The content of changes in U.S. trade negotiating policy

Last Fall Democrats took control of Congress.  For several months, the Administration and Democratic Congressional leaders have been "negotiating" changes in U.S. negotiating guidelines.  Yesterday, they announced that they had reached an agreement.  Here is the text of the agreement posted at the House Ways and Means Committee web site: Peru & Panama FTA Changes .

Here is a Democratic explanation of the terms of the new agreement : A New Trade Policy for America (available on the website of the House Ways and Means Committee).

Here is the Administration's take (from the USTR website):

• Statement from Ambassador Susan C. Schwab on U.S. trade agenda
• Port Security
• Labor: Internationally-recognized labor principles incorporated into trade agreements
• Intellectual Property
• Investment
• Government Procurement
• Environment

The title of the agreement (in the link above) indicates that it is only concerned with the FTAs with Peru and Panama.  A letter from the Democratic Ways & Means trade leadership, attached as an appendix, reiterates that this is an agreement that only applies to Peru and Panama. 

This letter also says that all its provisions would also apply to an agreement with Columbia, but that there are currently additional Columbian problems - especially violence against trade unionists and paramilitary groups, that need to be addressed.  A paragraph in the document notes that the Korean FTA presents additional difficulties as well - especially its failure to address systemic obstacles to U.S. imports.

I don't see any references in the text to the Doha Round, or the WTO.

This agreement is not legislation.  I assume that it is a statement of conditions that an agreement would have to meet to obtain support of Democratic Congressional leaders.   It explicitly states the conditions for Democratic support of the Peru and Panama FTAs, provides a set of minimum conditions for the Columbian and South Korean, and implies requirements for a Doha agreement.  If this is bascially a statement of Democratic conditions, I wonder what the content of the winter-spring negotiations was.

Here are some links to commentary:

• Here is an article on the agreement from The Hill (non-partisan newspaper covering National politics): Despite deal, future of some trade accords is uncertain  (Ian Swanson, May 11). 
• Here is an analysis of the agreement by Claude Barfield of the American Enterprise Institute: The Grand Bipartisan Trade Deal (ht Joel Trachtman).  
• Trachtman and Simon Lester have several useful posts over at the International Economic Law and Policy Blog: (1) A New Approach to Trade and Labor/Environment (May 11 - the comments add a lot); (2) New Trade and Labor Deal (May 13); (3) The Expanding Scope of Trade Agreements (May 13).
• Dan Drezner surveys reactions here: Reactions to the trade deal (May 13)

Revised May 17 (to include the explicit terms of the agreement).

Comments

[Peter Gallagher]

Hi Ben,

What's your take on the IP/Phamaceutical provisions of the deal?

Peter