PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 23, 1996
NAFTA Infrastructure Responsibility Act of 1996 - Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to Mexican border States and local governments for certain transportation projects necessary to: (1) relieve congestion due to increased traffic resulting from implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); and (2) improve enforcement of motor carrier safety laws. Limits the Federal share of the costs of such projects to 80 percent. Authorizes appropriations. Amends the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 to authorize appropriations to be used to enter agreements with Mexican border States that have established infrastructure banks to make available to them lines of credit for projects to construct Federal-aid highways which will support traffic resulting from NAFTA.
People & committees
Rep. Kim, Jay [R-CA-41] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 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 H.R.3527 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 H.R.3527 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 H.R.3527 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 H.R.3527 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.