PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H11270)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 18, 2005
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should not be a signatory to any agreement or protocol with respect to the Doha Development Round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations, or any other bilateral or multilateral trade negotiations that: (1) adopts specified proposals to lessen the effectiveness of domestic and international disciplines on unfair trade or safeguard provisions; or (2) would lessen in any manner the ability of the United States to enforce rigorously its trade laws, including the antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard laws.
Declares the sense of the House that the federal trade laws and international rules appropriately serve the public interest by offsetting injurious unfair trade, and further "balancing modifications" or other similar provisions are unnecessary and would add to the complexity and difficulty of achieving relief against injurious unfair trade practices.
States that the United States should ensure that any new agreement relating to international disciplines on unfair trade or safeguard provisions fully rectifies and corrects decisions by WTO dispute settlement panels or the Appellate Body that have unjustifiably and negatively impacted, or threaten to negatively impact, federal law or practice, including a law or practice with respect to foreign dumping or subsidization.
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H11270)
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.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.577 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.577 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.577 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.577 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.