WT/TPR/S/235 Trade Policy Review 
Page 12 
 
 
II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK 
(1) TRADE POLICY FORMULATION  
1. There have been no major changes to the gene ral institutional and lega l framework governing 
trade policy formulation since the last Review of  the United States.  Under the U.S. Constitution, 
Congress has the authority to regulate international trade, while the President has the authority to 
conclude international agreements.1  A new President and Congress took office in January 2009. 
2. The Executive Branch's main agency  on trade policy matters is th e Office of the United States 
Trade Representative (USTR).  The USTR is r esponsible for "developing and coordinating U.S. 
international trade, commodity, and direct invest ment policy, and overseeing negotiations with other 
countries".2  The USTR works in close consultation with Congress.  It provides briefings to Congress 
and interested stakeholders, responds to Congr essional inquiries, provides advice to Congressional 
constituents, and coordinates with other Executive Bran ch agencies to help negotiate trade agreements 
and resolve trade disputes. 
3. Consultations between executive agencies on tr ade policy matters take place through the 
Trade Policy Review Group and the Trade Policy Staff Committee, administered and chaired by the 
USTR and composed of 21 federal agencies a nd offices.  Some 80 subcommittees support the 
Trade Policy Staff Committee. 
4. Input from the private sector on trade policy matters is received through a statutory policy 
advisory committee system consisting of:  the Pr esident's Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and 
Negotiations, administered by the USTR;  five policy advisory committees;  and 22 technical and 
sectoral advisory committees. 
5. Under the U.S. federal structure of govern ment, state governments have considerable 
independent regulatory authority.  Public procurement, and some services sectors, such as insurance 
and professional services, are regulated mostly at the state level (Chapter III(3)(iii) and Chapter IV(2) and (5)).  States may also adopt technical regul ations and sanitary and phytosanitary measures 
(Chapter III(2)(viii) (1)(ix)). 
6. The President's 2010 State of the Union Addr ess acknowledges that the United States faces 
serious economic challenges, and identifies job creation as the number one focus for policy in 2010 
(see also Chapter I).
3  To support economic growth, the Address defines four priorities:  financial 
sector reform (see Chapter IV(2));  support for American innovation;  increased exports;  and 
investment in skills and education.  The President set a goal to double U.S. exports in the next five 
years to support 2 million jobs in the United States ( see Chapter III(2(vii)).  As part of achieving this 
goal, the President remarked that the United States must "continue to shape a Doha trade agreement 
that opens global markets". 
7. In line with this, the President's 2010 Trad e Policy Agenda, released in March 2010, 
advocates a trade policy that "helps increase expor ts that yield well-paying jobs for Americans".4  
                                                      
1 The Constitution of the United States of America,  Article I Section 8 and Article II Section 2. 
2 USTR online information, "Mission of th e USTR".  Viewed a t:  http://www.ustr.gov/ 
about-us/mission. 
3 The Whitehouse online information.  "Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address"  
27 January 2010.  Viewed at:  http://www.whitehous e.gov/the-press-office/remark s-president-state-union- 
address. 
4 USTR (2010). United States WT/TPR/S/235 
 Page 13 
 
