PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Trade.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 18, 2003
Disapproves the adverse decision of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body with respect to the March 5, 2002, imposition by the United States of safeguard measures on the importation of certain steel products as having added to U.S. obligations and diminished U.S. rights under the WTO agreements.
Calls upon: (1) the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) immediately to request the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to issue an advisory report with respect to the Appellate Body decision; (2) the ITC to issue its report expeditiously; (3) the USTR immediately to request the ITC under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act to make a determination rendering its actions not inconsistent with the Appellate Body decision; (4) the ITC to issue such a determination expeditiously; (5) the President immediately to repeal all exclusions to the safeguard measures which were given for the benefit of European Union (EU) steelmakers should the EU retaliate against the safeguard measures in the form of counter import restrictions; and (6) the USTR to pursue vigorously within the WTO negotiations to reform the WTO dispute settlement process to increase its transparency and to ensure that it does not act outside its authority to limit trade remedy laws, create new obligations, or undermine legitimate trade actions brought by the United States or other member countries of the WTO.
Calls for the establishment of a commission of distinguished jurists to advise Congress on the reports issued through the WTO dispute settlement system and, in particular, on whether such reports are consistent with Articles 3.2 and 19.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.
People & committees
Rep. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD-3] · D–MD
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.445 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.445 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.445 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.445 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.