PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3900-3901)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 2, 2006
Expresses the sense of the Senate 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, unless: (1) a nonagricultural market access (NAMA) agreement would lead to a significant reduction or elimination of the substantial inequities in the average level of industrial tariff rates of all WTO members; (2) substantial increases in market access and U.S. exports are achieved through reductions in average tariff rates applied to manufactured goods; (3) sectoral tariff agreements are included that would result in a significant number of countries eliminating tariffs on products and in sectors that would increase U.S. exports; and (4) real new market access is achieved through the dismantling of nontariff barriers, particularly in sectors of primary importance to American manufacturers.
People & committees
Sen. Bayh, Evan [D-IN] · D–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3900-3901)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 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.Res.459 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.Res.459 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.Res.459 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.Res.459 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.