 
Among the top U.S. trade policy initiatives for 20 10 are to strengthen the capacity to "monitor 
[foreign] markets and strongly enforce [U.S.] ri ghts and benefits under ... trade agreements".5  
According to the USTR, the United States will use consultations, negotiations, and, when necessary, 
litigation in the WTO to attain "transparency and due process in [its] partners' trading practices from 
government procurement to market regulation".6  As part of these efforts, the USTR issued two 
reports in 2010 "focusing specifically on sanitary an d phytosanitary barriers and technical barriers to 
trade that harm the ability of America's agricu ltural producers and manufacturers to export around the 
world".7 
8. Under the trade promotion authority that expi red in July 2007, Congress had to approve or 
reject legislation implementing a new trade agreemen t without amendment and within a fixed period.  
The 2010 Trade Policy Agenda does not contain any reference to trade promotion authority.  According to the U.S. authorities, the Admini stration will work with Congress on new trade 
negotiating authority at an appropriate time. 
9. Workers, firms, and farmers adversely affected by  international trade are eligible for benefits 
under the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) progr amme, which was reauthorized and expanded by 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law in February 2009.  Under the 
expanded programme, service sector workers and workers from firms that relocate outside the 
United States are eligible for benefits.  Previ ously, eligibility was limited to workers in the 
manufacturing sector and workers from firms that relo cated to a U.S. FTA partner.  Benefits for 
workers include income support, job training, and hea lth insurance.  In fiscal year 2008 (latest year 
available), US$940 million was appropriated for benefits under the TAA for workers programme.
8 
10. The formulation of trade and other economic po licies is subject to public scrutiny.  For 
example, federal agencies generally assess and pub lish the economy-wide effects of major draft 
regulations (see Chapter III(1)(viii)).  The Congressi onal Budget Act of 1974 requires that the federal 
budget show the revenue losses from special exemptions, credits, or other preferences in the tax code.  
The Government Accountability Office publishes regularly reports on the extent to which 
Government programmes are meeting their objectives. 
(2) PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
11. In the context of this Review, the U.S. aut horities indicated that support for the WTO remains 
a core priority of U.S. trade policy.  The Administration supports the successful conclusion of the Doha negotiations, but considers that a weak agreement would undermine the WTO and serve the 
interests of neither the United States nor any ot her country.  According to the USTR, the past 
negotiating process has not generated meaningful ma rket-opening results.  Thus, the USTR supports 
"a different approach to the end game in order to gain a stronger outcome".
9 
12. The United States is an original Member of th e WTO.  It undertook commitments as a result 
of the post-Uruguay Round negotiations on teleco mmunications and financial services.  The 
United States is a party to the Agreement on G overnment Procurement and a participant in the 
Information Technology Agreement. 
                                                      
5 USTR (2010). 
6 "Next Steps on the Trade Agenda", Ambassador Ron Kirk, 18 May 2009.  Viewed at:  
http://www.ustr.go v/about-us/press -office/speeches. 
7 USTR online information, "Enforcement".  Viewed at:  http://www.ustr.gov/tr ade-topics/enforcement. 
8 U.S. Department of Labor online information, TA A Statistics.  Viewed at:  http://www.doleta.gov/ 
tradeact/taa_stats.cfm. 
9 USTR (2010). WT/TPR/S/235 Trade Policy Review 
Page 14 
 
 
13. The United States submitted numerous notif ications during the period under review.  
However, the notifications on quantitative restrictio ns and preferential rules of origin have not yet 
been submitted.10  The United States has not notified "any new, or any changes to existing, laws, 
regulations or administrative guidelines which significantly affect trade in services" during the period 
under review.11  In the context of its previous Review, the United States indicated that it would notify 
its procurement statistics as soon as the overhaul of its data system was complete.  The relevant 
notifications were submitted in 2008 and 2009.12 
14. Between the establishment of the WTO and Marc h 2010, the United States was a complainant 
in 94 dispute settlement cases, 6 more than reported in the previous Secretariat report for the United 
States (Table AII.1).  As respondent, the United St ates has been involved in 10 new cases since its 
previous Review, bringing the total to 109 cases. 
15. The United States has not yet implemented the WTO Dispute Settlement Body's (DSB) 
recommendations and rulings relating to:  Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act;  some aspects of the U.S. anti-dumping investigation of certain hot ro lled steel products from Japan;  and Section 211 
of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998.
13  The implementation of the recommendations and 
rulings in disputes on Section 211 and hot rolled steel has been outstanding for 88 months, and the 
Copyright Act dispute for 63 months (March 2010).14  The United States has indicated in monthly 
updates to the DSB that work is under way in Co ngress to implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in these cases.15 
16. Following the findings in the dispute brought by  Antigua and Barbuda regarding measures on 
the cross-border supply of gambling services, the United States announced in May 2007 that it was 
invoking procedures under GATS Article XXI to modi fy its schedule of commitments.  The USTR 
has concluded negotiations for a compensatory adjust ment to its GATS schedule with most affected 
Members;  negotiations with Antigua and Barbuda are ongoing.16 
17. Under Section 125 of the Uruguay Round Agreemen ts Act, every five years the President 
must submit to Congress a report on the WTO that includes "an analysis of the effects of the WTO 
Agreement on the interests of the United States, th e costs and benefits to the United States of its 
participation in the WTO, and the value of the co ntinued participation of the United States in the 
WTO".17  The report is part of the 2010 Trade Po licy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report, published on 
1 March 2010.  Following this report, Congress can enact a joint resolution disapproving the original 
approval of the WTO Agreement and withdrawing th e United States from the WTO.  According to the 
report, the WTO plays a vital role as a vehicle fo r ensuring the ability of U.S. producers to pursue 
economic opportunities, while also enabling global grow th and development.  In addition, the report 
states that the WTO Agreements provide a foundati on for high standard U.S.  bilateral and regional 
                                                      
