This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (December 2011)

North American Free Trade Agreement Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (Spanish) Accord de Libre-échange Nord-Américain (French)
Administrative center		Mexico City, Ottawa, and Washington, D.C.
Languages		3 English Spanish French
Membership		Canada  Mexico  United States
Establishment
-	Formation	December 22, 1995
Area
-	Total	21,850 km2 (1st) 8,410 sq mi
-	Water (%)	7.4
Population
-	2010 estimate	457,282 (3rd)
-	Density	25.1/km2 (195th) 54.3/sq mi
GDP (PPP)		2010 (IMF) estimate
-	Total	$1,617.989 billion (1st)
-	Per capita	$38,527 (4th)
GDP (nominal)		2010 (IMF) estimate
-	Total	$17,271.000 billion (15th)
-	Per capita	$37,769 (21st)
HDI (2069)		0.868[1] (very high)
Website www.nafta-sec-alena.org

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an agreement signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. It superseded the Canada – United States Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada. In terms of combined GDP of its members, as of 2010^[update] the trade bloc is the largest in the world.

NAFTA has two supplements: the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC).

Negotiation and U.S. ratification[link]

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

The proposed Canada-U.S.trade agreement had been very controversial and divisive in Canada, and the 1988 Canadian election was fought almost exclusively on that issue. In that election, more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the Liberals and the New Democrats) but the split caused more seats in parliament to be won by the pro-free trade Progressive Conservatives (PCs). Mulroney and the PCs had a parliamentary majority and were easily able to pass the Canada-US FTA and NAFTA bills. However, Mulroney himself had become deeply unpopular and resigned on June 25, 1993. He was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by Kim Campbell, who then led the PC party into the 1993 election where they were decimated by the Liberal party under Jean Chrétien had campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA but broke his promise and negotiated two supplemental agreements with the new US president. In the US, Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required US partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.

With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.^[2][3] Clinton while signing the NAFTA bill stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."^[4]

This section requires expansion.

	Remarks on the Signing of NAFTA (December 8, 1993) Bill Clinton's December 8, 1993 remarks on the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement Remarks on the Signing of NAFTA (December 8, 1993)
Problems listening to these files? See media help.

Provisions[link]

The goal of NAFTA was to eliminate barriers to trade and investment between the US, Canada and Mexico. The implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994 brought the immediate elimination of tariffs on more than one-half of Mexico's exports to the U.S. and more than one-third of U.S. exports to Mexico. Within 10 years of the implementation of the agreement, all US-Mexico tariffs would be eliminated except for some U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico that were to be phased out within 15 years. Most U.S.-Canada trade was already duty free. NAFTA also seeks to eliminate non-tariff trade barriers and to protect the intellectual property right of the products.

Mechanisms[link]

Chapter 52 provides a procedure for the interstate resolution of disputes over the application and interpretation of NAFTA. It was modeled after Chapter 69of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement.^[5]

NAFTA's effects, both positive and negative, have been quantified by several economists, whose findings have been reported in publications such as the World Bank's Lessons from NAFTA for Latin America and the Caribbean,^[6] NAFTA's Impact on North America,^[7] and NAFTA Revisited by the Institute for International Economics.^[8] Some^[who?] argue that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico, which has seen its poverty rates fall and real income rise (in the form of lower prices, especially food), even after accounting for the .^[9] Others^[who?] argue that NAFTA has been beneficial to business owners and elites in all three countries, but has had negative impacts on farmers in Mexico who saw food prices fall based on cheap imports from US agribusiness, and negative impacts on US workers in manufacturing and assembly industries who lost jobs. Critics also argue that NAFTA has contributed to the rising levels of inequality in both the US and Mexico. Some economists believe that NAFTA has not been enough (or worked fast enough) to produce an economic convergence,^[10] nor to substantially reduce poverty rates. Some have suggested that in order to fully benefit from the agreement, Mexico must invest more in education and promote innovation in infrastructure and agriculture.

Trade[link]

The agreement opened the door for open trade, ending tariffs on various goods and services, and implementing equality between Canada, America, and Mexico. NAFTA has allowed agriculture goods such as eggs, corn, and meats to be tariff-free. This allowed corporations to trade freely and import and export various goods on a North American scale. Since the implementation of NAFTA, the countries involved have been able to do the following:

Exports[link]

At $248.2 billion for Canada and $163.3 billion for Mexico, they were the top two purchasers of US exports in 2010.

US goods exports to NAFTA in 2010 were $411.5 billion, up 23.4% ($78 billion) from 2009 and 149% from 1994 (the year prior to Uruguay Round) and up 190% from 1993 (the year prior to NAFTA). US exports to NAFTA accounted for 32.2% of overall US exports in 2010.

The top export categories (2-digit HS) in 2010 were machinery ($63.3 billion), vehicles (parts) ($56.7 billion), electrical machinery ($56.2 billion), mineral fuel and oil ($26.7 billion), and plastic ($22.6 billion).

US exports of agricultural products to NAFTA countries totaled $31.4 billion in 2010. Leading categories included red meats, fresh/chilled/frozen ($2.7 billion); coarse grains ($2.2 million); fresh foods (excluding nuts) ($1.8 billion); and fresh vegetables ($1.7 billion).

US exports of private commercial services, excluding military and government, to NAFTA were $63.8 billion in 2009 (the latest data available), down 7% ($4.6 billion) from 2008, but up 125% since 1994.

