document_title: North American Free Trade Agreement

question_text: who was the president when nafta was passed

question_tokens: who was the president when nafta was passed

text: North American Free Trade Agreement

text: Negotiation, ratification, and revision

text: The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his campaign when he announced his candidacy for the presidency in November 1979.[15] Canada and the United States signed the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in 1988, and shortly afterward Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari decided to approach US president George H.W. Bush to propose a similar agreement in an effort to bring in foreign investment following the Latin American debt crisis.[15] As the two leaders began negotiating, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney feared that the advantages Canada had gained through the Canada-US FTA would be undermined by a US-Mexican bilateral agreement, and asked to become a party to the US-Mexican talks.[16] Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 among the three nations, the three leaders signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992.[17] The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

text: The earlier Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement had been controversial and divisive in Canada, and featured as an issue in the 1988 Canadian election. In that election, more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the Liberals and the New Democrats) but the split of the votes between the two parties meant that the pro-free trade Progressive Conservatives (PCs) came out of the election with the most seats and so took power. Mulroney and the PCs had a parliamentary majority easily passed the 1987 Canada-U.S. FTA and NAFTA bills. However, Mulroney was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by Kim Campbell. Campbell led the PC party into the 1993 election where they were decimated by the Liberal Party under Jean Chrétien, who campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA. Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with Bush, who had subverted the LAC[18] advisory process[19] and worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton.[20]

text: Before sending it to the United States Senate Clinton added two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, and also allay the concerns of many House members. They also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.[citation needed] After much consideration and emotional discussion, the US House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234–200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61–38.[21] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[22][23] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[24] NAFTA then replaced the previous Canada-US FTA.

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (December 2009)

text:
Remarks on the Signing of the NAFTA Implementation Act (December 8, 1993)

Play media

Bill Clinton's remarks on the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 8, 1993.

Remarks on the Signing of the NAFTA Implementation Act (December 8, 1993)

Problems playing these files? See media help.

text: Provisions

text: The goal of NAFTA was to eliminate barriers to trade and investment between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994 brought the immediate elimination of tariffs on more than one-half of Mexico's exports to the U.S. and more than one-third of U.S. exports to Mexico. Within 10 years of the implementation of the agreement, all U.S.-Mexico tariffs were to be eliminated except for some U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico to be phased out within 15 years.[25] Most U.S.-Canada trade was already duty-free. NAFTA also sought to eliminate non-tariff trade barriers and to protect the intellectual property rights on traded products.

text: Chapter 52 provides a procedure for the international resolution of disputes over the application and interpretation of NAFTA. It was modeled after Chapter 69 of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement.[26] The roster of NAFTA adjudicators includes many retired judges, such as Alice Desjardins, John Maxwell Evans, Constance Hunt, John Richard, Arlin M. Adams, Susan Getzendanner, George C. Pratt, Charles B. Renfrew and Sandra Day O'Connor.

text: The NAFTA is, in part, implemented by Technical Working Groups, which are composed of government officials from each of the three partners.[27]

text: Intellectual property

text: The North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act made some changes to the copyright law of the United States, foreshadowing the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 by restoring copyright (within the NAFTA nations) on certain motion pictures which had entered the public domain.[28][29]

text: Environment

text: U.S. congressional approval for NAFTA would have been impossible without addressing public concerns about NAFTA’s environmental impact.[30] The Clinton administration negotiated a side agreement on the environment with Canada and Mexico, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which led to the creation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. To alleviate concerns that NAFTA, the first regional trade agreement between a developing country and two developed countries, would have negative environmental impacts, the commission was mandated to conduct ongoing ex post environmental assessment,[31] It created one of the first ex post frameworks for environmental assessment of trade liberalization, designed to produce a body of evidence with respect to the initial hypotheses about NAFTA and the environment, such as the concern that NAFTA would create a "race to the bottom" in environmental regulation among the three countries, or that NAFTA would pressure governments to increase their environmental protections.[32] The CEC has held[when?] four symposia to evaluate the environmental impacts of NAFTA and commissioned 47 papers on the subject from leading independent experts.[33]

text: Agriculture

text: From the earliest negotiation, agriculture was (and still is) a controversial topic within NAFTA, as it has been with almost all free trade agreements signed within the WTO framework. Agriculture is the only section that was not negotiated trilaterally; instead, three separate agreements were signed between each pair of parties. The Canada–U.S. agreement contains significant restrictions and tariff quotas on agricultural products (mainly sugar, dairy, and poultry products), whereas the Mexico–U.S. pact allows for a wider liberalization within a framework of phase-out periods (it was the first North–South FTA on agriculture to be signed).[clarification needed]

text: Transportation infrastructure

text: NAFTA established the CANAMEX Corridor for road transport between Canada and Mexico, also proposed for use by rail, pipeline, and fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure. This became a High Priority Corridor under the U.S. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

text: Impact

text: Canada

text: In the year 2008 alone, Canadian exports to the United States and Mexico were at $381.3 billion, with imports at $245.1 billion.[34]. According to University of Toronto economist Daniel Trefler, NAFTA produced a significant net benefit to Canada, with long-term productivity increasing by up to 15 percent in industries that experienced the deepest tariff cuts.[35] While the contraction of low-productivity plants reduced employment (up to 12 percent of existing positions), these job losses lasted less than a decade; overall, unemployment in Canada has fallen since the passage of the act. Commenting on this trade-off, Trefler said that the critical question in trade policy is to understand "how freer trade can be implemented in an industrialized economy in a way that recognizes both the long-run gains and the short-term adjustment costs borne by workers and others."[36] Another of NAFTA's biggest economic effects on U.S.-Canada trade has been higher bilateral agricultural flows.[37]

text: A study in 2007 found that NAFTA had "a substantial impact on international trade volumes, but a modest effect on prices and welfare".[38] A 2015 study that focused on the impact of NAFTA's tariff reductions found that while intra-bloc trade increased by 41% for the U.S. and 118% for Mexico, it increased by a modest 11% for Canada. Moreover, U.S. and Mexico benefited more from the tariff reductions component, with welfare increases of 0.08% and 1.31%, respectively, with Canada experiencing a decrease of 0.06%.[39]

text: Mexico

text: Maquiladoras (Mexican assembly plants that take in imported components and produce goods for export) have become the landmark of trade in Mexico. They moved to Mexico from the United States[citation needed], hence the debate over the loss of American jobs. Income in the maquiladora sector has increased 15.5% since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994.[40] Other sectors now benefit from the free trade agreement, and the share of exports to the US from non-border states has increased in the last five years[when?] while the share of exports from border states has decreased. This has allowed rapid growth in non-border metropolitan areas such as Toluca, León and Puebla; all larger in population than Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, and Reynosa.

