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">Sincerely,</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Richard E. Neal <br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">Chairman </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Earl Blumenauer<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable John Lewis </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Lloyd Doggett</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Mike Thompson </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable John B. Larson</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Ron Kind </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Danny K. Davis </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Linda T. Sánchez</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Brian Higgins </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Terri A. Sewell</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Suzan K. DelBene </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Judy Chu</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Gwen Moore </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Daniel T. Kildee</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Brendan F. Boyle </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Donald S. Beyer Jr. </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Dwight Evans </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Bradley S. Schneider</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Thomas R. Suozzi </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Jimmy Panetta</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Stephanie Murphy </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Jimmy Gomez</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;" class="">The Honorable Steven Horsford </p><p class="align-center" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: center;">###</p><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px;" class=""><font size="4" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""><strong class="">Ways & Means Democrats cite 'flawed' dispute process in questioning USMCA</strong></font></div><div class="timestamp" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px;">INSIDE US TRADE, April 25, 2019 at 3:14 PM</div><div class="body" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font face="Trebuchet MS" class=""><strong class=""></strong></font> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">“Well-known” flaws in NAFTA’s dispute settlement process are making some Democrats question whether to support the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, a group of 25 lawmakers said this week.</font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""></font> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">“With the same procedures in place in the new Agreement, what reason do we have to believe that any disputes over broken promises in the labor, environment, or any other chapter in the agreement will lead to recourse or remedy?” the group wrote in an April 25 </font><a href="https://insidetrade.com/sites/insidetrade.com/files/documents/2019/apr/wto2019_0121d.pdf" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">letter</font></a><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""> to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. “What reason do we have to believe that the new Agreement will truly modernize the terms of North American trade or level the playing field for our workers and communities?”</font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""></font> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">The correspondence is part of what House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA), in an </font><a href="https://insidetrade.com/node/166225" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">April 9 letter</font></a><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""> to Lighthizer, said would be increased engagement from Democrats before USMCA is sent to Capitol Hill for consideration. Earlier this month, Democrats also </font><a href="https://insidetrade.com/node/166297" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">sent letters</font></a><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""> urging USTR to </font><a href="https://insidetrade.com/node/166278" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">bolster environmental and labor language</font></a><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""> in the deal. A letter on biologics issues, a key sticking point for several Democrats, could also be part of the series.</font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""></font> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">“The question of enforceability relates directly to the value of the deal that has been negotiated: will the commitments each of the parties signed onto have meaning?” the letter asks. “What happens when a party fails to deliver on its commitments, whether because it has overlooked a promise, its system has produced an imperfect result, or because it no longer wishes to be bound by the promise?”</font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""></font> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">“Despite the incorporation and advancement of labor and environment provisions in our trade agreements, since 1993, no environmental disputes have ever been litigated and only one labor enforcement dispute has ever been pursued under a U.S. trade agreement,” the letter continues. “This record of general non-enforcement and one deeply disappointing result, has led Democrats to question whether labor and environmental provisions are at all enforceable or will ever be enforced."</font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""></font> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">Citing three “fully litigated” disputes in the early years of NAFTA, the group notes that the state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism was once functional. But in a fourth claim, filed by Mexico against U.S. restrictions on sugar, the U.S. blocked the appointment of the arbitration panel, and the process has been paralyzed ever since.</font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""></font> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">“That case was never able to proceed further and no other case has ever been resolved through NAFTA’s state-to-state mechanism since,” the letter states.</font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">Mexican Ambassador to the U.S. Martha Bárcena also cited the </font><a href="https://insidetrade.com/node/166314" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">fourth dispute</font></a><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""> this week.</font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""></font> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">“So, what we need to know, there have been some problems with the implementation of the arbitration panels under NAFTA, and why there have been these problems? Because the U.S. never submitted their list of experts for the arbitration panels,” she said on April 22.</font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""></font> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">Under NAFTA, all three countries must agree on a list of potential panelists from which to choose in dispute settlement cases. But due to a provision allowing the roster of panelists to expire every three years, it would often remain empty or incomplete. Under Article 31.8 of USMCA, the roster won't expire until a new one is in place.</font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""></font> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">“The Parties shall establish by the date of entry into force of this Agreement and maintain a roster of up to 30 individuals who are willing to serve as panelists. The roster shall be appointed by consensus and remain in effect for a minimum of three years or until the Parties constitute a new roster,” the USCMA text reads.</font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""></font> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">If each country “submits their list of the panelists for labor arbitration panels at the same time that USMCA is ratified,” the issue will be resolved, Bárcena said on April 22.</font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""></font> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">Celeste Drake, the AFL-CIO’s trade policy specialist, this week </font><a href="https://insidetrade.com/node/166131" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">reiterated calls</font></a><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""> to change the deal’s text. “Enforcement can’t happen unless the text is repaired to make sure that one party can’t block enforcement, unless labor loopholes are eliminated, unless new swift and certain monitoring and enforcement tools are added, and unless adequate, long-term resources are devoted to enforcement,” she said in an April 24 </font><a href="https://aflcio.org/2019/4/24/usitc-report-backs-need-fix-new-nafta-add-real-enforcement" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">statement</font></a><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">. “And those changes to the deal can’t happen unless Congress tells the administration that it refuses to vote on the new NAFTA until it is fixed.”</font></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class=""></font> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has cited Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as a tool to enforce USMCA and address dispute settlement issues, though the idea has sparked concerns among Democrats and others who fear Mexico and Canada will not agree to a deal if unilateral actions are threatened. --<em class="">Isabelle Hoagland </em>(</font><a href="mailto:ihoagland@iwpwnews.com" class=""><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">ihoagland@iwpwnews.com</font></a><font size="3" face="Trebuchet MS" class="">)</font></div></div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; orphans: 2; widows: 2;" class="">Arthur Stamoulis</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; orphans: 2; widows: 2;" class="">Citizens Trade Campaign</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; orphans: 2; widows: 2;" class="">(202) 494-8826</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; orphans: 2; widows: 2;" class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>