A new addition to the USMCA is the inclusion of Chapter 33, which covers macroeconomic policies and exchange rate issues. This is considered important, as it could set a precedent for future trade agreements.  Chapter 33 sets out monetary and macroeconomic transparency requirements that, if violated, would create a remedy under Chapter 20.  The United States, Canada and Mexico currently meet all of these transparency requirements, in addition to the substantive political requirements that are consistent with the articles of the International Monetary Fund Convention.  The provisions of the agreement cover a wide range of agricultural products, homelessness, industrial products, working conditions, digital trade and others. Among the most important aspects of the agreement are better access for U.S. dairy farmers to the Canadian market, guidelines for a greater proportion of automobiles produced in the three countries instead of being imported from other countries, and the maintenance of the dispute settlement system, similar to that contained in NAFTA.   The Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (BTPAA), which is contained in Title XXI of 200216`s Trade Act, again gave the President trade bargaining power. Although power expired in the 110th Congress, the implementation of trade agreement bills concluded before 1 July 2007 remained eligible for accelerated legislative review.17 The 2002 law did not require that laws implementing such an agreement be submitted to Congress by a specific date. Among the agreements concluded before 1 July 2007 but which had not yet been approved by that date were US free trade agreements with Colombia, Korea and Panama18. Agreements with Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, Bahrain, Oman, dominican republic-Central American-United States (DR-CAFTA) and Peru had been previously approved as part of this process.
Some suggested using a statute providing a legal framework for international negotiations and speeding up the legislative review of a resulting agreement and its implementing law in areas other than trade. See z.B. Nigel Purvis, Paving the Way for U.S. Climate Leadership; The Case for Executive Agreements and Climate Protection Authority (Resources for the Future 2008) on www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-08-09.pdf. Canada`s main opposition Conservative party has expressed its determination to look at potentially worrying aspects of the deal, but it also says it has no intention of delaying the process. The negotiation, conclusion, and implementation of trade agreements involves the President`s authority under Article II to negotiate international treaties and agreements and manage foreign affairs, see United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 319 (1936), and the explicit power of Congress to impose tariffs and duties and regulate foreign trade.
U.S. Const., Article I, §8, cls. 1, 3. Under Congress` explicit jurisdiction in this area, the President may not impose, reduce, or modify existing tariffs by executive agreement unless Congress has given him the power to do so. See United States v. Yoshida Int`l Inc., 526 F.2d 560, 572 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (“no non-delegated authority to regulate trade or consolidate tariffs, inheres in the Presidency”) (emphasis added); Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance, 425 F.Supp.2d at 1357 (“Indeed, if the president exercises authority in the regulation of foreign trade, he does so as an “agent” of Congress. » United States v. . . .