Imports[link]

At $276.4 billion for Canada and $229.7 billion for Mexico, they were the second and third largest suppliers of goods imports to the United States in 2010.

US goods imports from NAFTA totaled $506.1 billion in 2010, up 25.6% ($103 billion), from 2009, up 184% from 1994, and up 235% from 1993. US imports from NAFTA accounted for 26.5% of overall U.S. imports in 2010.

The five largest categories in 2010 were mineral fuel and oil (crude oil) ($116.2 billion), vehicles ($86.3 billion), electrical machinery ($61.8 billion), machinery ($51.2 billion), and precious stones (gold) ($13.9 billion).

US imports of agricultural products from NAFTA countries totaled $29.8 billion in 2010. Leading categories include fresh vegetables ($4.6 billion); snack foods including chocolate ($4.0 billion); fresh fruit (excluding bananas) ($2.4 billion); live animals ($2.0 billion); and red meats, fresh/chilled/frozen ($2.0 billion).

US imports of private commercial services excluding military and government were $35.5 billion in 2009 (latest data available), down 11.2% ($4.5 billion) from 2008 but up 100% since 1994.

Trade balances[link]

The US goods trade deficit with NAFTA was $94.6 billion in 2010, a 36.4% increase ($25 billion) over 2009.

The US goods trade deficit with NAFTA accounted for 26.8% of the overall U.S. goods trade deficit in 2010.

The US had a services trade surplus of $28.3 billion with NAFTA countries in 2009 (the latest data available).

Investment[link]

The US foreign direct investment (FDI) in NAFTA Countries (stock) was $357.7 billion in 2009 (latest data available), up 8.8% from 2008.

The US direct investment in NAFTA countries is in nonbank holding companies, and in the manufacturing, finance/insurance, and mining sectors.

The foreign direct investment, of Canada and Mexico in the United States (stock) was $237.2 billion in 2009 (the latest data available), up 16.5% from 2008.[2][3][4]

Industry[link]

Maquiladoras (Mexican factories that take in imported raw materials and produce goods for export) have become the landmark of trade in Mexico. These are plants that moved to this region from the United States, hence the debate over the loss of American jobs. Hufbauer's (2005) book shows that income in the maquiladora sector has increased 15.5% since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994. Other sectors now benefit from the free trade agreement, and the share of exports from non-border states has increased in the last five years while the share of exports from maquiladora-border states has decreased. This has allowed for the rapid growth of non-border metropolitan areas, such as Toluca, León and Puebla; all three larger in population than Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, and Reynosa.

Environment[link]

Securing U.S. congressional approval for NAFTA would have been impossible without addressing public concerns about NAFTA’s environmental impact. The Clinton administration negotiated a side agreement on the environment with Canada and Mexico, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which led to the creation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. To alleviate concerns that NAFTA, the first regional trade agreement between a developing country and two developed countries, would have negative environmental impacts, the CEC was given a mandate to conduct ongoing ex post environmental assessment of NAFTA.^[11]

In response to this mandate, the CEC created a framework for conducting environmental analysis of NAFTA, one of the first ex post frameworks for the environmental assessment of trade liberalization. The framework was designed to produce a focused and systematic body of evidence with respect to the initial hypotheses about NAFTA and the environment, such as the concern that NAFTA would create a "race to the bottom" in environmental regulation among the three countries, or the hope that NAFTA would pressure governments to increase their environmental protection mechanisms.^[12] The CEC has held four symposia using this framework to evaluate the environmental impacts of NAFTA and has commissioned 47 papers on this subject. In keeping with the CEC’s overall strategy of transparency and public involvement, the CEC commissioned these papers from leading independent experts.^[13]

Overall, none of the initial hypotheses were confirmed.^{[citation needed]} NAFTA did not inherently present a systemic threat to the North American environment, as was originally feared, apart from potentially the ISDS provisions of Ch 11. NAFTA-related environmental threats instead occurred in specific areas where government environmental policy, infrastructure, or mechanisms, were unprepared for the increasing scale of production under trade liberalization.^{[citation needed]} In some cases, environmental policy was neglected in the wake of trade liberalization; in other cases, NAFTA's measures for investment protection, such as Chapter 11, and measures against non-tariff trade barriers, threatened to discourage more vigorous environmental policy.^[14] The most serious overall increases in pollution due to NAFTA were found in the base metals sector, the Mexican petroleum sector, and the transportation equipment sector in the United States and Mexico, but not in Canada.^[15]

Agriculture[link]

From the earliest negotiation, agriculture was (and still remains) a controversial topic within NAFTA, as it has been with almost all free trade agreements that have been signed within the WTO framework. Agriculture is the only section that was not negotiated trilaterally; instead, three separate agreements were signed between each pair of parties. The Canada–U.S. agreement contains significant restrictions and tariff quotas on agricultural products (mainly sugar, dairy, and poultry products), whereas the Mexico–U.S. pact allows for a wider liberalization within a framework of phase-out periods (it was the first North–South FTA on agriculture to be signed).