text: The overall effect of the Mexico–U.S. agricultural agreement is disputed. Mexico did not invest in the infrastructure necessary for competition, such as efficient railroads and highways.This resulted in more difficult living conditions for the country's poor. Mexico's agricultural exports increased 9.4 percent annually between 1994 and 2001, while imports increased by only 6.9 percent a year during the same period.[41]

text: One of the most affected agricultural sectors is the meat industry. Mexico went from a small player in the pre-1994 U.S. export market to the second largest importer of U.S. agricultural products in 2004, and NAFTA may be a major catalyst for this change. Free trade removed the hurdles that impeded business between the two countries, so Mexico has provided a growing market for meat for the U.S., and increased sales and profits for the U.S. meat industry. A coinciding noticeable increase in the Mexican per capita GDP greatly changed meat consumption patterns; per capita meat consumption has grown.[42]

text: Production of corn in Mexico has increased since NAFTA. But internal demand for corn has increased beyond Mexico's supply, and imports have become needed, far beyond the quotas Mexico originally negotiated.[43] Zahniser & Coyle also point out that corn prices in Mexico, adjusted for international prices, have drastically decreased, but through a program of subsidies expanded by former president Vicente Fox, production has remained stable since 2000.[44] Reducing agricultural subsidies, especially corn subsidies, has been suggested as a way to reduce harm to Mexican farmers.[45]

text: A 2001 Journal of Economic Perspectives review of the existing literature found that NAFTA was a net benefit to Mexico.[8] By the year 2003, 80% of the commerce in Mexico was executed only with the U.S. The commercial sales surplus, combined with the deficit with the rest of the world, created a dependency in Mexico's exports. These effects were evident in 2001–2003; the result of that recession was either a low rate or a negative rate in Mexico's exports.[46]

text: A 2015 study found that Mexico's welfare increased by 1.31% as a result of the NAFTA tariff reductions, and that Mexico's intra-bloc trade increased by 118%.[39] Inequality and poverty fell in the most globalization-affected regions of Mexico.[47] 2013 and 2015 studies show that Mexican small farmers benefitted more from NAFTA than large-scale farmers.[48][49]

text: NAFTA has also been credited with the rise of the Mexican middle class. A Tufts University study found that NAFTA lowered the average cost of basic necessities in Mexico by up to 50%.[50] This price reduction increased cash-on-hand for many Mexican families, allowing Mexico to graduate more engineers than Germany each year.[51]

text: Growth in new sales orders indicates an increase in demand for manufactured products, which resulted in expansion of production and a higher employment rate to satisfy the increment in the demand. The growth in the maquiladora industry and in the manufacturing industry was of 4.7% in August 2016.[52] Three quarters of the imports and exports comes are with the U.S.

text: Tufts University political scientist Daniel W. Drezner has argued that NAFTA made it easier for Mexico to transform to a real democracy and become a country that views itself as North American. This has boosted cooperation between the United States and Mexico.[53]

text: United States

text: Economists consider that NAFTA was beneficial for the United States.[54][55] In a 2012 survey of leading economists, 95% said that on average U.S. citizens benefited from NAFTA.[7] A 2001 Journal of Economic Perspectives review found that NAFTA was a net benefit to the United States.[8] A 2015 study found that US welfare increased by 0.08% as a result of NAFTA tariff reductions, and that US intra-bloc trade increased by 41%.[39]

text: In 2015, the Congressional Research Service concluded that the "net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies." The report also estimated that NAFTA added $80 billion to the US economy since its implementation, equivalent to a 0.5% increase in US GDP.[56]

text: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce credits NAFTA with increasing U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL-CIO blames the agreement for sending 700,000 American manufacturing jobs to Mexico over that time.[57]

text: University of California, San Diego economics professor Gordon Hanson has said that NAFTA helped the U.S. compete against China and therefore saved U.S. jobs.[58][59] While some jobs were lost to Mexico as a result of NAFTA, considerably more would have been lost to China if not for NAFTA.[58][59]

text: Trade balances

text: The U.S. had a trade surplus with NAFTA countries of $28.3 billion for services in 2009 and a trade deficit of $94.6 billion (36.4% annual increase) for goods in 2010. This trade deficit accounted for 26.8 percent of all U.S. goods trade deficit.[60]

text: A study published in the August 2008 issue of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, found NAFTA increased U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada, even though most of the increase occurred a decade after its ratification. The study focused on the effects that gradual "phase-in" periods in regional trade agreements, including NAFTA, have on trade flows. Most of the increase in members’ agricultural trade, which was only recently brought under the purview of the World Trade Organization, was due to very high trade barriers before NAFTA or other regional trade agreements.[61]

text: Investment

text: The U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in NAFTA countries (stock) was $327.5 billion in 2009 (latest data available)[when?], up 8.8% from 2008.[60] The U.S. direct investment in NAFTA countries is in nonbank holding companies, and in the manufacturing, finance/insurance, and mining sectors.[60] The foreign direct investment of Canada and Mexico in the United States (stock) was $237.2 billion in 2009 (the latest data available), up 16.5% from 2008.[60][62]

text: Economy and jobs

text: The economic impacts of NAFTA on the U.S. economy have been modest. In a 2015 report, the Congressional Research Service summarized multiple studies as follows: "In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies."[63]

text: Many American small businesses depend on exporting their products to Canada or Mexico under NAFTA. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, this trade supports over 140,000 small- and medium-sized businesses in the US.[64]

text: According to the Economic Policy Institute, California, Texas, Michigan and other states with high concentrations of manufacturing jobs were most affected by job loss due to NAFTA.[65] EPI economist Robert Scott estimates some 682,900 U.S. jobs have been "lost or displaced" as a result of the trade agreement.[66] However, other studies have found that NAFTA only had a modest impact on manufacturing employment, and that automation explains 87% of the losses in manufacturing jobs.[67]

text: According to University of California Berkeley professor of economics Brad DeLong, NAFTA had an insignificant impact on US manufacturing.[68] The adverse impact on manufacturing has been very exaggerated in US political discourse according to DeLong,[68] Harvard economist Dani Rodrik agrees.[69]

text: Environment

text: According to a study in the Journal of International Economics, NAFTA reduced pollution emitted by the US manufacturing sector: "On average, nearly two-thirds of the reductions in PM10[clarification needed] and SO2[clarification needed] emissions from the U.S. manufacturing sector between 1994 and 1998 can be attributed to trade liberalization following NAFTA."[70]

text: According to the Sierra Club, NAFTA contributed to large-scale, export-oriented farming, which led to the increased use of fossil fuels, pesticides and GMO.[71] NAFTA also contributed to environmentally destructive mining practices in Mexico.[71] It prevented Canada from effectively regulating its tar sands industry, and created new legal avenues for transnational corporations to fight environmental legislation.[71] In some cases, environmental policy was neglected in the wake of trade liberalization; in other cases, NAFTA's measures for investment protection, such as Chapter 11, and measures against non-tariff trade barriers threatened to discourage more vigorous environmental policy.[72] The most serious overall increases in pollution due to NAFTA were found in the base metals sector, the Mexican petroleum sector, and the transportation equipment sector in the United States and Mexico, but not in Canada.[73]

text: Mobility of persons

text: According to the Department of Homeland Security Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, during fiscal year 2006 (i.e., October 2005 through September 2006), 73,880 foreign professionals (64,633 Canadians and 9,247 Mexicans) were admitted into the United States for temporary employment under NAFTA (i.e., in the TN status). Additionally, 17,321 of their family members (13,136 Canadians, 2,904 Mexicans, as well as a number of third-country nationals married to Canadians and Mexicans) entered the U.S. in the treaty national's dependent (TD) status.[74] Because DHS counts the number of the new I-94 arrival records filled at the border, and the TN-1 admission is valid for three years, the number of non-immigrants in TN status present in the U.S. at the end of the fiscal year is approximately equal to the number of admissions during the year. (A discrepancy may be caused by some TN entrants leaving the country or changing status before their three-year admission period has expired, while other immigrants admitted earlier may change their status to TN or TD, or extend TN status granted earlier).

