Resolution urging U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA fails after extended floor debate

Representative Donaldson introduced House Resolution 2 urging the U.S. federal government to exercise NAFTA withdrawal provisions. Donaldson cited reports he said showed significant U.S. manufacturing job losses since NAFTA's 1993 implementation and argued the agreement harmed some Mexican farmers. "We want to export our tomatoes, not our people," he said, quoting material he presented about Mexican agricultural impacts.

Representative Gibson delivered a sustained rebuttal, disputing the resolution’s premise and pointing to export and trade-growth statistics: "From 1993 to ... trade among the NAFTA nations climbed 198%" and exports to NAFTA partners grew faster than exports to the rest of the world. Gibson said the agreement had produced market access valuable to U.S. agriculture and manufacturing and urged members to oppose withdrawal.

Representative Allen added that formal withdrawal could carry "enormous financial consequences" and international penalties, warning that unilateral withdrawal would disrupt trade and risk costly rulings against the United States. Other representatives emphasized the difficulty and economic cost of withdrawal, and a motion for the previous question cut further floor debate.

The House voted; the resolution failed by a recorded count of 19 yes, 45 no, and 11 absent. The transcript records back-and-forth claims and counterclaims about job losses, trade balances, and projected legal and economic consequences; each side relied on cited institute reports or trade statistics.

Next steps: The resolution failed on the House floor and is filed.