Gordon Hanson, an economist at Harvard Kennedy School, said studies have shown that average incomes in all three countries have increased as a result of the trade agreement, although they are low. But the benefits of the agreement were very unevenly distributed among the United States. The 26-year agreement, negotiated by the George Bush administration and signed by President Bill Clinton, has become a political goal that has been ridiculed for encouraging U.S. companies to relocate factories and jobs to Mexico. According to a 2013 Jeff Faux article published by the Economic Policy Institute, California, Texas, Michigan and other high-concentration manufacturing states were most affected by NAFTA job losses.  According to a 2011 article by EPI economist Robert Scott, the trade agreement has “lost or supplanted” some 682,900 U.S. jobs.  Recent studies have agreed with congressional Research Service reports that NAFTA has little influence on manufacturing employment and automation, accounting for 87% of manufacturing job losses.  The impact of NAFTA on the economy appears to be mixed. When President Clinton first signed the treaty in 1993, he predicted enormous economic utility. In 2008, Republican candidate Ron Paul said he would abolish the trade agreement. He said he would create a “superautobahn” and compare it to the European Union, although NAFTA does not impose a single currency among its signatories.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce attributed to NAFTA the fact that trade in goods and services in the United States with Canada and Mexico increased from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL-CIO blamed the agreement of 700,000 U.S. production jobs.  The overall effect of the mexican-U.S. agricultural agreement is controversial. Mexico has not invested in the infrastructure needed for competition, such as efficient railways and highways. This has led to more difficult living conditions for the country`s poor. Mexico`s agricultural exports increased by 9.4% per year between 1994 and 2001, while imports increased by only 6.9% per year over the same period.  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.