text: According to the International Organization for Migration, deaths of migrants have been on the rise worldwide with 5,604 deaths in 2016.[75] An increased number of undocumented farmworkers in California may be due to the initial passing of NAFTA[76]

text: Canadian authorities estimated that on December 1, 2006, 24,830 U.S. citizens and 15,219 Mexican citizens were in Canada as "foreign workers". These numbers include both entrants under NAFTA and those who entered under other provisions of Canadian immigration law.[77] New entries of foreign workers in 2006 totalled 16,841 U.S. citizens and 13,933 Mexicans.[78]

text: Disputes and controversies

text: 1992 U.S. presidential candidate Ross Perot

text: In the second 1992 presidential debate, Ross Perot argued:

text:
We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor,...have no health care—that's the most expensive single element in making a car—have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south.
    ...when [Mexico's] jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it's leveled again. But in the meantime, you've wrecked the country with these kinds of deals.[79]

text: Perot ultimately lost the election, and the winner, Bill Clinton, supported NAFTA, which went into effect on January 1, 1994.

text: Legal disputes

text: This article needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (August 2009)

text: In 1996, the gasoline additive MMT was brought to Canada by Ethyl Corporation, an American company when the Canadian federal government banned imports of the additive. The American company brought a claim under NAFTA Chapter 11 seeking US$201 million,[80] from the Canadian federal government as well as the Canadian provinces under the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT). They argued that the additive had not been conclusively linked to any health dangers, and that the prohibition was damaging to their company. Following a finding that the ban was a violation of the AIT,[81] the Canadian federal government repealed the ban and settled with the American company for US$13 million.[82] Studies by Health and Welfare Canada (now Health Canada) on the health effects of MMT in fuel found no significant health effects associated with exposure to these exhaust emissions. Other Canadian researchers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disagreed citing studies that suggested possible nerve damage.[83]

text: The United States and Canada have argued for years over the United States' 27% duty on Canadian softwood lumber imports. Canada filed many motions to have the duty eliminated and the collected duties returned to Canada.[84] After the United States lost an appeal before a NAFTA panel, it responded by saying "We are, of course, disappointed with the [NAFTA panel's] decision, but it will have no impact on the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders." (Nick Lifton, spokesman for U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman)[85] On July 21, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade found that imposition of the duties was contrary to U.S. law.[86][87]

text: Change in income trust taxation not expropriation

text: On October 30, 2007, American citizens Marvin and Elaine Gottlieb filed a Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under NAFTA, claiming thousands of U.S. investors lost a total of $5 billion in the fall-out from the Conservative Government's decision the previous year to change the tax rate on income trusts in the energy sector. On April 29, 2009, a determination was made that this change in tax law was not expropriation.[88]

text: Impact on Mexican farmers

text: Several studies have rejected NAFTA responsibility for depressing the incomes of poor corn farmers. The trend existed more than a decade before NAFTA existed. Also, maize production increased after 1994, and there wasn't a measurable impact on the price of Mexican corn because of subsidized[who?] corn from the United States. The studies agreed that the abolition of U.S. agricultural subsidies would benefit Mexican farmers.[89]

text: Zapatista Uprising in response to NAFTA in Chiapas, Mexico

text: Preparations for NAFTA included cancellation of Article 27 of Mexico's constitution, the cornerstone of Emiliano Zapata's revolution in 1910–1919. Under the historic Article 27, Indian communal landholdings were protected from sale or privatization. However, this barrier to investment was incompatible with NAFTA. Indian farmers feared the loss of their remaining lands, and also feared cheap imports (substitutes) from the US. The Zapatistas labelled NAFTA a "death sentence" to Indian communities all over Mexico. Then EZLN declared war on the Mexican state on January 1, 1994, the day NAFTA came into force.[90]

text: Chapter 11

text: Another contentious issue is the investor state dispute settlement obligations contained in Chapter 11 of NAFTA.[91] Chapter 11 allows corporations or individuals to sue Mexico, Canada or the United States for compensation when actions taken by those governments (or by those for whom they are responsible at international law, such as provincial, state, or municipal governments) violate international law.[92]

text: This chapter has been criticized by groups in the U.S.,[93] Mexico,[94] and Canada[95] for a variety of reasons, including not taking into account important social and environmental[96] considerations. In Canada, several groups, including the Council of Canadians, challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 11. They lost at the trial level[97] and have subsequently appealed.[when?]

text: Methanex Corporation, a Canadian corporation, filed a US$970 million suit against the United States because, it said, a California ban on Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), a substance that had found its way into many wells in the state, was hurtful to the corporation's sales of methanol. The claim was rejected, and the company was ordered to pay US$3 million to the U.S. government in costs, based on the following reasoning: "But as a matter of general international law, a non-discriminatory regulation for a public purpose, which is enacted in accordance with due process and, which affects, inter alios, a foreign investor or investment is not deemed expropriatory and compensable unless specific commitments had been given by the regulating government to the then putative foreign investor contemplating investment that the government would refrain from such regulation."[98]

text: In another case, Metalclad, an American corporation, was awarded US$15.6 million from Mexico after a Mexican municipality refused a construction permit for the hazardous waste landfill it intended to construct in Guadalcázar, San Luis Potosí. The construction had already been approved by the federal government with various environmental requirements imposed (see paragraph 48 of the tribunal decision). The NAFTA panel found that the municipality did not have the authority to ban construction on the basis of its environmental concerns.[99]

text: In Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada[100] the plaintiff presented a US$500 million claim for the way Canada requires usefulness in its drug patent legislation.[101] Apotex is sued the U.S. for US$520 million because of opportunity it says it lost in an FDA generic drug decision.[101]

text: Lone Pine Resources Inc. v. Government of Canada[102] filed a US$250 million claim against Canada, accusing it of "arbitrary, capricious and illegal" behaviour,[103] because Quebec intends to prevent fracking exploration under the St. Lawrence Seaway.[101] Milos Barutciski, the lawyer for Lone Pine, has decried portrayals of his client as "another rapacious multinational challenging governments’ ability to regulate for health, safety and the environment".

