The use of the agreement between Congress and the executive branch in the trade area was seen as an acknowledgement of Parliament`s constitutional role in increasing revenue. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States .303, Reporters` Note 9 (1987). The Senate draws attention to the implementation of the agreement between Congress and the executive for the Uruguay Round agreements, which can be inferred from its 76-16 vote on the amendment of the OTCA, in order to extend the date on which the President will be able to conclude the agreements in accordance with this statute, since the years represent more than two-thirds of that body. 139 Cong. Rec. 14805 (1993). S.Rept. 93-1298, at 77, 107. These agreements could certainly be submitted to the Senate in the form of treaties (see Rep.
93-571, 24; S.Rept. 93-1298, at 86), neither the agreements nor their terms of application would be entitled to expedite legislative review. Moreover, Parliament would certainly play a role in the adoption of implementing laws, but it would not explicitly approve the agreements, i.e. it would not vote on whether the United States should accept the international commitments made to them. The United States has made trade commitments in contracts, including its bilateral friendship, trade and navigation (FCN) agreements, which require the parties to grant each other`s products the most favoured domestic tariff treatments and other trade benefits. With the conclusion of numerous bilateral customs agreements under reciprocal trade agreement legislation, the development of GATT agreements and U.S. membership in the WTO and free trade agreements, trade obligations between the United States and its trading partners are now defined primarily by these new obligations. According to a study published in the Journal of International Economics, NAFTA reduced U.S. manufacturing pollution: “On average, nearly two-thirds of U.S.
manufacturing reductions in coarse particulate matter (PM10) and sulphur dioxide (SO2) between 1994 and 1998 can be attributed to trade liberalization to NAFTA.”  Economists generally agreed that the U.S. economy as a whole benefited from NAFTA by increasing trade.   In a 2012 survey by the Global Markets Initiative`s panel of economic experts, 95% of participants said that, on average, the United States is the United States.