Jay Rockefeller: “I also wish to clarify with my colleagues that section 2(c)(9) is a ``no weakening'' provision, and not a ``no net…”

“I also wish to clarify with my colleagues that section 2(c)(9) is a ``no weakening'' provision, and not a ``no net weakening'' provision. In other words, the President is directed to reject any new international obligation whose acceptance would impair our current trade remedies in the way you have described--by making relief costlier, more uncertain, or otherwise harder to achieve and maintain over time. An agreement that includes such changes must be rejected, and it is no answer--insofar as section 2(c)(9) and the intent of the Congress is concerned--to contend that the agreement in question also includes some ``strengthening'' provisions. That would include any revisions that intended to ``strengthen'' the disciplines governing other countries' trade laws, including those in the developing world. I personally believe that until the United States has a documented record of challenging those foreign trade laws at the WTO--and for some inexplicable reason we do not--there is no justification for saying existing WTO rules are not sufficient to ensure due process and transparency in foreign trade laws. Additionally, I think it is important to clarify that this negotiating directive does not preclude U.S. negotiators from addressing the very serious shortcomings that have become apparent in the operation of the WTO dispute settlement system.”