The U.S. Chamber of Commerce attributed to NAFTA that U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico grew from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL-CIO awarded the deal for sending 700,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs to Mexico during that time. [86] In its May 24, 2017 report, the Congressional Research Service (SIR) wrote that the economic impact of NAFTA on the U.S. economy was modest. In a 2015 report, the Congressional Research Service summarized several studies as follows: “In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses that critics feared or the significant economic benefits predicted by supporters. The overall net effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, mainly because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there have been adaptation costs for workers and businesses as all three countries have prepared for more open trade and investment between their economies. “[93]:2 According to a 2013 article by Jeff Faux by the Economic Policy Institute, California, Texas, Michigan and other countries with a high concentration of manufacturing jobs have been the hardest hit by job losses due to NAFTA. [97] According to an article by EPI economist Robert Scott in 2011, about 682,900 U.S.

jobs were “lost or ousted” by the trade deal. [98] Recent studies were consistent with Congressional Research Service reports that NAFTA had only a modest influence on manufacturing employment and that automation accounted for 87% of manufacturing job losses. [99] The Clinton administration negotiated with Canada and Mexico a subsequent environmental agreement, the North American Environmental Cooperation Agreement (NAAEC) which led to the creation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. . .