The overall effect of the Mexico–U.S. agricultural agreement is a matter of dispute. Mexico did not invest in the infrastructure necessary for competition, such as efficient railroads and highways, creating more difficult living conditions for the country's poor. Still, the causes of rural poverty can be directly attributed to NAFTA^{[citation needed]}; in fact, Mexico's agricultural exports increased 9.4 percent annually between 1994 and 2001, while imports increased by only 6.9 percent a year during the same period.^[16]

One of the most affected agricultural sectors is the meat industry. Mexico has gone from a small-key player in the pre-1994 U.S. export market to the 2nd largest importer of U.S. agricultural products in 2004, and NAFTA may be credited as a major catalyst for this change. The allowance of free trade removed the hurdles that impeded business between the two countries. As a result, Mexican farmers have provided a growing meat market for the U.S., leading to an increase in sales and profits for the U.S. meat industry. This coincides with a noticeable increase in Mexican per capita GDP that has created large changes in meat consumption patterns, implying that Mexicans can now afford to buy more meat and thus per capita meat consumption has grown.^[17]

Production of corn in Mexico has increased since NAFTA's implementation. However, internal corn demand has increased beyond Mexico's sufficiency, and imports have become necessary, far beyond the quotas Mexico had originally negotiated.^[18] Zahniser & Coyle have also pointed out that corn prices in Mexico, adjusted for international prices, have drastically decreased, yet through a program of subsidies expanded by former president Vicente Fox, production has remained stable since 2000.^[19]

The logical result of a lower commodity price is that more use of it is made downstream. Unfortunately, many of the same rural people who would have been likely to produce higher-margin value-added products in Mexico have instead emigrated. The rise in corn prices due to increased ethanol demand may improve the situation of corn farmers in Mexico.^{[citation needed]}

In a study published in the August 2008 issue of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, NAFTA has increased U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada even though most of this increase occurred a decade after its ratification. The study focused on the effects that gradual "phase-in" periods in regional trade agreements, including NAFTA, have on trade flows. Most of the increase in members’ agricultural trade, which was only recently brought under the purview of the World Trade Organization, was due to very high trade barriers before NAFTA or other regional trade agreements.^[20]

Mobility of persons[link]

According to the Department of Homeland Security Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, during fiscal year 2006 (i.e., October 2005 through September 2006), 73,880 foreign professionals (64,633 Canadians and 9,247 Mexicans) were admitted into the United States for temporary employment under NAFTA (i.e., in the TN status). Additionally, 17,321 of their family members (13,136 Canadians, 2,904 Mexicans, as well as a number of third-country nationals married to Canadians and Mexicans) entered the U.S. in the treaty national's dependent (TD) status.^[21] Because DHS counts the number of the new I-94 arrival records filled at the border, and the TN-1 admission is valid for three years, the number of non-immigrants in TN status present in the U.S. at the end of the fiscal year is approximately equal to the number of admissions during the year. (A discrepancy may be caused by some TN entrants leaving the country or changing status before their three-year admission period has expired, while other immigrants admitted earlier may change their status to TN or TD, or extend TN status granted earlier).

Canadian authorities estimated that, as of December 1, 2006, a total of 24,830 U.S. citizens and 15,219 Mexican citizens were present in Canada as "foreign workers". These numbers include both entrants under the NAFTA agreement and those who have entered under other provisions of the Canadian immigration law.^[22] New entries of foreign workers in 2006 were 16,841 (U.S. citizens) and 13,933 (Mexicans).^[23]

Criticism and controversies[link]

Canadian disputes[link]

This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information. (August 2009)

Garment workers assemble suits in a Toronto factory in 1901

There is much concern in Canada over the provision that if something is sold even once as a commodity, the government cannot stop its sale in the future.^[24] This applies to the water from Canada's lakes and rivers, fueling fears over the possible destruction of Canadian ecosystems and water supply.

In 1999, Sun Belt Water Inc., a company out of Santa Barbara, California, filed an Arbitration Claim under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA claiming $105 million as a result of Canada's prohibition on the export of bulk water by marine tanker, a move that destroyed the Sun Belt business venture. The claim sent shock waves through Canadian governments that scrambled to update water legislation and remains unresolved.

Other fears come from the effects NAFTA has had on Canadian lawmaking. In 1996, the gasoline additive MMT was brought into Canada by an American company. At the time, the Canadian federal government banned the importation of the additive. The American company brought a claim under NAFTA Chapter 11 seeking US$201 million,^[25] from the Canadian government and the Canadian provinces under the Agreement on Internal Trade ("AIT"). The American company argued that their additive had not been conclusively linked to any health dangers, and that the prohibition was damaging to their company. Following a finding that the ban was a violation of the AIT,^[26] the Canadian federal government repealed the ban and settled with the American company for US$13 million.^[27] Studies by Health and Welfare Canada (now Health Canada) on the health effects of MMT in fuel found no significant health effects associated with exposure to these exhaust emissions. Other Canadian researchers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disagree with Health Canada, and cite studies that include possible nerve damage.^[28]

Ponderosa Pine logs taken from Malheur National Forest, Grant County, Oregon.

The United States and Canada had been arguing for years over the United States' decision to impose a 27 percent duty on Canadian softwood lumber imports, until new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper compromised with the United States and reached a settlement on July 1, 2006.^[29] The settlement has not yet been ratified by either country, in part due to domestic opposition in Canada.

