PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Trade.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 14, 2007
Amends the Uruguay Round Agreements Act to direct the President to delay or reverse the implementation of a decision of a dispute settlement panel or the Appellate Body that is adverse to the United States involving the calculation of dumping margins and weighted average dumping margins (zeroing decisions) until the United States has obtained clarification of rights and obligations within World Trade Organization (WTO) multilateral negotiations such that historic practices of the United States are permitted in antidumping duty investigations, reviews of antidumping duty orders, and under any other phase of an antidumping duty proceeding.
Amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to revise factors that the United States International Trade Commission must consider in making material injury determinations in countervailing duty and antidumping duty proceedings to additionally require that the Commission make such determinations without regard to: (1) whether other imports are likely to replace subject imports; or (2) the effect of a potential order on the domestic industry.
People & committees
Rep. Barrett, J. Gresham [R-SC-3] · R–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Trade.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.R.2714 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.
Examine H.R.2714 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.
Examine H.R.2714 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.
Examine H.R.2714 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.