text: Lone Pine Resources is incorporated in Delaware but headquartered in Calgary,[103] and had an initial public offering on the NYSE May 25, 2011 of 15 million shares each for $13, which raised US$195 million.[104]

text: Barutciski acknowledged "that NAFTA and other investor-protection treaties create an anomaly in that Canadian companies that have also seen their permits rescinded by the very same Quebec legislation, which expressly forbids the paying of compensation, do not have the right (to) pursue a NAFTA claim," and that winning "compensation in Canadian courts for domestic companies in this case would be more difficult since the Constitution puts property rights in provincial hands."[103]

text: A treaty[clarification needed] with China would extend similar rights to Chinese investors, including SOEs.[103]

text: Chapter 19

text: Also contentious is NAFTA's Chapter 19, which subjects antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) determinations to binational panel review instead of, or in addition to, conventional judicial review.[105] For example, in the United States, review of agency decisions imposing antidumping and countervailing duties are normally heard before the U.S. Court of International Trade, an Article III court. NAFTA parties, however, have the option of appealing the decisions to binational panels composed of five citizens from the two relevant NAFTA countries.[105] The panelists are generally lawyers experienced in international trade law. Since NAFTA does not include substantive provisions concerning AD/CVD, the panel is charged with determining whether final agency determinations involving AD/CVD conform with the country's domestic law. Chapter 19 is an anomaly in international dispute settlement since it does not apply international law, but requires a panel composed of individuals from many countries to re-examine the application of one country's domestic law.[citation needed]

text: A Chapter 19 panel is expected to examine whether the agency's determination is supported by "substantial evidence". This standard assumes significant deference to the domestic agency. Some of the most controversial trade disputes in recent years, such as the U.S.–Canada softwood lumber dispute, have been litigated before Chapter 19 panels.

text: Decisions by Chapter 19 panels can be challenged before a NAFTA extraordinary challenge committee. However, an extraordinary challenge committee does not function as an ordinary appeal.[105] Under NAFTA, it will only vacate or remand a decision if the decision involves a significant and material error that threatens the integrity of the NAFTA dispute settlement system. Since January 2006, no NAFTA party has successfully challenged a Chapter 19 panel's decision before an extraordinary challenge committee.

text: Criticism from 2016 U.S. presidential candidates

text: In a 60 Minutes interview in September 2015, American 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump called NAFTA calling it "the single worst trade deal ever approved in [the United States]",[106] and said that if elected, he would "either renegotiate it, or we will break it".[107][108] Juan Pablo Castañón (es) president of the trade group Consejo Coordinador Empresarial, expressed concern about renegotiation and the willingness to focus on the car industry.[109] A range of trade experts have said that pulling out of NAFTA would have a range of unintended consequences for the U.S., including reduced access to the its biggest export markets, a reduction in economic growth, and higher prices for gasoline, cars, fruits, and vegetables.[110] Members of the private initiative in Mexico noted that to eliminate NAFTA, many laws must be adapted by the U.S. Congress. The move would also eventually result in legal complaints by the World Trade Organization.[109] The Washington Post noted that a Congressional Research Service review of academic literature concluded that the "net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP".[39]

text: Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which he called "a continuation of other disastrous trade agreements, like NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China". He believes that free trade agreements have caused a loss of American jobs and depressed American wages. Sanders has said that America needs to rebuild its manufacturing base using American factories for well-paying jobs for American labor rather than outsourcing to China and elsewhere.[111][112][113]

text: Policy of the Trump administration

text: Renegotiation

text: Shortly after his election, U.S. President Donald Trump said he would begin renegotiating the terms of NAFTA, to resolve trade issues he had campaigned on. The leaders of Canada and Mexico have indicated their willingness to work with the Trump administration.[114] Although vague on the exact terms he seeks in a renegotiated NAFTA, Trump threatened to withdraw from it if negotiations fail.[115]

text: In July 2017, the Trump administration provided a detailed list of changes that it would like to see to NAFTA.[116] The top priority was a reduction in the United States' trade deficit.[116][117] The administration also called for the elimination of provisions that allowed Canada and Mexico to appeal duties imposed by the United States and limited the ability of the United States to impose import restrictions on Canada and Mexico.[116] The list also alleged subsidized state-owned enterprises and currency manipulation.[116][118]

text: According to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Trump administration's list "is very consistent with the president's stance on liking trade barriers, liking protectionism. This makes NAFTA in many respects less of a free-trade agreement."[116] The concerns expressed by the US Trade Representative over subsidized state-owned enterprises and currency manipulation are not thought to apply to Canada and Mexico, but rather to be designed to send a message to countries beyond North America.[116] Jeffrey Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics noted that it would not be possible to conclude renegotiations quickly while also addressing all the concerns on the list.[118] He also said that it would be difficult to do anything about trade deficits.[118]

text: An October 2017 op-ed in Toronto's Globe and Mail questioned whether the United States wanted to re-negotiate the agreement or planned to walk away from it no matter what, noting that newly appointed American ambassador Kelly Knight Craft is married to the owner of Alliance Resource Partners, a big US coal operation. Canada is implementing a carbon plan, and there is also the matter of a sale of Bombardier jets. "The Americans inserted so many poison pills into last week's talks in Washington that they should have been charged with murder", wrote the columnist, John Ibbitson.[119]

text: "A number of the proposals that the United States has put on the table have little or no support from the U.S. business and agriculture community. It isn't clear who they're intended to benefit", said John Murphy, vice-president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.[120] Pat Roberts, the senior US senator from Kansas, called for an outcry against Trump anti-NAFTA moves, saying the "issues affect real jobs, real lives and real people". Kansas is a major agricultural exporter, and farm groups warn that just threatening to leave NAFTA might cause buyers to minimize uncertainty by seeking out non-US sources.[120]

text: A fourth round of talks included a U.S. demand for a sunset clause that would end the agreement in five years, unless the three countries agreed to keep it in place, a provision U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has said would allow the countries to kill the deal if it was not working. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with the House Ways and Means Committee, since Congress would have to pass legislation rolling back the treaty's provisions if Trump tries to withdraw from the pact.[121]

text: Impact of withdrawing from NAFTA

text: Following Donald Trump's election to the presidency, a range of trade experts have said that pulling out of NAFTA as Trump proposed would have a range of unintended consequences for the U.S., including reduced access to the U.S.'s biggest export markets, a reduction in economic growth, and increased prices for gasoline, cars, fruits, and vegetables.[12] The worst affected sectors would be textiles, agriculture and automobiles.[122][13]

text: According to Tufts University political scientist Daniel W. Drezner, the Trump administration's desire to return relations with Mexico to the pre-NAFTA era are misguided. Drezner argues that NAFTA made it easier for Mexico to transform to a real democracy and become a country that views itself as North American. If Trump acts on many of the threats that he has made against Mexico, it is not inconceivable that Mexicans would turn to left-wing populist strongmen, as several South American countries have. At the very least, US-Mexico relations would worsen, with adverse implications for cooperation on border security, counterterrorism, drug-war cooperation, deportations and managing Central American migration.[53]

text: According to Chad P. Bown (senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics), "a renegotiated NAFTA that would reestablish trade barriers is unlikely to help workers who lost their jobs—regardless of the cause—take advantage of new employment opportunities".[123]

text: According to Harvard economist Marc Melitz, "recent research estimates that the repeal of NAFTA would not increase car production in the United States".[11] Melitz notes that this would cost manufacturing jobs.[11][clarification needed]

text: Trans-Pacific Partnership

text: If the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) comes into effect, existing agreements such as NAFTA will be reduced to those provisions that do not conflict with the TPP, or that require greater trade liberalization than the TPP.[124] However, only Canada and Mexico will have the prospect of becoming members of the TPP after U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement in January 2017. In May 2017, the 11 remaining members of the TPP, including Canada and Mexico, agreed to proceed with the trade deal without U.S. participation.[125]