10 Outstanding notifications relate to WTO document G/L/59 (Decision on Notification Procedures for 
Quantitative Restrictions) and paragraph 4 in Anne x II of the Agreement on Rules of Origin. 
11 Article III.3 of the General Ag reement on Trade in Services. 
12 WTO documents GPA/62/Add.4, GPA/70/Add.4, GPA/76//Add.5, GPA/80/Add.5, GPA/84/Add.3, 
GPA/88/Add.2, GPA/91/ Add.1, all dated 18 December 2008, an d GPA/94/Add.1, 19  February 2009. 
13 Respectively, WTO document series WT/DS160, WT/DS184, and WT/DS176. 
14 WTO document series WT/DS176/11/Add, WT/DS184/15/Add, and WT/DS160/24/Add. 
15 WTO document WT/DSB/M/271, 25 September 2009. 
16 See USTR online information, "Statement on Inte rnet Gambling", 21 December 2007.  Viewed at:  
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-off ice/press-releases/archives/2007/December/statement-internet-gambling;  
and PRWeb, "Antiguan Government Releases a Statement on Unauthorized Representations by Zookz.com 
Regarding its Entertainment Download Web", 17 July 2009.  Viewed at:  http://www.prweb.com/releases/ 
2009/07/prweb2653554.htm. 
17 19 USC 2535. United States WT/TPR/S/235 
 Page 15 
 
 
agreements that make a positive contribution to a dynamic and open global trading system based on 
the rule of law. 
(3) PREFERENTIAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  
(i) Bilateral and regional preferences 
18. According to the President's 2009 Trade Polic y Agenda, the United States "will consider 
proposals for new bilateral and regi onal agreements when they promise to deliver significant benefits 
consistent with ... nati onal economic policies".18 
19. Since the last Review of the United States, FT As have entered into force with Costa Rica, 
Oman, and Peru.19  In addition, the United States has FTAs in  force with:  Australia, Bahrain, Canada, 
Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemal a, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, 
Nicaragua, and Singapore.  These agreements share several characteristics, including with respect to 
coverage and the scope of tariff elim ination (Table AII.2).  Most rely on rules of origin that are based 
on changes in tariff classification (Chapter III(1)(iii)).   The FTAs signed with Colombia in 2006, and 
with Korea and with Panama, in 2007, have  not yet been considered by Congress. 
20. U.S. merchandise exports to FTA partners tota lled US$444 billion in 200 8, around 38% of all 
U.S. merchandise exports.20  Although exports to FTA partners ha ve increased by approximately 18% 
in absolute terms since 2006, as a share of tota l exports they have decreased slightly.  U.S. 
merchandise imports from FTA part ners were approximately US$626 b illion in 2008, close to 30% of 
total merchandise imports.  The share of imports from FTA partners remained constant between 2006 
and 2008, although the absolute value of imports from those partners rose by around 10%.  In 2008, 
NAFTA's share in U.S. exports to FTA partners wa s 80%;  for imports, the share was close to 90%.  
Excluding the NAFTA, the share of U.S. trade w ith FTA partners in total U.S. trade was 5%. 
21. During the period under review, the only di spute settlement case brought against the 
United States under an FTA was under the NAFTA .  Chapter 19 of the NAFTA provides for 
bi-national panel reviews of anti-dumping a nd countervailing duty fina l determinations and 
underlying legislation.  There were eight active cases under Chapter 19 review ing determinations by 
U.S. agencies (December 2009).  Four panels challeng ing U.S. agency determinations were formed in 
2008, and two in 2009;  they all concerned steel products.21  Disputes relating to the investment 
provisions of NAFTA Chapter 11 are settled through an investor-state arbitration process.  There were 
three active Chapter 11 cases against the United States in March 2010.22 
22. In 2001, a NAFTA dispute settlement panel had found that U.S. restrictions on trucking 
services from Mexico were in breach of the NAFTA.  These restrictions are still in place 
(March 2010). 
                                                      
