One of the most important provisions of NAFTA provided for the status of “domestic products” for products imported from other NAFTA countries. No state, province or local government could impose taxes or tariffs on these goods. In addition, at the time of the agreement, tariffs were either abolished or abolished in five or ten equal steps. The only exception to the exit was the issue of sensitive points for which the exit period would be 15 years. In July 2017, the Trump administration presented a detailed list of changes it wants to make to NAFTA. [131] The top priority was to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. [131] [132] The government has also called for the abolition of provisions allowing Canada and Mexico to challenge U.S. tariffs and impose import restrictions on the United States, Canada and Mexico. [131] The list also highlighted subsidized state-owned enterprises and monetary manipulation. [131] Before sending it to the U.S. Senate, Clinton added two subsidiary agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) to protect workers and the environment, as well as to allay the concerns of many members of the House of Representatives.
The United States has required its partners to comply with similar environmental practices and regulations. [Citation required] After much attention and discussion, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993. Supporters of the deal included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The legislation passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38. [21] The Supporters of the Senate were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Republican Congressman David Dreier of California, a staunch supporter of NAFTA since the Reagan administration, has played a leading role in mobilizing support for the agreement among Republicans in Congress and across the country. [22] [23] A review of existing literature by the 2001 Journal of Economic Perspectives showed that NAFTA was a net benefit to Mexico. [6] In 2003, 80% of Mexico`s trade was with the United States alone.
The trade surplus combined with the deficit relative to the rest of the world has led to a dependence on Mexico`s exports. These effects were reflected in the 2001 recession, which led to either a low rate or a negative rate of Mexican exports. [74] The debate on the impact of NAFTA on its signatory countries continues. While the United States, Canada and Mexico have experienced economic growth, higher wages and stronger trade since NAFTA, experts disagree on the extent to which the agreement has actually contributed to those benefits, if at all, in the United States.
