PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 10, 2002
Trade Enhancement Act of 2002 - Amends the Trade Act of 1974 to make an act, policy, or practice unjustifiable if it constitutes fostering by a foreign government of systematic anticompetitive activities by persons or among persons in one or more foreign countries that have the effect of restricting, on a basis inconsistent with commercial considerations, access of U.S. goods or services to a foreign market or diverting foreign goods or services toward the U.S. market. Makes it an unreasonable act, policy, and practice for a foreign government to tolerate such systematic anticompetitive activities.Requires the United States Trade Representative (USTR), in addition to determining what action to take with respect to any act, policy, or practice found unjustifiable or unreasonable, to: (1) further determine whether there is reason to believe that the conduct of the foreign country concerned involves anticompetitive conduct engaged in by any natural or corporate person or persons; and (2) if so, refer the matter to the Attorney General for investigation into whether such conduct violates the Sherman Act.Amends the Sherman Act to require the Attorney General to: (1) conduct such an investigation if the USTR refers such a matter; and (2) commence an action in a U.S. district court seeking injunctive and other relief if an investigation results in an affirmative determination.Amends the Trade Act of 1974 to authorize the USTR to use, if it has a reasonable basis, an inference adverse to the interests of any foreign government which has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to: (1) comply with a reasonable request for information; or (2) require a party within its jurisdiction to comply with a reasonable request for information.
People & committees
Rep. Levin, Sander M. [D-MI-12] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Aug 19, 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.5622 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.5622 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.5622 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.5622 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.