Home > 106th Congressional Bills > H.Con.Res. 244 (eh) [Engrossed in House] ...

H.Con.Res. 244 (eh) [Engrossed in House] ...


Google
 
Web GovRecords.org








108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 243

   Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding dispute settlement 
              proceedings in the World Trade Organization.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 2003

  Mr. Levin submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
   Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding dispute settlement 
              proceedings in the World Trade Organization.

Whereas the ability of the United States to apply its unfair trade and trade 
        remedy laws has for more than half a century been a cornerstone of the 
        support of the United States for the multilateral trading system, the 
        General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and, since 1995, the World Trade 
        Organization (in this preamble referred to as the ``WTO'');
Whereas remedies for unfair trade have been a fundamental part of rights under 
        the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade since 1947; Article VI of the 
        GATT 1994 (as defined in section 2 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
        (19 U.S.C. 3501)) authorizes the imposition of duties in response to the 
        unfair international trading practice of injurious dumping and expressly 
        ``condemns'' this practice;
Whereas to this day, injurious dumping is the only trading practice that is 
        specifically condemned by the GATT;
Whereas Article VI also expressly authorizes the imposition of duties to respond 
        to subsidized imports that cause injury to a United States industry;
Whereas Article XIX of the GATT 1994 authorizes WTO member countries to apply 
        safeguard measures when products are being imported in such increased 
        quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious 
        injury to a domestic industry;
Whereas during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations that 
        concluded in 1994, the United States and other countries negotiated 
        detailed agreements that effectuate and implement these foundation 
        provisions of the GATT 1994;
Whereas the clear and appropriate limits to the review by the WTO of the laws, 
        regulations, administrative decisions, and other actions of the United 
        States were an essential condition of the approval by the Congress of 
        legislation implementing the Uruguay Round Agreements;
Whereas Articles 3.2 and 19.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
        Governing the Settlement of Disputes (in this preamble referred to as 
        the ``Dispute Settlement Understanding'') expressly provide that the 
        Dispute Settlement Body, dispute settlement panels, and the Appellate 
        Body of the WTO ``cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations'' 
        provided in the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General 
        Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (in this preamble referred to as the 
        ``Antidumping Agreement''), the Agreement on Subsidies and 
        Countervailing Measures, the Agreement on Safeguards, or any of the 
        other Uruguay Round Agreements referred to in section 101(d) of the 
        Uruguay Round Agreements Act;
Whereas notwithstanding those provisions and in direct contravention of them, 
        dispute settlement panels, the Appellate Body, and the Dispute 
        Settlement Body of the WTO have repeatedly diminished the rights of the 
        United States to apply unfair trade laws and trade remedy laws by 
        imposing new obligations on the United States in the application of 
        those laws;
Whereas with regard to unfair trade laws and trade remedies, the President's 
        Statement of Administrative Action (in this preamble referred to as the 
        ``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (H.R. Doc. No. 
        316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994)) states clearly that explicit 
        limits in the Dispute Settlement Understanding and the standard of 
        review established at Article 17.6 of the Antidumping Agreement are 
        expressly designed to establish clear parameters for dispute settlement 
        panels and the Appellate Body in reviewing decisions of the United 
        States Department of Commerce and the United States International Trade 
        Commission in antidumping and countervailing duty cases;
Whereas the SAA states that ``Article 17.6 [of the Antidumping Agreement] 
        contains a special standard of review, which is analogous to the 
        deferential standard applied by U.S. courts in reviewing actions by the 
        U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade 
        Commission'';
Whereas that standard of review provides that--

    (1) a dispute settlement panel may not reevaluate the factual findings 
of the national authorities if the national authorities' determination was 
objective and unbiased, even though the panel might have reached a 
different conclusion; and

    (2) where the language of the Antidumping Agreement may be interpreted 
in more than one way, a dispute settlement panel must confirm a 
determination by national authorities that conforms to one of the 
permissible interpretations of the Antidumping Agreement;

Whereas the SAA further states that--

    (1) ``Article 17.6 ensures that WTO panels will not second-guess the 
factual conclusions of the agencies, even in situations where the panel 
might have reached a conclusion different from that of the agency. In 
addition, article 17.6 ensures that panels will not be able to rewrite, 
under the guise of legal interpretation, the provisions of the Agreement, 
many of which were deliberately drafted to accommodate a variety of 
methodologies''; and

    (2) ``A Ministerial Declaration accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements provides for the `consistent resolution' of disputes arising 
from the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duty measures through 
the application of the article 17.6 standard of review to both types of 
disputes'';

Whereas dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body of the WTO have 
        undermined the rights of the United States and imposed new obligations 
        on the United States--