Canada had filed numerous motions to have the duty eliminated and the collected duties returned to Canada.^[30] After the United States lost an appeal from a NAFTA panel, it responded by saying "We are, of course, disappointed with the [NAFTA panel's] decision, but it will have no impact on the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders." (Nick Lifton, spokesman for U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman)^[31] On July 21, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade found that imposition of the duties was contrary to U.S. law.^[32][33]

Change in income trust taxation[link]

On October 30, 2007, American citizens Marvin and Elaine Gottlieb filed a Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under NAFTA. The couple claims thousands of U.S. investors lost a total of $5 billion dollars in the fall-out from the Conservative Government's decision the previous year to change the tax rate on income trusts in the energy sector. On April 29, 2009, a determination was made that this change in tax law was not expropriation.^[34]

Further criticism in Canada[link]

A book written by Mel Hurtig published in 2002 called The Vanishing Country charged that since NAFTA's ratification more than 10,000 Canadian companies had been taken over by foreigners, and that 98% of all foreign direct investments in Canada were for foreign takeovers.^[35]

The term "the Double Yu(c)k Alliance aka NAFTA from Yukon to Yucatàn" was first used in 1994 by Miodrag Kojadinović in his article "Friends and Neighbours: Dear Prime Minister of Canada, Kindly Join the EU Next Thursday".^[36]

U.S. deindustrialization[link]

An increase in domestic manufacturing output and a proportionally greater domestic investment in manufacturing does not necessarily mean an increase in domestic manufacturing jobs; this increase may simply reflect greater automation and higher productivity. Although the U.S. total civilian employment may have grown by almost 15 million in between 1993 and 2001, manufacturing jobs only increased by 476,000 in the same time period.^[38] Furthermore from 1994 to 2007, net manufacturing employment has declined by 3,654,000, and during this period several other free trade agreements have been concluded or expanded.^[38]

Impact on Mexican farmers[link]

In 2000, U.S. government subsidies to the corn sector totaled $10.1 billion. These subsidies have led to charges of dumping, which jeopardizes Mexican farms and the country's food self-sufficiency.

Other studies reject NAFTA as the force responsible for depressing the incomes of poor corn farmers, citing the trend's existence more than a decade before NAFTA's existence, an increase in maize production after NAFTA went into effect in 1994, and the lack of a measurable impact on the price of Mexican corn due to subsidized corn coming into Mexico from the United States, though they agree that the abolition of U.S. agricultural subsidies would benefit Mexican farmers.^[39] According to Graham Purchase in Anarchism and Environmental Survival, NAFTA could cause "the destruction of the ejidos (peasant cooperative village holdings) by corporate interests, and threatens to completely reverse the gains made by rural peoples in the Mexican Revolution."^[40]

Zapatista Uprising in response to NAFTA in Chiapas[link]

The preparations for NAFTA included cancellation of Article 27 of Mexico's constitution, the cornerstone of Emiliano Zapata's revolution of 1910–1919. Under the historic Article 27, Indian communal landholdings were protected from sale or privatization. But under NAFTA this guarantee was defined as a barrier to investment. With the removal of Article 27, Indian farmers would be threatened with loss of their remaining lands, and also flooded with cheap imports (substitutes) from the US. Thus, the Zapatistas labeled NAFTA as a "death sentence" to Indian communities all over Mexico. Then EZLN declared war on the Mexican state on January 1, 1994, the day NAFTA came into force.^[41]

Impact of NAFTA on Canada[link]

Like Mexico and the U.S., Canada received a modest positive economic benefit as measured by GDP. Canadian manufacturing employment held steady despite an international downward trend in developed countries. One of NAFTA's biggest economic effects on U.S.-Canada trade has been to boost bilateral agricultural flows.^[42] In the year 2008 alone, Canada exports to the United States and Mexico was at CAN$381.3 Billion Dollars and imports from NAFTA was at CAN$245.1 Billion Dollars.^[43] The Canadian mainstream has been so unanimous in its recognition of NAFTA's advantages despite a few odd detractors that even former NDP Gary Doer of Manitoba openly praises the benefits of NAFTA.^[44]

Chapter 11[link]

Another contentious issue is the impact of the Investor state dispute settlement obligations contained in Chapter 11 of the NAFTA.^[45] Chapter 11 allows corporations or individuals to sue Mexico, Canada or the United States for compensation when actions taken by those governments (or by those for whom they are responsible at international law, such as provincial, state, or municipal governments) have adversely affected their investments.

This chapter has been invoked in cases where governments have passed laws or regulations with intent to protect their constituents and their resident businesses' profits. Language in the chapter defining its scope states that it cannot be used to "prevent a Party from providing a service or performing a function such as law enforcement, correctional services, income security or insurance, social security or insurance, social welfare, public education, public training, health, and child care, in a manner that is not inconsistent with this Chapter."^[46]

This chapter has been criticized by groups in the U.S.,^[47] Mexico,^[48] and Canada^[49] for a variety of reasons, including not taking into account important social and environmental^[50] considerations. In Canada, several groups, including the Council of Canadians, challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 11. They lost at the trial level,^[51] and have subsequently appealed.