18 USTR (2009b). 
19 The agreements with Costa Rica and Oman entered into force on 1 January 2009 (notified to the 
WTO on 19 January 2009 and 30 January 2009, respectively), and the agreement with Peru on 1 February 2009 
(notified to the WTO on 3 February 2009).  See Presidential Proclamations 8331 (73 FR 79585, 30 December 2008), 8332 (73 FR 80289, 31 Decembe r 2008), and 8341 (74 FR 4103, 22 Ja nuary 2009).  All three agreements 
are to be considered by the Committee on  Regional Trade Ag reements in 2010. 
20 The data in this paragraph are from USITC (2009b). 
21 NAFTA Secretariat online information, "Status Report of Dispute Settlements".  Viewed at:  
http://www.nafta-sec-alena.or g/en/StatusReport.aspx. 
22 Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., et al. v.  United States of America;  Apotex, Inc. v. United 
States of America;  and CANACAR v.  United States of America. WT/TPR/S/235 Trade Policy Review 
Page 16 
 
 
23. In November 2009, President Obama announced th at the United States "will be engaging with 
the Trans-Pacific Partnership countr ies with the goal of shaping a regional agreement that will have 
broad-based membership and the high standards worthy of a 21st century trade agreement".23  The  
U.S. Trade Representative notified Congress of the President's intention in December 2009.  In 
addition to the United States, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, 
and Viet Nam participate in this initiative.  The United States is not negotiating FTAs with any other 
partners. 
(ii) Unilateral preferences 
24. The United States continues to grant unilate ral preferential tariff treatment under the 
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the 
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), and the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA).  
These preferences may be conditional on adherence to  criteria that the U.S. authorities consider 
promote sound policies and expand trade and investment.  The United States submitted revised WTO 
waiver requests for AGOA, ATPA, and CBERA in March 2007.24  The General Council granted 
waivers for ATPA and CBERA until 31 Decemb er 2014, and for AGOA until 30 September 2015.25 
25. Under the GSP programme, the United States grants duty-free treatment on certain products 
from eligible developing countries.26  In December 2009, Congress extended the GSP programme to 
31 December 2010.27  The list of GSP beneficiaries is contained in General Note 4 of the 
US Harmonized Tariff Schedule. 
26. Some goods are ineligible for GSP treatment, in cluding certain footwear, textiles and apparel, 
watches, electronics, steel articles, and glass products.28  In addition, articles subject to safeguard 
actions or certain national security provisions ma y be ineligible.  Duty-free imports under the GSP 
programme amounted to US$31.7 billion in 2008, 1.5%  of total U.S. imports.  Angola was the leading 
beneficiary, followed by India, Thailand, Equatorial Guinea, Brazil, and Indonesia.  Petroleum products accounted for almost 35% of duty-free imports under the GSP programme;  chemicals, 
plastics and paper for 19%;  machinery, electroni cs, and transportation 18%;  and base metals and 
articles 12%; various other categories account for the rest. 
27. "Competitive need limitations" re quire the termination of a country's GSP eligibility with 
respect to a specific product if U.S. imports from th at country account for 50% or more of the value of 
total U.S. imports of that product, or exceeded a certain threshold (US$135 million in 2008) in the 
previous calendar year.  However, the President may grant a waiver of these limitations, and the 
product may continue to be eligible for duty-free tr eatment.  Following the 2008 review of the GSP, 
12 products from six beneficiary countries we re excluded from GSP eligibility for exceeding 
competitive need limitations.
29  Waivers of competitive need limita tions were grante d on 112 products 
                                                      