    (1) by failing repeatedly to follow the clearly stated obligation in 
Article 17.6(i) of the Antidumping Agreement to find that an antidumping 
measure is inconsistent with that provision of the Antidumping Agreement 
only if the establishment of the facts was not proper or the evaluation was 
not unbiased and objective;

    (2) by failing repeatedly to follow the clearly stated obligation in 
Article 17.6(ii) of the Antidumping Agreement that there may be more than 
one permissible interpretation of that agreement and panels or the 
Appellate Body may find an action inconsistent with that provision of the 
Antidumping Agreement only if the decision does not follow one of those 
permissible interpretations;

    (3) by repeatedly disregarding the Ministerial Declaration of the WTO 
by not applying the juridical parameters set out in Article 17.6 of the 
Antidumping Agreement to decisions under the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures to fulfill ``the need for the consistent resolution 
of disputes arising from anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures'';

    (4) by repeatedly inventing new obligations regarding how a WTO member 
may or may not address the impact of government subsidization of a 
government-owned corporation that has been privatized;

    (5) by inventing new obligations for when a country may impose a 
safeguard measure to remedy or prevent injury caused by a surge of imports, 
including obligations concerning the causal relationship between increased 
imports and serious injury to the domestic industry, and the ``non-
attribution'' of other factors;

    (6) by imposing the new causation and non-arbitration obligations under 
the Agreement on Safeguards to antidumping proceedings;

    (7) by creating new mandatory guidelines for the use of facts available 
in antidumping investigations;

    (8) by imposing an evidentiary standard with regard to pricing of 
government provision of goods and services that is inconsistent with the 
Uruguay Round Agreements by prohibiting in all cases the use of evidence of 
prices from comparable external sales, properly adjusted to reflect the 
home market conditions, even when a home market is shown to be nonexistent 
or heavily distorted by the government subsidy;

    (9) by attempting to impose a narrow definition of an indirect subsidy 
that does not reflect any legal obligation under the Agreement on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures, by insisting that a government must explicitly 
order a private party to subsidize (without any other option) rather than 
simply to ``entrust or direct'' the private party to subsidize;

    (10) by deciding cases prematurely when the United States has taken no 
action that violates the substantive provisions of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements;

    (11) by imposing new obligations on the ways in which the United States 
may spend its revenues, obligations the United States never agreed to 
accept and which Congress never would have accepted, and setting a 
dangerous precedent of and interference by the WTO into the spending 
decisions of the United States Government;

    (12) by creating a requirement that a showing of ``unforeseen 
developments'' is a prerequisite for imposing a safeguard measure;

    (13) by creating a ``parallelism'' requirement requiring a WTO member 
to make additional findings and conclusions before it can exercise its 
right under a free trade agreement to exclude from a safeguard measure 
imports from other members of the free trade agreement; and

    (14) by creating restrictions on the form and level of safeguard 
measures that may be imposed;

    (15) by repeatedly conducting de novo reviews of the decisions of WTO 
members in antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguards cases by 
considering additional facts and interpretations of facts never presented 
before the decisionmaking authorities of WTO members;

    (16) by indicating in another WTO member's case that the practice of 
zeroing negative product-specific antidumping margins in the course of 
calculating a weighted-average antidumping margin across all product 
categories violates the Antidumping Agreement;

