A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the conditions for the United States to become a signatory to any multilateral agreement on trade resulting from the World Trade Organization's Doha Development Agenda Round.
Referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S10761)
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 29, 2005
Expresses the sense of Congress 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 adopts any proposal to lessen the effectiveness of domestic and international disciplines on unfair trade or safeguard provisions, including certain proposals, and would lessen in any manner U.S. ability to enforce rigorously its trade laws, including the antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard laws.
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) U.S. trade laws and international rules appropriately serve the public interest by offsetting injurious unfair trade, and that 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; and (2) 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, U.S. law or practice, including a law or practice with respect to foreign dumping or subsidization.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.Con.Res.55 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.Con.Res.55 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.Con.Res.55 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.Con.Res.55 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.