PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 253.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 30, 1995
WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission Act - Establishes the WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission to review all adverse reports of dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which result from a proceeding initiated against the United States by a WTO member, or (but only at the request of the U.S. Trade Representative) in which the United States is a complaining party. Requires the Commission to determine whether the panel or the Appellate Body: (1) demonstrably exceeded its authority; (2) added to the obligations, or diminished the rights, of the United States under the Uruguay Round Agreement; (3) acted arbitrarily or capriciously, engaged in misconduct, or demonstrably departed from proper procedures; and (4) deviated, in its report, from the applicable standard of review. Requires the Commission to make an affirmative determination with respect to the action of a panel or the Appellate Body if it determines that: (1) any of the above occurred; and (2) the action of such panel or the Appellate Body materially affected the outcome of its report. Urges the President, upon enactment of a joint resolution directing such action, to negotiate to amend or modify the rules and procedures of the Uruguay Round Agreement with respect to any affirmative report submitted to the Congress concerning the action of a panel or the Appellate Body. Provides for a joint resolution withdrawing congressional approval of the WTO agreement, ending U.S. participation in the WTO, if: (1) there are three affirmative reports submitted to the Congress during the preceding five-year period; and (2) negotiations to remedy the problems in such reports are no longer in the national interest.
People & committees
Sen. Dole, Robert J. [R-KS] · R–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 253.
Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Introduced in Senate
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 21, 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 S.1438 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 S.1438 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 S.1438 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 S.1438 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.