PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Trade.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 17, 2003
Condemns as a deliberate interference with the right of the United States to protect its own markets against unfair trade practices the adverse report issued by the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement Appellate Body on the proceeding to determine whether U.S. imposition of import restrictions on certain steel products on March 5, 2002, was consistent with the Agreement on Safeguards described in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
Strongly urges the President to: (1) repeal all exclusions to such import restrictions which benefit European Union (EU) steelmakers if the EU retaliates against the United States in the form of counter import restrictions; and (2) direct the United States Trade Representative to use the voice and vote of the United States at the WTO to ensure that immediate reforms are made to the dispute settlement process to increase its transparency and ensure that it does not unfairly restrict trade remedy laws, create new obligations, or undermine legitimate trade actions brought by the United States or other WTO member countries.
People & committees
Rep. English, Phil [R-PA-3] · R–PA
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.Res.441 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.Res.441 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.Res.441 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.Res.441 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.