text: U.S. Public Opinion on NAFTA

text: The American public is largely divided on its view of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), with a wide partisan gap in beliefs. In a February 2018 Gallup Poll, 48% of Americans said NAFTA was good for the U.S., while 46% said it was bad.[126]

text: According to a journal from the Law and Business Review of the Americas (LBRA), U.S. public opinion of NAFTA centers around three issues: NAFTA’s impact on the creation or destruction of American jobs, NAFTA’s impact on the environment, and NAFTA’s impact on immigrants entering the U.S.[127]

text: After President Trump’s election in 2016, support for NAFTA has become very polarized between Republicans and Democrats. Donald Trump expressed negative views of NAFTA, calling it “the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country.”[128] Republican support for NAFTA has decreased from 43% support in 2008 to 34% in 2017. Meanwhile, Democrat support for NAFTA has increased from 41% support in 2008 to 71% in 2017.[129]

text: The political gap is especially large in concern to views on free trade with Mexico. As opposed to a favorable view of free trade with Canada, whom 79% of American describe as a fair trade partner, only 47% of Americans believe Mexico practices fair trade. The gap widens between Democrats and Republicans: 60% of Democrats believe Mexico is practicing fair trade, while only 28% of Republicans do. This is the highest level from Democrats and the lowest level from Republicans ever recorded by the Chicago Council Survey. Republicans have more negative views of Canada as a fair trade partner than Democrats, as well.[130]

text: NAFTA has strong support from young Americans. In a February 2017 Gallup poll, 73% of Americans aged 18-29 said NAFTA was good for the U.S, showing higher support than any other U.S. age group.[126] It also has slightly stronger support from unemployed Americans than from employed Americans.[131] The issue of NAFTA continues to remain a predominantly divisive issue.


document_title: Cancer survivor

question_text: when is a breast cancer patient considered a survivor

root

text: Cancer survivor

text: Definitions and alternatives[edit]

text: Macmillan Cancer Support in the UK defines a cancer survivor as someone who is "living with or beyond cancer", namely someone who:

tag: p

text:
has completed initial cancer management and has no apparent evidence of active disease;
is living with progressive disease and may be receiving cancer treatment, but is not in the terminal phases of illness; or
has had cancer in the past.[5]

tag: ul

text: The National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship (NCCS) pioneered the definition of survivor as being any person diagnosed with cancer, from the time of initial diagnosis until his or her death. This expansive definition of "survivor" includes people who are dying from untreatable cancer. NCCS later expanded the definition of survivor even further to include family, friends and voluntary caregivers who are affected by the diagnosis in any way.[6] The US National Cancer Institute's Office of Cancer Survivorship uses a variant of this expanded definition.[6]

text: The word survivor is a loaded term.[3] Within the breast cancer culture, survivorship is conferred upon women (and men) who are perceived as having suffered emotional or physical trauma, even if their breast cancer was a non-life-threatening pre-cancerous condition like LCIS or DCIS. The term tends to erase and degrade people who are dying of incurable cancer. This idea of survivorship emphasizes and values longevity of life after diagnosis, while overlooking issues of quality of life.[3]

text: Some people reject the term survivor as being a narrow conceptualization of highly variable human experiences. Alternatives include alivers and thrivers, which put emphasis on living as well as possible, despite limitations and disability.[3] A third term, the diers, is used by some terminally ill patients who reject the claim that dying is part of survivorship or should be covered up with inappropriately optimistic language.[3]

text: The term previvor has been used to describe unaffected carriers. Unaffected carriers, or previvors, are those who have not diagnosed with cancer, but who know that they are likely to develop cancer due to certain genetic mutations that form a known cancer syndrome. They have a survived the predisposition, or higher risk, of cancer.[7][8] As such, this is the first generation in human history who, armed with information about a predisposition to a cancer after opting into DNA testing, can make informed choices prior to cancer diagnosis. The typical previvor has tested positive for a BRCA mutation and learned that she is at high risk for developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer, and is attempting to manage that risk through a combination of increased surveillance through mammograms, breast MRIs, pelvic ultrasounds, oophorectomy, bilateral mastectomy, and other medical procedures. There has been much controversy over the term previvor, due to the fact that the name compares these healthy women to people have actually been diagnosed with invasive cancer.

text: Needs of cancer survivors[edit]

text: People who have finished cancer treatment often have psychological and physical medical challenges.[9] These effects can vary from person to person, change over time, and range in intensity from mild and intermittent to fully disabling. They commonly include fatigue,[10] pain,[11] sleep problems,[12] physical side effects like lymphoedema,[13] weight gain,[14] anxiety and depression,[15] fear of cancer recurrence,[16] and impaired quality of life.[17]

text: Psychosocial[edit]

text: Returning to Life[edit]

text: If the treatment is lengthy and disruptive, many patients experience some difficulty in returning to normal daily life.[18] The energy needed to cope with a rigorous treatment program may have caused them to disconnect from previous daily patterns, such as working, normal self-care, and housekeeping. A small number of patients become dependent on the attention and sympathy that they received during their treatment and feel neglected when life returns to normal. There are tremendous implications that cancer has on the relationships that survivors have with their loved ones (particularly their partners) once their cancer has been treated,[19] and social support plays a critical role in their long-term emotional adjustment.[20]

text: Ongoing effects[edit]

text: Some survivors, even if the cancer has been permanently cured, struggle emotionally from the trauma of having experienced a life-threatening disease.[21] Cancer survivors suffer from more psychological distress than those who have never experienced cancer (5.6% compared to 3.0%)[22] Serious psychosocial distress was seen 40% more among cancer survivors of five years or more than in those who have never had cancer.[22] About 10% develop major depressive disorder; others experience an adjustment disorder.[21] In young adult cancer survivors, one small study found that 20% of participants met the full clinical diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and 45% to 95% displayed at least one symptom of PTSD.[23] Survivors of adult cancer are at an increased risk of suicidal ideology (having thoughts about suicide),[24] while as many as 13% of childhood cancer survivors experience suicidal ideology.[25] Issues of pain and physical ailments have been hypothesized as major contributing factors in cancer survivors experiencing this suicidal ideology.

text: Fear of cancer recurrence[edit]

text: Patients whose cancer is in remission may still have to cope with the uncertainty that at any time their cancer could return without warning. After the initial treatment has ended, anxiety is more common among cancer survivors than among other people.[26] This anxiety regarding the cancer's return is referred to as fear of cancer recurrence.[27] Many patients are anxious that any minor symptom indicates that the cancer has returned, with as many as 9 in 10 patients fearful that their cancer will recur or spread.[2] In addition to the appearance of any new aches and pains, common triggers for a fear that the cancer may return include hearing that someone else has been diagnosed with cancer, annual medical exams to determine whether the cancer recurred and news stories about cancer.[28] This anxiety leads to more medical check ups, which can be measured even after a period of up to ten years.[29] This fear can have a significant impact on individual's lives, resulting in difficulties in their daily life such as work and socialising, and difficulties planning for the future.[30] Overall, fear of cancer recurrence is related to a reduced quality of life in cancer survivors[30]

