[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 445 Introduced in House (IH)]






108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 445

Expressing the disapproval of the House of Representatives with respect 
     to the report issued on November 10, 2003, by the World Trade 
 Organization (WTO) Appellate Body which concluded that United States 
safeguard measures applied to the importation of certain steel products 
were in violation of certain WTO agreements, calling for reforms in the 
         WTO dispute settlement system, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2003

 Mr. Cardin (for himself, Mr. Visclosky, and Mr. Levin) submitted the 
 following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Expressing the disapproval of the House of Representatives with respect 
     to the report issued on November 10, 2003, by the World Trade 
 Organization (WTO) Appellate Body which concluded that United States 
safeguard measures applied to the importation of certain steel products 
were in violation of certain WTO agreements, calling for reforms in the 
         WTO dispute settlement system, and for other purposes.

Whereas beginning in 1998, steel imports began surging into the United States 
        market at record levels and steel imports continued at historically high 
        levels for several years thereafter;
Whereas as a result of the surge of steel imports, thousands of United States 
        steel workers lost their jobs, more than 30 United States steel firms 
        were forced into bankruptcy, accounting for one-third of all United 
        States steel production, and the health and pension benefits of tens of 
        thousands of retirees from steel mills were put into jeopardy;
Whereas after an intensive, months-long investigation, the independent United 
        States International Trade Commission (ITC) unanimously found that 
        increased imports of certain steel products were a substantial cause and 
        threat of serious injury to the United States steel industry and 
        recommended that the President impose appropriate safeguard measures;
Whereas on March 5, 2002, the President imposed safeguard measures on the 
        imports of such steel products for a term of three years and one day;
Whereas the safeguard measures have been a success, as the International Trade 
        Commission noted: ``Since imposition of the safeguard measures, the 
        industries producing steel products have undergone major restructuring 
        and consolidation . . . steel producers and the United Steelworkers of 
        America (USWA), the principal union representing steelworkers in the 
        United States, have negotiated groundbreaking collective bargaining 
        agreements since imposition of the safeguard measures'';
Whereas removing or weakening the safeguard measures prior to the expiration of 
        their full term would disrupt the restructuring efforts by the United 
        States steel industry to date and threaten the ability of the United 
        States steel industry to undertake further restructuring and 
        investments;
Whereas the European Union (EU) and other countries challenged the safeguard 
        measures under the World Trade Organization dispute settlement system;
Whereas on November 10, 2003, the WTO Appellate Body issued a report on the 
        proceeding that was adverse to the United States;
Whereas the WTO dispute settlement system has shown a clear bias against trade 
        remedies explicitly allowed by WTO agreements;
Whereas no safeguard measure challenged in the WTO dispute settlement system has 
        ever been upheld;
Whereas Articles 3.2 and 19.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
        Governing the Settlement of Disputes (as described in Section 101(d)(16) 
        of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act) expressly provide that the WTO 
        Dispute Settlement Body, WTO dispute settlement panels, and the WTO 
        Appellate Body ``cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations'' 
        provided in the Agreement on Safeguards (as described in section 
        101(d)(13) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act) or in any of the other 
        agreements referred to in section 101(d) of the Uruguay Round Agreements 
        Act;
Whereas in direct contravention of Articles 3.2 and 19.2 of the Understanding on 
        Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, the WTO 
        Dispute Settlement Body, dispute settlement panels, and the Appellate 
        Body have repeatedly diminished the rights of the United States to apply 
        trade remedy laws, including safeguard measures, by imposing new 
        obligations on the United States in the application of those agreements;
Whereas the WTO Appellate Body's decision contained in the report issued on 
        November 10, 2003, is one such decision that has added to United States 
        obligations and diminished United States rights under the Safeguards 
        Agreement;
Whereas prior and subsequent to the issuance of such report, the European Union 
        and others have threatened immediate retaliation against the United 
        States in the form of counter import restrictions which are contrary to 
        the requirements and policy of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
        Governing the Settlement of Disputes and the Agreement on Safeguards;
Whereas, in addition, the decision of the WTO Appellate Body does not require 
        repeal of the safeguard relief by the United States, but only 
        modification of the measures to conform with the Appellate Body's 
        interpretation of the Agreement on Safeguards; and
Whereas United States law provides only limited bases for the President to 
        withdraw or modify safeguard measures, and any action by the President 
        to respond to a report of the WTO that is adverse to the United States 
        may only be taken pursuant to the requirements of section 204(b)(3) of 
        the Trade Act of 1974 and section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements 
        Act, including referral to the International Trade Commission, the 
        issuance of a report by the Commission, and consultation with Congress: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) disapproves the adverse decision of the World Trade 
        Organization (WTO) Appellate Body contained in the report 
        issued on November 10, 2003, with respect to the March 5, 2002, 
        imposition by the United States of safeguard measures on the 
        importation of certain steel products as having added to United 
        States obligations and diminished United States rights under 
        the WTO agreements;
            (2) calls upon the United States Trade Representative to 
        immediately request the United States International Trade 
        Commission to issue an advisory report with respect to the 
        Appellate Body decision in accordance with section 129(a)(1) of 
        the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and calls upon the 
        International Trade Commission to expeditiously issue its 
        report under such section;
            (3) as appropriate, calls upon the United States Trade 
        Representative to make a request under section 129(a)(4) of the 
        Uruguay Round Agreements Act immediately after receiving the 
        report under section 129(a)(1) of such the Act and calls upon 
        the International Trade Commission to expeditiously issue a 
        determination in connection with Appellate Body report that 
        would render the Commission's action described in section 
        129(a)(1) of such Act not inconsistent with the findings of the 
        Appellate Body;
            (4) calls upon the President to immediately repeal all 
        exclusions to the safeguard measures which were given for the 
        benefit of European Union (EU) steelmakers should the EU 
        retaliate against the safeguard measures in the form of counter 
        import restrictions;
            (5) calls upon the United States Trade Representative to 
        pursue vigorously within the WTO negotiations to reform the WTO 
        dispute settlement process to increase its transparency and to 
        ensure that it does not act outside its authority under the WTO 
        agreements to limit trade remedy laws, create new obligations, 
        or undermine legitimate trade actions brought by the United 
        States or other member countries of the WTO; and
            (6) calls for the establishment of a commission of 
        distinguished jurists to advise Congress on the reports issued 
        through the WTO dispute settlement system and, in particular, 
        on whether such reports are consistent with Articles 3.2 and 
        19.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
        Settlement of Disputes (as described in Section 101(d)(16) of 
        the Uruguay Round Agreements Act).
                                 <all>