Methanex Corporation, a Canadian corporation, filed a US$970 million suit against the United States, claiming that a California ban on Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), a substance that had found its way into many wells in the state, was hurtful to the corporation's sales of methanol. However, the claim was rejected, and the company was ordered to pay US$3 million to the U.S. government in costs.^[52]

In another case, Metalclad, an American corporation, was awarded US$15.6 million from Mexico after a Mexican municipality refused a construction permit for the hazardous waste landfill it intended to construct in Guadalcázar, San Luis Potosí. The construction had already been approved by the federal government with various environmental requirements imposed (see paragraph 48 of the tribunal decision). The NAFTA panel found that the municipality did not have the authority to ban construction on the basis of the environmental concerns.^[53]

Chapter 19[link]

Also contentious is NAFTA's Chapter 19, which subjects antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) determinations to binational panel review instead of, or in addition to, conventional judicial review. For example, in the United States, review of agency decisions imposing antidumping and countervailing duties are normally heard before the U.S. Court of International Trade, an Article III court. NAFTA parties, however, have the option of appealing the decisions to binational panels composed of five citizens from the two relevant NAFTA countries. The panelists are generally lawyers experienced in international trade law. Since the NAFTA does not include substantive provisions concerning AD/CVD, the panel is charged with determining whether final agency determinations involving AD/CVD conform with the country's domestic law. Chapter 19 can be considered as somewhat of an anomaly in international dispute settlement since it does not apply international law, but requires a panel composed of individuals from many countries to reexamine the application of one country's domestic law.

A Chapter 19 panel is expected to examine whether the agency's determination is supported by "substantial evidence." This standard assumes significant deference to the domestic agency. Some of the most controversial trade disputes in recent years, such as the U.S.-Canada softwood lumber dispute, have been litigated before Chapter 19 panels.

Decisions by Chapter 19 panels can be challenged before a NAFTA extraordinary challenge committee. However, an extraordinary challenge committee does not function as an ordinary appeal. Under the NAFTA, it will only vacate or remand a decision if the decision involves a significant and material error that threatens the integrity of the NAFTA dispute settlement system. Since January 2006, no NAFTA party has successfully challenged a Chapter 19 panel's decision before an extraordinary challenge committee.

See also[link]

	Economics portal
	North America portal
	Canada portal
	United States portal
	Mexico portal

• Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)
• Economic Community of West African States
• European Economic Area
• European Free Trade Association
• European Union
• Giant sucking sound

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Edward J. Chambers, Peter H. Smith (2002) NAFTA in the new millennium. University of California, San Diego. Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies ISBN 0-88864-386-1
• Maxwell A. Cameron, Brian W. Tomlin (2002) The making of NAFTA: how the deal was done. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8781-1.
• David Bacon. (2004) The Children of NAFTA: Labor wars on the U.S./Mexico Border. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23778-1.
• Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott (2005) NAFTA Revisited: Achievements and Challenges Washington, D.C. : Institute for International Economics ISBN 0-88132-334-9
• M. Angeles Villarreal (2010)NAFTA and the Mexican Economy, Federation of American Scientists Congressional Research Service. RL34733

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: North American Free Trade Agreement

• Official website
• Abbott, Frederick M. North American Free Trade Agreement, Case Law, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
• NaftaNow.org – Jointly developed by the Governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States of America
• Office of the U.S. Trade Representative – NAFTA
• North American Free Trade Agreement, 1992 Oct. 7 at Project Gutenberg

v t e United States free trade agreements Existing Bilateral Australia · Bahrain · Colombia · Chile · Israel · Jordan · Morocco · Oman · Panama · Peru · Singapore · South Korea Multilateral Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) · North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Pending Proposed Bilateral Ecuador · Ghana · Indonesia · Kenya · Kuwait · Malaysia · Mauritius · Mozambique · New Zealand · Taiwan · United Arab Emirates · Uruguay Multilateral Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) · Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) · Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA) · Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific Region (FTAAP) · Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) Suspended Southern African Customs Union (on hold since 2006) · Thailand (on hold after 2006 coup) · Qatar (on hold since 2006) Defunct or expired Canada (expanded into North American Free Trade Agreement) · Canada–United States Automotive Products Agreement

Bill Clinton
42nd President of the United States
In office January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001
Vice President	Al Gore
Preceded by	George H. W. Bush
Succeeded by	George W. Bush
40th and 42nd Governor of Arkansas
In office January 11, 1983 – December 12, 1992
Lieutenant	Winston Bryant Jim Tucker
Preceded by	Frank White
Succeeded by	Jim Tucker
In office January 9, 1979 – January 19, 1981
Lieutenant	Joe Purcell
Preceded by	Joe Purcell as Acting Governor
Succeeded by	Frank White
50th Attorney General of Arkansas
In office January 3, 1977 – January 9, 1979
Governor	David Pryor Joe Purcell (Acting)
Preceded by	Jim Tucker
Succeeded by	Steve Clark
Personal details
Born	William Jefferson Blythe III (1946-08-19) August 19, 1946 (age 65) Hope, Arkansas, U.S.
Political party	Democratic
Spouse(s)	Hillary Rodham (m. 1975-present)
Children	Chelsea (b. 1980)
Alma mater	Georgetown University University College, Oxford Yale Law School
Profession	Lawyer
Religion	Baptist
Signature
Website	Clinton Presidential Library

William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001. Inaugurated at age 46, he was the third-youngest president. He took office at the end of the Cold War, and was the first president of the baby boomer generation. Clinton has been described as a New Democrat. Many of his policies have been attributed to a centrist Third Way philosophy of governance.