text: While Fear of Cancer Recurrence (FCR) can be adaptive at low levels, high levels of FCR require psychological treatment. At present, there are no psychometrically sound measures of FCR, which makes research into the effectiveness of treatment protocols difficult to interpret.[31] Treatments that are being investigated include: cognitive-behavioural therapy,[32] Meta-cognitive therapy[33] and Cognitive-existential group therapy[34] and exercise.[35]

text: Survivorship[edit]

text: The cultural ideal of a survivor may add to individual patients' distress if the patient is unable or unwilling to live up to the ideal.[3] The ideal survivor is bravely committed to mainstream medicine and optimistic or even certain of a physical cure. He or she is open about diagnosis and treatment and becomes an educated, empowered medical consumer. The ideal survivor, like a superwoman who simultaneously manages her home, family, and career, struggles valiantly to prevent cancer from affecting loved ones by appearing, behaving, and working as much as possible. Once the immediate crisis is past, the person may feel strongly pressured to donate time, money, and energy to cancer-related organizations. Above all, the ideal survivor does not die of cancer. People who publicly conform to this ideal are given social status and respect.[3]

text: Physical[edit]

text: In terms of medical challenges, some survivors experience cancer-related fatigue, may have long-term side effects from cancer and its treatment, and may need extensive rehabilitation for mobility and function if aggressive surgery was required to remove the cancer. They may experience temporary or persistent post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment. Some young survivors lose their ability to have children.

text: Cancer survivors frequently need medical monitoring, and some treatments for unrelated diseases in the future may be contraindicated. For example, a patient who has had a significant amount of radiation therapy may not be a good candidate for more radiation treatments in the future. To assist with these needs, "survivor care plans" have been promoted. These are personalized documents that describe the person's diagnosis and treatment in detail, list common known side effects, and specifically outline the steps that the survivor should take in the future, ranging from maintaining a healthy weight to receiving specific medical tests on a stated schedule.[36]

text: Medical tests to determine whether the cancer has returned commonly provoke fears. Informally, this is called scanxiety, a portmanteau of scan and anxiety. A desire to avoid feeling this fear can prompt survivors to postpone or refuse tests.[37][38]

text: Survivors of childhood cancer have a life expectancy up to 28% shorter than people in the general population.[39] Therefore, there is a need to closely monitor these patients for much longer than usual. The Children's Oncology Group recommends that monitoring should include periodic follow up and screening by a clinician familiar with these patients' risks. Improving these patients' longevity requires recognition and treatment of illnesses associated with late effects in the decades after therapy for childhood cancer. For example, survivors of childhood cancer may have more difficulty than typical with breastfeeding and require more support to undertake this health-promoting activity.[40] Others experience various forms of heart disease. One challenge to achieving this goal is that childhood cancer survivors are both very adaptable and accustomed to denying difficulties; as a result, they tend to minimize their symptoms. Therefore, internists may not give them all the attention they need and thus the actual help they may need. Symptom management, health promotion, specific attention to psychosocial needs, and surveillance for recurrence and specific late effects of treatment are helpful.[39]

text: Adolescent and young adult survivors[edit]

text: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors, often defined as being between the ages of 15 and 39, have seen advancements in technology and modern medicine causing a dramatic increase in the number of AYA survivors. Prior to 1970, being diagnosed with cancer during childhood was considered a universally fatal disease. From 1995 to 2000, however, the 5-year survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer was 80%.[41] Significant progress has been built in the last 25 years as there are now approximately 270,000 survivors of pediatric cancer in the U.S., which translates to approximately 1 in every 640 young adults being a survivor of childhood cancer.[42][43] However, as studies have shown, as patient needs increase, the likelihood of having an unmet need also increases.[44] For the AYA population, 2 out of 3 childhood cancer survivors will develop 1 complication due to the therapy they received and 1 out of 3 will develop serious or life-threatening complications, meaning they will most likely need treatment and follow-up care.[45] In addition, AYAs may experience greater difficulties adhering to treatment, which may negatively impact future outcomes.[46]

text: An AYA survivor faces a variety of issues as a result of their cancer diagnosis and treatment that are unique to their particular age group which differentiate their survivor population from the adult survivor population. For example, AYA survivors report that their education, employment, sexual functioning,[47] marriage, fertility, and other life values are impacted by their cancer.[48][49] Data show that AYA survivors have a much greater risk of getting a second primary malignancy as a side effect of the treatment for their original diagnosis. It is believed that AYAs have a much higher relative risk of developing a second primary cancer because the intensity of the treatment for their original diagnosis, typically including any combination of chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation, is much higher than the level of intensity given to patients over 40.[50] Furthermore, since AYA survivors are diagnosed and treated at such a young age, their length of time as a survivor is much longer than their adult counterparts, making it more likely they will face a second primary cancer in their lifetime.[50]

text: Barriers to quality long-term follow-up care[edit]

text: Childhood cancer survivors, in particular, need comprehensive long-term follow-up care to thrive. One way this can be accomplished is through continuous follow-up care with a primary care physician who is trained to identify possible late effects from previous treatments and therapies.[51]

text: The Children's Oncology Group (COG) has designed a set of survivorship guidelines that hope to aid both health care professionals and survivors themselves, in both the intricacies and basics of long-term follow-up care. The COG has guidelines for how a patient should put together their own “treatment summary”, so they can have their treatment history with them when they visit any health care provider. The COG suggests that a survivor include the following in his/her treatment summary:

text:
Name of disease, date of diagnosis, stage of disease, contact information of the clinics/hospitals where you received your care
Names and doses of the chemotherapy and radiation you have received and the area of the body that was radiated
Names and dates of any surgeries you have had
If you have received a transplant, the type of transplant and where it was received and whether you developed any chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease
Names and dates of any significant complications and treatment received for those complications[52]

text: With the treatment summary, experts hope that survivors will be better equipped to face the significant burden of maintaining quality follow-up care long after their original treatment. This is especially important for the AYA population, in particular, because they are typically facing major social changes regarding their relationship status, employment or education status, their insurance coverage, and even their place of residence, etc. Typically, most of these factors are pretty constant for the adult population and if they experience any changes, it would occur in one or two aspects of their life. However, with the AYA population, the period of time until they are 40 is when they are going to, for the majority of the population, undergo the most change. This reality underscores the importance of a smooth transition from child-centered to adult-focused health care services through which they are consistently managed.[53]

text: Impact of Affordable Care Act on the AYA survivor population[edit]

text: The US Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 makes it illegal for health insurance providers to deny coverage for a pre-existing condition, such as previously having survived cancer.[54] Young adults will now be required to have insurance coverage and, with a few exceptions, will be able to be covered under their parent's coverage until the age of 26 as a dependent in their parent's plan.[54]

text: Care[edit]

text: Studies among endometrial cancer survivors show that satisfaction with information provided about the disease and treatment increases the quality of life, lowers depression and results in less anxiety.[55] People who receive information on paper, compared to oral, indicate that they receive more information and are more satisfied about the information provided.[56] The American Institute of Medicine and the Dutch Health Council recommend the use of a Survivorship Care Plan; which is a summary of a patient's course of treatment, with recommendations for subsequent surveillance, management of late effects, and strategies for health promotion.[57]

