This is from Ambassador Lighthizer's responses to the questions for the record from a June 19 House Ways and Means Committee hearing:
From Representative Bill Pascrell to Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer
1. Using Section 301 could invite retaliation. And Mexico and Canada agreed to fix panel-blocking in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But this was not changed in the newly negotiated North American Free Trade Agreement. Senators Brown and Wyden have a proposal which sounds worthy of consideration. As we look to improve the enforcement mechanisms in the new newly negotiated North American Free Trade Agreement, can you commit to ensuring there is a binding dispute settlement system that does not allow panel blocking?
Answer: I am committed to ensuring that the agreement is enforceable. My staff and I have been working with the process set up by the Speaker and this is one of the important issues we are discussing.
,,,,,,,,
From Representative Jimmy Panetta to Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer
.......
4. There remain strong concerns regarding state-to-state dispute settlement, and the ability for one party to block a dispute panel. You have stated to Senate Finance Ranking Member Wyden that the text of USMCA “is not meant to allow panel blocking.”
While that clarification may be helpful, is USTR willing to either update USMCA’s text or negotiate a side agreement that makes that clarification official?
Answer: I am committed to ensuring that the agreement is enforceable. My staff and I have been working with the process set up by the Speaker and this is one of the issues we are discussing.
Those responses were vague and do not inspire a lot of confidence that the panel blocking problem will be fixed. Congress may have to push pretty hard behind the scenes to get this corrected. I hope they are doing so.
