PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Trade.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 16, 2017
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should: (1) initiate renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by June 1, 2017; (2) ensure that specified provisions are included in the core text of such new agreement with Canada and Mexico that is to replace NAFTA before finalizing the agreement; and (3) consider withdrawing the United States from NAFTA if each such provision is not included in the core text within one year of the beginning of NAFTA's renegotiation.
Calls for negotiations for such new agreement to take place in a transparent, participatory, and democratic manner, ensuring adequate congressional and stakeholder input throughout the process.
Sets forth requirements for such new trade agreement.
People & committees
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR
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 Trade.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
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: Jan 3, 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.Res.132 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.Res.132 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.Res.132 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.Res.132 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.