text: Cancer survivors are encouraged to meet the same guidelines for physical activity as the rest of the population.[58][59] Increased physical activity reduces both all-cause and cancer-specific mortality in breast[60] and colo-rectal cancer survivors.[61] Physical activity improves quality of life among a range of cancer survivors[62] and may also assist with cancer-related fatigue and common co-morbidities.[63][64]

text: Diet can also impact long-term mortality, with evidence across various cancer types.[65][66][67][68]

text: However, adherence to diet and exercise recommendations among cancer survivors is often poor.[69][70][71] Digital behaviour change interventions can be successful at increasing physical activity and may also help with diet in cancer survivors.[72]

text: Family members[edit]

text: Family members can be significantly affected by the cancer experience of their loved ones.[73][74] For parents of children with cancer, finishing treatment can be a particularly vulnerable time. In the post-treatment period, some parents may experience increases in anxiety, depression and feelings of helplessness.[75] Evidence-based psychological interventions tailored to the needs of parents of childhood cancer survivors may assist parents in resuming their normal lives after their child has finished treatment.[76]

text: Spouses of cancer survivors are more likely than other people to experience anxiety in the years after their partner's successful treatment.[26]

text: Notable cancer survivors[edit]


document_title: Chancellor Family

question_text: who played katherine chancellor's son on y&r

question_tokens: who played katherine chancellor 's son on y&r

text: Chancellor Family

text: Family members[edit]

text: First Generation[edit]

text: The history of the Chancellor family is deeply rooted in the history of Genoa City, which was founded by Civil War hero Garfield Dandridge Chancellor. In 1973 Garfield’s great-great-grandson, Phillip Chancellor II, was running Chancellor Industries. He resided in the Chancellor mansion with his alcoholic and promiscuous wife Katherine (Kay). The two barely communicated with each other as husband and wife, and the lonely Phillip, driven to distraction by Katherine’s obsessive behavior, sought refuge in the company of Katherine’s young and beautiful paid companion, Jill Foster. [1] Phillip and Jill fell in love, Jill was a virgin but became pregnant the one and only time they made love. Phillip obtained a divorce from Katherine in the Dominican Republic, but Katherine got her revenge by picking Phillip up from the airport on his return, and drove him off a cliff when he refused to give her another chance. Phillip married Jill on his deathbed in order to provide for her and their unborn child. However, Katherine later had Phillip's divorce from her invalidated, on the basis she was drunk when she signed the divorce papers, which automatically annulled Phillip and Jill's marriage. So Katherine was reinstated as Phillip's legal widow. Phillip's affair with Jill Foster produced a son, Phillip III. The stage was set for a long and bitter feud between the two women that would continue for decades.

text: Katherine Chancellor (Jeanne Cooper)  Born on October 25, 1928 as Katherine Shepherd, and known affectionately as Kay, Katherine marries high school and college sweetheart Gary Reynolds. Together they have one son, Brock. When Brock and Gary are out of the country, Katherine has an affair with Gary's golfing buddy, Arthur Hendricks and later gives birth to his son, Tucker, who she secretly gave up for adoption without even seeing him. After Gary's passing, Katherine marries Phillip Chancellor. However, Katherine and Phillip's unhappy marriage is upended by Jill Foster who gets pregnant with his child. The two women would fight over everything from men to children for the next four decades. Katherine was remarried in 2009 to Patrick Murphy.[2] Katherine dies on August 1, 2013 at the age of 84.[3]

text: Second Generation[edit]

text:
Brock Reynolds (Beau Kazer)  Brock is Katherine's son with her first husband, Gary Reynolds. When Brock is first introduced as a rebellious college aged kid, wasting his inheritance in Europe, with childhood friend, Lorie Brooks. After Gary's passing and Katherine's remarriage, Brock's rebellion started with wild sex and drugs. Brock comes in and out of his mother's life over the years. In 1974, Brock returned home a changed man and a minister. He also has a brief marriage to Jill Foster. Brock obtains a law degree while living in Paris. Brock has one child with former lover, Amanda Browning, Mackenzie who comes to Genoa City in 1999. Brock currently resides in New Orleans where he volunteers rebuilding homes for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. He is the chairman of the Chancellor Foundation, and also a singer.[4]
Tucker McCall (Stephen Nichols)  Tucker is Katherine's illegitimate son with Judge Arthur Hendricks given away at birth by a drunken Katherine. Former rock and roll manager, Tucker comes to Genoa City in 2009 and steals the company out from under his mother. Tucker immediately clashes with wealthy businessman and Katherine's close friend, Victor Newman. He marries Ashley Abbott, and after a brief coma is reunited with his illegitimate son, Devon, with former music groupie, Yolanda Hamilton. Devon and Tucker's relationship starts off rocky, but they eventually start to bond. Tucker also has a relationship with Jill and helps her find her biological family. Tucker and Katherine's relationship has many ups and downs, but they eventually reconcile before he relocates to Hong Kong in 2013. Tucker was with Katherine and Murphy when his mother passed.[5]
Phillip Chancellor III (Thom Bierdz)  Born on December 25, 1975, Phillip III is Phillip II's son with Jill Foster. Despite the feud between Jill and Katherine, Phillip bonds with both women. Phillip spends majority of his life in boarding schools. In 1986, the 16-year-old Phillip returns home when his mother gets shot. Katherine and Jill battle for his affections. Meanwhile, Phillip falls for Cricket Blair, but is seduced by the scheming Nina Webster and father's her son, Phillip IV. Phillip and Nina marry in 1989 and he dies from injuries sustained in a car accident a month later.[6][7] However, in 2009, Phillip reveals that he faked his death to escape the pressure of living up to the Chancellor name. He also admits to being gay. Phillip currently lives in Australia.[8]

text: Third Generation[edit]

text:
Mackenzie Browning Hellstrom (Kelly Kruger)  Born on December 30, 1983,[9] Mackenzie is first introduced as homeless teenager staying at the Genoa City shelter where she meets Katherine. The runaway was eventually revealed to be Brock's daughter with Amanda Browning. Mackenzie, known affectionately as Mac falls for Billy Abbott, and they marry but the marriage is quickly annulled when the two are mistakenly led to believe they are cousins. Mac later falls for J.T. Hellstrom, during his marriage and they conceive a child which Mackenzie miscarries. Mackenzie stands in as the surrogate mother for Cane and Lily Ashby's twins. Mackenzie is the former owner of Crimson Lights, and Jimmy's Bar. Mackenzie and J.T. marry in November 2010 when they learn she is pregnant. The couple then relocates to Washington, D. C. where they give birth to son, Dylan "D.J." Hellstrom in 2011. When Katherine passes away, Mackenzie is unable to attend the funeral.[10]
Devon Hamilton (Bryton James)  Born on February 7, 1988,[11] Devon is first introduced as a troubled teenager at the Genoa City Rec Center. Lily Winters and billionaire Victor Newman take a liking to Devon; Victor even considers adopting him. Instead, Devon is adopted by Neil and Drucilla, Lily's parents. Devon has trouble adjusting to being in a stable family unit, but when he finally does, Devon becomes very protective of his family. Between 2006 and 2007, Devon contracts meningitis and loses his hearing completely. He later gets a cochlear implant surgery. From 2007 to 2013, Devon has an enduring romance with Roxanne. In 2011, Devon is discovered to be Katherine and Judge Arthur Hendrick's grandson, and Tucker is his biological father. Though he initially wants nothing to do with Katherine and Tucker, the group eventually work through their differences and form relationships. He also reconnects with his estranged biological mother, Yolanda. Upon Katherine's passing, Devon inherits half of her estate. From 2013 to 2014, Devon falls in love with Hilary Curtis (Mishael Morgan), and they start an affair despite her marriage to Neil. They married in August 2015[12] and divorce in April 2017.
Phillip "Chance" Chancellor IV (John Driscoll)  Born on March 15, 1988,[13][14] Phillip Chancellor IV is the son of Phillip III and Nina Webster. In 2009, Phillip returns to Genoa City all grown up and reunites with his father first time since his presumed dead in 1989. Now known as Chance, Phillip IV struggles to accept his father while he falls for Chloe Abbott. Chance and Chloe become engaged but the relationship eventually ends. However, he later loses his virginity to Chloe. Chance also becomes involved with Heather Stevens. In 2010, Chance meets his half-brother, FBI Agent Ronan Malloy for the first time. In late 2010, Chance fakes his death with Ronan's help in order to bring down a crime ring. After revealing himself, Chance leaves town to start military intelligence training at The Pentagon.[15]