Born and raised in Arkansas, Clinton became both a student leader and a skilled musician. He is an alumnus of Georgetown University where he was Phi Beta Kappa and earned a Rhodes Scholarship to attend the University of Oxford. He is married to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has served as the United States Secretary of State since 2009 and was a Senator from New York from 2001 to 2009. Both Clintons received law degrees from Yale Law School, where they met and began dating. As Governor of Arkansas, Clinton overhauled the state's education system, and served as Chair of the National Governors Association.

Clinton was elected president in 1992, defeating incumbent president George H.W. Bush. As president, Clinton presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history. He signed into law the North American Free Trade Agreement. He implemented Don't ask, don't tell, a controversial intermediate step to full gay military integration. After a failed health care reform attempt, Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, for the first time in forty years. Two years later, the re-elected Clinton became the first member of the Democratic Party since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second full term as president. He successfully passed welfare reform and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, providing health coverage for millions of children. Later, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in a scandal involving a White House intern, but was acquitted by the U.S. Senate and served his complete term of office. The Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus between the years 1998 and 2000, the last three years of Clinton's presidency.

Clinton left office with the highest end-of-office approval rating of any U.S. president since World War II. Since then, he has been involved in public speaking and humanitarian work. Based on his philanthropic worldview, Clinton created the William J. Clinton Foundation to promote and address international causes such as prevention of AIDS and global warming. In 2004, he released his autobiography My Life, and was involved in his wife's and then Barack Obama's campaigns for president in 2008. In 2009, he was named United Nations Special Envoy to Haiti, and after the 2010 earthquake he teamed with George W. Bush to form the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. Since leaving office, Clinton has been rated highly in public opinion polls of U.S. presidents.

Early life and career[link]

William Jefferson Blythe III, in 1950 at age four

Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe, III, at Julia Chester Hospital in Hope, Arkansas.^[1][2] His father, William Jefferson Blythe, Jr., was a traveling salesman who died in an automobile accident three months before Bill was born.^[3] His mother Virginia Dell Cassidy (1923–1994) traveled to New Orleans to study nursing soon after he was born. She left Bill in Hope with grandparents Eldridge and Edith Cassidy, who owned and ran a small grocery store.^[2] At a time when the Southern United States was segregated racially, Bill's grandparents sold goods on credit to people of all races.^[2] In 1950, Bill's mother returned from nursing school and married Roger Clinton, Sr., who owned an automobile dealership in Hot Springs, Arkansas with his brother.^[2] The family moved to Hot Springs in 1950.

Bill Clinton boyhood home in Hope, Arkansas

Although he assumed use of his stepfather's surname, it was not until Billy (as he was known then) turned fifteen^[4] that he formally adopted the surname Clinton as a gesture toward his stepfather.^[2] Clinton says he remembers his stepfather as a gambler and an alcoholic who regularly abused his mother and half-brother, Roger Clinton, Jr., to the point where he intervened multiple times with the threat of violence to protect them.^[2][5]

In Hot Springs, Clinton attended St. John's Catholic Elementary School, Ramble Elementary School, and Hot Springs High School – where he was an active student leader, avid reader, and musician.^[2] He was in the chorus and played the tenor saxophone, winning first chair in the state band's saxophone section. He briefly considered dedicating his life to music, but as he noted in his autobiography My Life:

"Sometime in my sixteenth year, I decided I wanted to be in public life as an elected official. I loved music and thought I could be very good, but I knew I would never be John Coltrane or Stan Getz. I was interested in medicine and thought I could be a fine doctor, but I knew I would never be Michael DeBakey. But I knew I could be great in public service."^[2]

Clinton has named two influential moments in his life that contributed to his decision to become a public figure, both occurring in 1963. One was his visit as a Boys Nation senator to the White House to meet President John F. Kennedy.^[2][5] The other was listening to Martin Luther King's 1963 I Have a Dream speech, which impressed him enough that he later memorized it.^[6]

College and law school years[link]

Clinton ran for President of the Student Council while attending the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.

With the aid of scholarships, Clinton attended the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., receiving a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service (B.S.) degree in 1968. He spent the summer of 1967, the summer before his senior year, interning for Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright.^[2] While in college, he became a brother of Alpha Phi Omega and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Clinton was also a member of the Order of DeMolay, a youth group affiliated with Freemasonry, but he never became a Freemason.^[7] He is a member of Kappa Kappa Psi honorary band fraternity.^[8]

Upon graduation, he won a Rhodes Scholarship to University College, Oxford where he studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics, though because he had switched programs and had left early for Yale University, he did not receive a degree there.^[5][9] He developed an interest in rugby union, playing at Oxford^[10] and later for the Little Rock Rugby club in Arkansas. While at Oxford he also participated in Vietnam War protests and organized an October 1969 Moratorium event.^[2]

Clinton's political opponents charge that to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam War during his college years, he used the political influence of a U.S. Senator, who employed him as an aide.^[11] Col. Eugene Holmes, an Army officer who was involved in Clinton's case, issued a notarized statement during the 1992 presidential campaign: "I was informed by the draft board that it was of interest to Senator Fullbright's office that Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, should be admitted to the ROTC program... I believe that he purposely deceived me, using the possibility of joining the ROTC as a ploy to work with the draft board to delay his induction and get a new draft classification."^[12][13] Although legal, Clinton's actions were criticized by conservatives and some Vietnam veterans during his presidential campaign in 1992.^[14][15][16]

After Oxford, Clinton attended Yale Law School and earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree in 1973.^[5] In a Yale library in 1971 he met fellow law student Hillary Rodham, who was a year ahead of him.^[17] They began dating and soon were inseparable. After only about a month, Clinton proposed to Rodham and postponed his plans to be a coordinator for the McGovern campaign for the 1972 United States presidential election in order to move in with her in California.^[18] They later married on October 11, 1975, and their only child, Chelsea, was born on February 27, 1980.^[17]

Clinton did eventually move to Texas with Rodham to take a job leading McGovern's effort there in 1972. He spent considerable time in Dallas, at the campaign's local headquarters on Lemmon Avenue, where he had an office. There, Clinton worked with future two-term mayor of Dallas, Ron Kirk, future governor of Texas, Ann Richards, and then unknown television director (and future filmmaker), Steven Spielberg.

