•HRES 445 IH 
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 pro-
duction, and the health and pension benefits of tens of 
thousands of retirees from steel mills were put into jeop-
ardy; 
Whereas after an intensive, months-long investigation, the 
independent United States International Trade Commis-
sion (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 safe-
guard 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 con-
solidation . . . steel producers and the United Steel-
workers of America (USWA), the principal union rep-
resenting steelworkers in the United States, have nego-
tiated 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 indus-
try to date and threaten the ability of the United States 
steel industry to undertake further restructuring and in-
vestments;
•HRES 445 IH 
Whereas the European Union (EU) and other countries chal-
lenged 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 dis-
pute 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 Dis-
pute 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;
•HRES 445 IH 
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 dimin-
ished United States rights under the Safeguards Agree-
ment; 
Whereas prior and subsequent to the issuance of such report, 
the European Union and others have threatened imme-
diate retaliation against the United States in the form of 
counter import restrictions which are contrary to the re-
quirements 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 Con-
gress: 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,
•HRES 445 IH 
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 Rep-
resentative 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 Inter-
national 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 sec-
tion 129(a)(4) of the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act immediately after receiving the report under sec-
tion 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 ac-
tion 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 re-
peal all exclusions to the safeguard measures which
•HRES 445 IH 
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 Rep-
resentative to pursue vigorously within the WTO ne-
gotiations 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 ac-
tions 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 re-
ports 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 Un-
derstanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes (as described in Section 
101(d)(16) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act).
Æ