to make export goods. If the goods are exported back to the United States, the U.S. content of the goods is also exempt from U.S. tariffs. Critics still say that maquiladoras take away U.S. jobs, but a National Bureau of Economic Research study in April 1996 found that they help spur jobs on both sides of the border. Investment and environmentSome of the initial concerns and promises voiced during the NAFTA debate haven't panned out the way either side predicted. There were fears that the U.S. auto industry would flee to Mexico, but the Big Three U.S. automakers have announced no major new investment in Mexico since the trade pact's implementation, according to the Commerce Department. Another concern was that Mexico's relatively cheap labor force would lure U.S. factories across the border. U.S. corporate investment in Mexican manufacturing facilities rose from $1 billion in 1993 to $2.5 billion in 1994, then fell to $1.5 billion a year later in the peso crisis fallout. In contrast, business investment in the United States exceeded $700 billion that year. While NAFTA was promoted as the greenest trade pact in history, environmentalists say little improvement has occurred, particularly along Mexico's industrializing northern border. "On the environmental front, NAFTA has done virtually nothing," said Dan Seligman of the Sierra Club. "We have a NAFTA environmental commission that has devoted three years to a lot of studies. Some are good studies, some are nice studies, but I don't think a single toxic waste site or a single polluting smokestack has been cleaned up because of anything they've done." Two agreements were added to the final NAFTA negotiations in response to several U.S. environmental groups' concerns about cross-border pollution. One was the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, which created a commission to enforce environmental law. But the commission was not fully staffed until 1995 and has had a slow st...