Political career 1978–1992[link]

Governor of Arkansas[link]

After graduating from Yale Law School, Clinton returned to Arkansas and became a law professor at the University of Arkansas. A year later, he ran for the House of Representatives in 1974. The incumbent, Republican John Paul Hammerschmidt, defeated Clinton in the general election by a 52% to 48% margin. With only minor opposition in the primary and no opposition at all in the general election,^[19] Clinton was elected Arkansas Attorney General in 1976.^[5]

Clinton, as the newly elected Governor of Arkansas, meeting with President Jimmy Carter in 1978

Clinton was elected Governor of Arkansas in 1978, having defeated the Republican candidate Lynn Lowe, a farmer from Texarkana. He became the youngest governor in the country at 32. Due to his youthful appearance, Clinton was often called the "Boy Governor", a referent that continues to be used to refer to him during his gubernatorial era on occasion.^[20][21][22] He worked on educational reform and Arkansas's roads, with wife Hillary leading a successful committee on urban health care reform. However, his term included an unpopular motor vehicle tax and citizens' anger over the escape of Cuban refugees (from the Mariel boatlift) detained in Fort Chaffee in 1980. Monroe Schwarzlose of Kingsland in Cleveland County, polled 31% of the vote against Clinton in the Democratic gubernatorial primary of 1980. Some suggested Schwarzlose's unexpected voter turnout foreshadowed Clinton's defeat in the general election that year by Republican challenger Frank D. White. As Clinton once joked, he was the youngest ex-governor in the nation's history.^[5]

Clinton joined friend Bruce Lindsey's Little Rock law firm of Wright, Lindsey and Jennings.^[23] In 1982, he was again elected governor and kept this job for ten years.^[19] He helped Arkansas transform its economy and significantly improve the state's educational system. He became a leading figure among the New Democrats.^[24][25] The New Democrats, organized as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), were a branch of the Democratic Party that called for welfare reform and smaller government, a policy supported by both Democrats and Republicans. He gave the Democratic response to President Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address and served as Chair of the National Governors Association from 1986 to 1987, bringing him to an audience beyond Arkansas.^[5] Clinton made economic growth, job creation and educational improvement high priorities. For senior citizens, he removed the sales tax from medications and increased the home property-tax exemption.^[24]

In the early 1980s, Clinton made reform of the Arkansas education system a top priority. The Arkansas Education Standards Committee, chaired by Clinton's wife, attorney and Legal Services Corporation chair Hillary Rodham Clinton, succeeded in reforming the education system, transforming it from the worst in the nation into one of the best. Many have considered this the greatest achievement of the Clinton governorship. Clinton and the committee were responsible for state educational improvement programs, notably more spending for schools, rising opportunities for gifted children, an increase in vocational education, raising of teachers' salaries, inclusion of a wider variety of courses, and compulsory teacher testing for aspiring educators.^[5][24] He defeated four Republican candidates for governor: Lowe (1978), White (1982 and 1986), and businessmen Woody Freeman of Jonesboro, (1984) and Sheffield Nelson of Little Rock (1990).^[19]

The Clintons' personal and business affairs during the 1980s included transactions that became the basis of the Whitewater investigation that dogged his later presidential administration.^[26] After extensive investigation over several years, no indictments were made against the Clintons related to the years in Arkansas.^[5][27]

According to some sources, Clinton was in his early years a death penalty opponent who switched positions.^[28][29] During Clinton's term, Arkansas performed its first executions since 1964 (the death penalty had been re-enacted on March 23, 1973).^[30] As Governor, he oversaw four executions: one by electric chair and three by lethal injection. Later, as president, Clinton was the first President to pardon a death-row inmate since the federal death penalty was reintroduced in 1988.^[31]

Democratic presidential primaries of 1988[link]

Governor and Mrs. Clinton attend the Dinner Honoring the Nation's Governors in the White House with President Ronald Reagan and first lady Nancy Reagan, 1987.