Whereas these new obligations created by dispute settlement panels and the 
        Appellate Body were not agreed to by the United States or by any other 
        country and are not reflected in the text, negotiating history, or 
        interpretative history of the pertinent agreement;
Whereas these new obligations created by dispute settlement panels and the 
        Appellate Body often reflect changes that WTO members sought but which 
        were not agreed to and in many instances are inconsistent with prior 
        GATT decisions;
Whereas these actions and decisions by dispute settlement panels and the 
        Appellate Body are causing a serious erosion to the respect for the rule 
        of law within the WTO and substantially diminish confidence in the WTO, 
        and, if left uncorrected, will in turn lead to a serious erosion of 
        support for trade liberalization under the WTO;
Whereas the problem of dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body acting 
        to undermine the rights of the United States and to create new 
        obligations is not limited to decisions involving the Antidumping 
        Agreement, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and 
        the Agreement on Safeguards;
Whereas in a number of other contexts, dispute settlement panels and the 
        Appellate Body have, without justification, injected new obligations 
        that fill gaps deliberately left open or unclear by negotiators;
Whereas on occasion, dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body have 
        purported to inject new obligations ostensibly to reflect principles of 
        substantive public international law;
Whereas whatever the reason or motivation, these actions by dispute settlement 
        panels and the Appellate Body to create new rights and obligations under 
        the WTO are expressly prohibited by the Dispute Settlement Understanding 
        and the terms of other Uruguay Round Agreements;
Whereas the United States, together with other WTO members, should take 
        immediate actions to correct these serious misapplications of the rules 
        of the WTO as agreed to by the United States and other WTO members and 
        ensure that no additional misapplication of such rules occurs by dispute 
        settlement panels or the Appellate Body in the future; and
Whereas only these immediate actions can begin to restore a high level of 
        confidence in WTO decisions: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the President should--
            (1) ensure that in any proceeding under the World Trade 
        Organization (in this resolution referred to as the ``WTO'') 
        involving the unfair trade and trade remedy laws of the United 
        States, the members of the WTO dispute settlement panel in that 
        proceeding--
                    (A) have expertise administering the unfair trade 
                and trade remedy law at issue in the proceeding and are 
                currently administrators, or retired administrators, of 
                unfair trade or trade remedy laws in a WTO member 
                country; and
                    (B) have expertise in the provisions of the Uruguay 
                Round Agreement (as defined in section 2 of the Uruguay 
                Round Agreements Act) that is applicable to the unfair 
                trade or trade remedy law at issue in the proceeding;
            (2) with respect to the Appellate Body of the WTO, ensure 
        that 2 or more members of the Appellate Body panel hearing a 
        case have expertise in administering unfair trade or trade 
        remedy laws;
            (3) ensure that the members of dispute settlement panels 
        and the Appellate Body referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2)--
                    (A) understand commonly applied and commonly 
                accepted principles of administrative law, including 
                that tribunals, panels, courts, and other adjudicatory 
                bodies typically apply an appropriate standard of 
                deference to an expert decisionmaker with regard to 
                issues of fact and law;
                    (B) expressly understand and accept the central 
                importance of Article 17.6 of the Agreement on 
                Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement 
                on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (in this resolution referred 
                to as the ``Antidumping Agreement'') to the successful 
                completion of the Antidumping Agreement, the Uruguay 
                Round negotiations as a whole, and to the proper and 
                successful interpretation and application of the 
                Antidumping Agreement;
                    (C) apply the principles embodied in Article 17.6 
                of the Antidumping Agreement to the Agreement on 
                Subsidies and Countervailing Measures in order to 
                effectuate ``the consistent resolution of disputes 
                arising from anti-dumping and countervailing duty 
                measures'', in particular in compliance with the WTO 
                Declaration on Dispute Settlement Pursuant to the 
                Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the 
                General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 or Part V 
                of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
                Measures; and
                    (D) apply the principles embodied in Article 17.6 
                of the Antidumping Agreement to the Agreement on 
                Safeguards in order to effectuate the consistent 
                resolution of disputes arising from trade remedy 
                measures;
            (4) reaffirm, in ongoing negotiations under the auspices of 
        the WTO, the importance of the correct application of Article 
        17.6 of the Antidumping Agreement and the need for dispute 
        settlement panels and the Appellate Body of the WTO to follow 
        that provision strictly in both antidumping and countervailing 
        duty cases; and
            (5) reaffirm, in ongoing negotiations under the auspices of 
        the WTO, the importance of allowing private parties who have an 

Pages: 1 2 Next >>

Other Popular 106th Congressional Bills Documents:

