PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.Con.Res.310 / 109th Congress

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to unilateral altering, by the European Union, of the standards for imports of certain wood products.

Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 18, 2005

Expresses the sense of Congress that the European Union's unilateral attempt to alter the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures Number 15 (ISPM 15) as it applies to imports of wood packaging materials violates the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).

Urges the President to ask the European Commission to agree to: (1) suspend the requirement that all wood packaging be debarked until there is credible scientific evidence of the need for such a standard; (2) allow the processing of relevant scientific data through authorized IPPC channels; (3) develop a clear definition of "debarked" wood packaging for pallets and containers, if the relevant IPPC entities conclude that changing ISPM 15 is technically justified, and communicate it to all participating nations in a clear and unambiguous manner; (4) allow sufficient time for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to establish a system for using a "debark" mark or other stamp or indication for pallets and containers; and (5) establish an implementation date for the new requirement with which U.S. wood packaging manufacturers can reasonably comply.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Ford, Harold E., Jr. [D-TN-9] · D–TN

Committees

  • Foreign Affairs Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

    2. Introduced in House

    3. Introduced in House

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

    Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze H.Con.Res.310 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine H.Con.Res.310 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine H.Con.Res.310 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine H.Con.Res.310 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

    View full prompt & sources