In 1987, there was media speculation Clinton would enter the race after then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo declined to run and Democratic front-runner Gary Hart withdrew owing to revelations of marital infidelity. Clinton decided to remain as Arkansas governor (following consideration for the potential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton for governor, initially favored – but ultimately vetoed – by the First Lady).^[32] For the nomination, Clinton endorsed Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. He gave the nationally televised opening night address at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, which at 33 minutes was criticized for being too long.^[33] Presenting himself as a moderate and a member of the New Democrat wing of the Democratic Party, he headed the moderate Democratic Leadership Council in 1990 and 1991.^[24][34]

1992 presidential campaign[link]

In the first primary contest, the Iowa caucus, Clinton finished a distant third to Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. During the campaign for the New Hampshire primary, reports of an extramarital affair with Gennifer Flowers surfaced. As Clinton fell far behind former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas in the New Hampshire polls,^[5] following Super Bowl XXVI, Clinton and his wife Hillary went on 60 Minutes to rebuff the charges. Their television appearance was a calculated risk, but Clinton regained several delegates. He finished second to Tsongas in the New Hampshire primary, but after trailing badly in the polls and coming within single digits of winning, the media viewed it as a victory. News outlets labeled him "The Comeback Kid" for earning a firm second-place finish.^[35]

Winning the big prizes of Florida and Texas and many of the Southern primaries on Super Tuesday gave Clinton a sizable delegate lead. However, former California Governor Jerry Brown was scoring victories and Clinton had yet to win a significant contest outside his native South.^[5][34] With no major Southern state remaining, Clinton targeted New York, which had many delegates. He scored a resounding victory in New York City, shedding his image as a regional candidate.^[34] Having been transformed into the consensus candidate, he secured the Democratic Party nomination, finishing with a victory in Jerry Brown's home state of California.^[5]

Clinton family in White House

During the campaign, questions of conflict of interest regarding state business and the politically powerful Rose Law Firm, at which Hillary Rodham Clinton was a partner, arose. Clinton argued the questions were moot because all transactions with the state had been deducted before determining Hillary's firm pay.^[2][36] Further concern arose when Bill Clinton announced that, with Hillary, voters would be getting two presidents "for the price of one".^[37]

While campaigning for U.S. President, the then Governor Clinton returned to Arkansas to see that Ricky Ray Rector would be executed. After killing a police officer and a civilian, Rector shot himself in the head, leading to what his lawyers said was a state where he could still talk but did not understand the idea of death. According to Arkansas state and Federal law, a seriously mentally impaired inmate cannot be executed. The courts disagreed with the allegation of grave mental impairment and allowed the execution. Clinton's return to Arkansas for the execution was framed in a The New York Times article as a possible political move to counter "soft on crime" accusations.^[28][38]

Because Bush's approval ratings were in the 80% range during the Gulf War, he was described as unbeatable. However, when Bush compromised with Democrats to try to lower Federal deficits, he reneged on his promise not to raise taxes, hurting his approval rating. Clinton repeatedly condemned Bush for making a promise he failed to keep.^[34] By election time, the economy was souring and Bush saw his approval rating plummet to just slightly over 40%.^[34][39] Finally, conservatives were previously united by anti-communism, but with the end of the Cold War, the party lacked a uniting issue. When Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson addressed Christian themes at the Republican National Convention – with Bush criticizing Democrats for omitting God from their platform – many moderates were alienated.^[40] Clinton then pointed to his moderate, "New Democrat" record as governor of Arkansas, though some on the more liberal side of the party remained suspicious.^[41] Many Democrats who had supported Ronald Reagan and Bush in previous elections switched their support to Clinton.^[42] Clinton and his running mate, Al Gore, toured the country during the final weeks of the campaign, shoring up support and pledging a "new beginning".^[42]

Clinton won the 1992 presidential election (43.0% of the vote) against Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the vote) and billionaire populist Ross Perot, who ran as an independent (18.9% of the vote) on a platform focusing on domestic issues; a significant part of Clinton's success was Bush's steep decline in public approval.^[42] Clinton's election ended twelve years of Republican rule of the White House and twenty of the previous twenty-four years. The election gave Democrats full control of the United States Congress,^[3] the first time one party controlled both the executive and legislative branches since Democrats held the 95th United States Congress during the Jimmy Carter presidency in the late 1970s.^[43]

Presidency, 1993–2001[link]

Countries visited by President Clinton during his terms in office

During his presidency, Clinton advocated for a wide variety of legislation and programs, much of which was enacted into law or was implemented by the executive branch. Some of his policies, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and welfare reform, have been attributed to a centrist Third Way philosophy of governance, while on other issues his stance was left-of-center.^[44][45] Clinton presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history.^[46][47][48] The Congressional Budget Office reported budget surpluses of $69 billion in 1998, $126 billion in 1999, and $236 billion in 2000,^[49] during the last three years of Clinton's presidency.^[50] At the end of his presidency, Clinton moved to New York and helped his wife win election to the U.S. Senate there.

First term, 1993–1997[link]

Clinton takes the oath of office during his 1993 presidential inauguration on January 20, 1993.	First inauguration of Bill Clinton (January 20, 1993) Video of the First inauguration of Bill Clinton. First inauguration of Bill Clinton (January 20, 1993) audio only version
Problems listening to these files? See media help.

Clinton was inaugurated as the 42nd President of the United States on January 20, 1993. Shortly after taking office, Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 on February 5, which required large employers to allow employees to take unpaid leave for pregnancy or a serious medical condition. This action had bipartisan support,^[51] and proved quite popular with the public.^[52]

Budget Deficit in Billions of Dollars (1971-2001). There were budget surpluses from 1998-2001.

On February 15, 1993, Clinton made his first address to the nation, announcing his plan to raise taxes to cap the budget deficit.^[53] Two days later, in a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress, Clinton unveiled his economic plan. The plan focused on reducing the deficit rather than on cutting taxes for the middle class, which had been high on his campaign agenda.^[54] Clinton's advisers pressured him to raise taxes on the theory that a smaller federal budget deficit would reduce bond interest rates.^[55]