text: Fourth Generation[edit]

text:
Dylan "D.J." Hellstrom  Born on June 21, 2011 in Washington, D.C., Dylan is the son of J.T. and Mackenzie Hellstrom. Mackenzie learns she is pregnant in late 2010. She and J.T. marry and later leave town.[10][16][17]
Becca Hellstrom  Becca is the daughter of J.T. and Mackenzie Hellstrom.[18][19]

text: In-Laws[edit]

text:
Jill Fenmore Atkinson (Jess Walton) - Brock's wife (1975) and later Phillip II's wife. (1975)
Derek Thurston (Joe Ladue) - Katherine's husband. (1977–81)[2]
Rex Sterling (Quinn Redeker) - Katherine's husband. (1988–90, 1992–94)[2][3]
Nina Webster (Tricia Cast) - Phillip's wife. (1989)[8]
Billy Abbott (Ryan Brown) - Mackenzie's husband. (2003)[10]
Patrick Murphy (Michael Fairman) (2009–13)[2]
Ashley Abbott (Eileen Davidson) - Tucker's wife. (2011–12)[5]
J.T. Hellstrom (Thad Luckinbill) - Mackenzie's husband. (2010–18)[10]
Hilary Curtis (Mishael Morgan) - Devon's wife. (2015—17, 2018)[12]

text: Family tree[edit]

text: Legend

text:
Lines

Boxes

Dashed = Romance/Marriage
Solid  = Child

Character is currently on the Show
Character not on the Show
Character is deceased or presumed dead

tag: table

text:
Garfield Dandridge Chancellor Mrs. Chancellor

            Phillip Chancellor I Mrs. Chancellor

Gary Reynolds    Arthur Hendricks Katherine Chancellor Phillip Chancellor II Jill Fenmore

Brock Reynolds Amanda Browning Tucker McCall Yolanda Hamilton Phillip Chancellor III Nina Webster

  Mackenzie Browning J. T. Hellstrom Devon Hamilton     Chance Chancellor

  D.J. Hellstrom Becca Hellstrom

text: Chancellor Industries[edit]

text:
Chancellor IndustriesType
PublicPredecessor
Newman-Chancellor IndustiresFounder
Phillip ChancellorHeadquarters
1000 Market Street  Genoa City, Wisconsin, United StatesNumber of locations
Chicago, IllinoisKey people
Jill Fenmore Atkinson  (Chairperson)Cane Ashby (CEO)Owner
Jill Fenmore AtkinsonDivisions
Chancellor Construction  Chancellor EntertainmentSubsidiaries
Organic Life  Bio Link

text: Chancellor Industries (CI) was a major design-and-engineering conglomerate, headquartered in Genoa City, Wisconsin.

text: Before his death, Phillip Chancellor II supervised all of the company's holdings, including the factory in Genoa City where Liz Foster worked. After Phillip's death, Katherine relied on good friend Victor Newman to keep an eye on things, and on Mitchell Sherman for legal advice. [20] In later years Jill Foster Abbott, Neil Winters, and Cane Ashby all acted as CEO. For a brief period Katherine hired Jack Abbott as CEO. It was also the parent company of Jabot Cosmetics.

text: The company was referred to as a sleeping giant according to former CEO Jack Abbott, CI was "financially capable and always without scandal."

text: For a couple years CI was wholly owned subsidiary of Tucker McCall Unlimited when Katherine's long lost son, billionaire business mogul Tucker McCall assumed ownership via a hostile takeover. Tucker eventually sold Katherine majority ownership of CI under pressure from Victor Newman.

text: A couple of weeks after Katherine's funeral, on September 27, 2013, Victor Newman received a letter from Katherine leaving him Chancellor Industries. Her letter to him read: My Dear friend Victor, by the time you read this, you will have learned of my passing. I lived a long and colorful life and have no regrets about entering the next phase of my journey, save one. I wanted to ensure the longevity of my beloved Chancellor Industries. That is why I've decided to name you the sole owner of the company. I hope you will accept this gift in the loving spirit in which it was given. Love, Katherine. As the new majority shareholder and Chairman of Chancellor Industries, Victor immediately plans a merger between Chancellor and Newman Enterprises. The new company is titled Newman-Chancellor Industries.

text: Victor was having cash management issues due to some bad acquisitions, so it became necessary for him to sell Chancellor Industries. He gave Jill an exclusive opportunity before putting it on the market, acknowledging

text: Currently Jill Foster Abbott Atkinson is the sole owner of Chancellor Industries. Cane Ashby is its CEO.  Katherine's grandson Devon Hamilton loaned Jill some of the money for the purchase initially because of a blackmail attempt by Jill's husband, and Cane's father Colin Atkinson. But later Devon gave the money of his own free will explaining "You know, Jill, Katherine gave me this money to do what I want with it, and what I want is for you and Cane to have the company. I really do. As long as Colin has nothing to do with it.[22]

text: Chancellor divisions[edit]

text:
Chancellor Plant
Chancellor Tool & Die
Chancellor Construction
Chancellor Entertainment Life

text: Chancellor subsidiaries[edit]

text:
Bio Link
Organic Life
Northwestern Publishing

Bonaventure Industries

text: Personnel[edit]

text:
Jill Fenmore Atkinson (Chairperson of the Board of Directors)
Cane Ashby (CEO)
Mitchell Sherman (General Counsel)
Karen Fowler (Legal Department)

text: Former personnel[edit]

text:
Phillip Chancellor, Sr. (founder)
Phillip Chancellor II (owner, chairman and CEO)
Katherine Chancellor (owner, chairwoman and CEO)
Rex Sterling (former Executive)
Jack Abbott (former CEO)
Jill Foster Abbott (former CEO)
Neil Winters (former CEO)
Roger Wilkes (former Accountant)
Tucker McCall (former minority Shareholder)
Victor Newman (former Chairman of the Board)
Victoria Newman (former Chief Executive Officer; Shareholder - Newman Enterprises)
Nick Newman (former Shareholder - Newman Enterprises)
Abby Newman (former Shareholder - Newman Enterprises)