PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 9, 1998
Prohibits the importation into the United States during a one-year period of hot-rolled steel products or plate steel products from Japan, Russia, or Brazil. Requires the Secretary of Commerce, in any case in which antidumping duties are imposed upon steel products of a foreign country, to assess such duties on entries made for the period that dumping occurred before the issuance of the order (as well as on entries made after the order), but in no case earlier than one year before an antidumping duty petition was filed or the Secretary initiated an antidumping duty investigation. Expresses the sense of the Congress that the President should respond to complaints filed by U.S. trading partners regarding this prohibition on steel imports by: (1) addressing the failure of those countries' governments to make their companies abide by international trade agreements with respect to dumping; and (2) stating that their failure constitutes a legitimate national security concern to the United States.
People & committees
Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4] · R–AL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H10340)
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.4762 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.4762 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.4762 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.4762 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.