1 S. 1998 (is) To establish the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area. [Introduced in Senate] ...
2 H.R. 3046 (rfs) To preserve limited Federal agency reporting requirements on banking and housing matters to facilitate congressional oversight and public accountability, and for other purposes. [Referred in Senate] ...
3 H.R. 5266 (eh) For the relief of Saeed Rezai. [Engrossed in House] ...
4 H.R. 4493 (ih) To establish grants for drug treatment alternative to prison programs administered by State or local prosecutors. [Introduced in House] ...
5 H.Con.Res. 44 (rh) Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 18th annual National Peace Officers' Memorial Service. [Reported in House] ...
6 S. 2963 (is) To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make publicly available medicaid drug pricing information. [Introduced in Senate] ...
7 S.Res. 173 (ats) To authorize representation of the Senate Committee on Armed Services in the case of Philip Tinsley III v. Senate Committee on Armed Services. [Agreed to Senate] ...
8 H.R. 4635 (eas) [Engrossed Amendment Senate] ...
9 H.R. 5296 (ih) To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise and improve the Medicare Program. [Introduced in House] ...
10 S. 3028 (is) To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide a transitional adjustment for certain sole community hospitals in order to limit any decline in payment under the prospective payment system for hospital outpatient department service...
11 H.R. 5528 (eh) To authorize the construction of a Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place in Fort Pierre, South Dakota, and for other purposes. [Engrossed in House] ...
12 S. 935 (is) To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 to authorize research to promote the conversion of biomass into biobased industrial products, and for other purposes. [Introduced in Senate] ...
13 H.R. 718 (ih) To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit the issuance of tax-exempt bonds by certain organizations providing rescue and emergency medical services. [Introduced in House] ...
14 S. 2347 (is) To provide grants to partnerships to establish and carry out information technology training programs and to provide incentives for educators to obtain information technology certification, and for other purposes. [Introduced in Senate] %%Fil...
15 S. 3278 (is) To authorize funding for nanoscale science and engineering research and development at the Department of Energy for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. [Introduced in Senate] ...
16 H.Res. 46 (ih) Honoring Future Business Leaders of America-Phi Beta Lambda. [Introduced in House] ...
17 H.R. 5564 (ih) To prohibit the importation of diamonds unless the countries exporting the diamonds to the United States have in place certain controls to verify the source of the diamonds, and for other purposes. [Introduced in House] ...
18 S. 1949 (is) To promote economically sound modernization of electric power [Introduced in Senate] ...
19 S. 335 (is) To amend chapter 30 of title 39, United States Code, to provide for the nonmailability of certain deceptive matter relating to games of chance, administrative procedures, orders, and civil penalties relating to such matter, and for other purpo...
20 H.R. 4436 (ih) To authorize a study concerning the George C. Marshall Plaza in Uniontown, Pennsylvania. [Introduced in House] ...
21 H.R. 2247 (ih) To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (``Superfund'') to exempt small business concerns from certain liability under that Act. [Introduced in House] ...
22 H.Res. 557 (eh) [Engrossed in House] ...
23 H.R. 1838 (ih) To assist in the enhancement of the security of Taiwan, and for other purposes. [Introduced in House] ...
24 H.Con.Res. 310 (rfs) Supporting a National Charter Schools Week. [Referred in Senate] ...
25 S. 2439 (rfh) To authorize the appropriation of funds for the construction of the Southeastern Alaska Intertie system, and for other purposes. [Referred in House] ...
26 S. 956 (is) To establish programs regarding early detection, diagnosis, and interventions for newborns and infants with hearing loss. [Introduced in Senate] ...
27 H.R. 4123 (ih) To modify the project for flood control, Yazoo Backwater Area, Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to make payments to local interests as compensation for certain reductions in local tax revenues. [Introduced in...
28 H.R. 3293 (eh) To amend the law that authorized the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to authorize the placement within the site of the memorial of a plaque to honor those Vietnam veterans who died after their service in the Vietnam war, but as a direct result of...
29 S. 2873 (is) To provide for all right, title, and interest in and to certain property in Washington County, Utah, to be vested in the United States. [Introduced in Senate] ...
30 H.R. 1680 (rs) To provide for the conveyance of Forest Service property in Kern County, California, in exchange for county lands suitable for inclusion in Sequoia National Forest. [Reported in Senate] ...


Other Documents:

106th Congressional Bills Records and Documents

GovRecords.org presents information on various agencies of the United States Government. Even though all information is believed to be credible and accurate, no guarantees are made on the complete accuracy of our government records archive. Care should be taken to verify the information presented by responsible parties. Please see our reference page for congressional, presidential, and judicial branch contact information. GovRecords.org values visitor privacy. Please see the privacy page for more information.
House Rules:

104th House Rules
105th House Rules
106th House Rules

Congressional Bills:

104th Congressional Bills
105th Congressional Bills
106th Congressional Bills
107th Congressional Bills
108th Congressional Bills

Supreme Court Decisions

Supreme Court Decisions

Additional

1995 Privacy Act Documents
1997 Privacy Act Documents
1994 Unified Agenda
2004 Unified Agenda

Congressional Documents:

104th Congressional Documents
105th Congressional Documents
106th Congressional Documents
107th Congressional Documents
108th Congressional Documents

Congressional Directory:

105th Congressional Directory
106th Congressional Directory
107th Congressional Directory
108th Congressional Directory

Public Laws:

104th Congressional Public Laws
105th Congressional Public Laws
106th Congressional Public Laws
107th Congressional Public Laws
108th Congressional Public Laws

Presidential Records

1994 Presidential Documents
1995 Presidential Documents
1996 Presidential Documents
1997 Presidential Documents
1998 Presidential Documents
1999 Presidential Documents
2000 Presidential Documents
2001 Presidential Documents
2002 Presidential Documents
2003 Presidential Documents
2004 Presidential Documents

Home Executive Judicial Legislative Additional Reference About Privacy