PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 24, 2012
Offshoring Notification Act - Amends the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act to extend its coverage not only to each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia but also to the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau, and each U.S. territory or possession.
Revises the requirement that an employer give 60-day written notice to employees, state dislocated worker units, and local governments before ordering a plant closing or mass layoff.
Requires such notice to include information stating whether: (1) the employer plans to continue producing goods or providing services that affected employees have been producing or providing, and (2) the production or provision will be performed for the employer by employees or contractors outside the United States (offshoring).
People & committees
Sen. McCaskill, Claire [D-MO] · D–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
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 14, 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 S.3425 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 S.3425 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 S.3425 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 S.3425 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.