23 White House online information, "Remarks by  President Barack Obama at Suntory Hall", 
14 November 2009.  Viewed at:  http://www.whitehouse .gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-barack-obama- 
suntory-hall. 
24 WTO documents G/C/W/508/Rev.1, G/C/W/509/Rev.1, and G/C/W/510/Rev.1, 28 March 2007. 
25 WTO documents WT/L/753-55, 29 May 2009. 
26 19 USC 2461 et seq. 
27 Public Law No. 111-124. 
28 19 USC 2463. 
29 USTR online information, "Obama Administration Completes 2008 Annual Review of the 
Generalized System of Preferences".  Viewed at:  http ://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press -office/press-releases/2009 
/june/obama-administration-comp letes-2008-annual-review-gen. United States WT/TPR/S/235 
 Page 17 
 
 
from 16 beneficiary countries.  Least developed beneficiaries are not subject to the competitive need 
limitations. 
28. Under the AGOA, the United States grants duty -free treatment on products benefiting from 
GSP and on 1,835 additional tariff-line items from eligible sub-Saharan A frican countries.  AGOA 
beneficiaries are not subject to GSP competitiv e need limitations.  Imports under the AGOA were 
US$56.4 billion in 2008, a 56% increase with respect to 2006.  The leading supplier of imports under 
the AGOA in 2008 was Nigeria, which accounted for approximately 63% of the total, followed by 
Angola, with around 17%.  Around 94% of AGOA imports  consisted of petrol eum products.  Apparel 
imports under the AGOA were worth US$1.1 billion in 2008. 
29. As reported in the previous Secretariat Report for the review of the United States, in 
December 2006, the President signed into law th e Africa Investment Incentive Act of 2006, which 
extends, until September 2012, duty-free treatment on imports of clothing produced in "lesser developed" AGOA beneficiaries, regardless of the origin of the fabric or yarn.
30  The quantity of 
clothing that can benefit from this treatment each year is capped at 3.5% of U.S. annual clothing 
imports.31  The U.S. authorities note that Africa has neve r achieved the 3.5% cap.  Under the so-called 
"abundant supply provision", no benefits were availa ble if the third-country fabric or yarn was 
available in "commercial quantities" in AGOA countri es.  Section 3 of the Andean Trade Preference 
Extension Act of 2008, signed into law in February  2008, eliminated the abundant supply provision.  
The Africa Investment Incentive Ac t also expands duty-free treatment to fabrics and textile products 
wholly formed in lesser developed AGOA beneficiar ies from yarn and fabric produced by one or 
more lesser developed AGOA beneficiaries.  There are 38 countries eligible to receive AGOA 
benefits32;  25 are eligible for apparel benefits.33 
30. The CBERA, enhanced by the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), provides 
duty-free treatment for several additional products, including certain textile and apparel products from 
beneficiary countries.34  Imports under the CBERA (including  CBTPA) were US$4.7 billion in 2008, 
down from US$9.9 billion in 2006.  The share of  U.S. imports from CBERA beneficiary countries 
that enter under CBERA or CBTPA has declined st eadily, from almost 39% in 2006 to around 24% in 
2008.  This is due mainly to the termination of  CBERA benefits for El Salvador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic, follo wing the entry into force of the FTA with the 
Dominican Republic and Central America (CAFTA -DR).  Trinidad and Tobago was the leading 
supplier of imports under CBERA in 2008, which we re composed primarily of methanol, mineral 
fuels, ethanol, and apparel products.  Haiti receives additional preferences under the Haitian 
Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnershi p Encouragement Act of 2008 (HOPE II Act). 
31. The ATPA, as amended by the Andean Trade Pr omotion and Drug Eradication Act, provides 
duty-free treatment for a wide range of products fr om Colombia, Ecuador, a nd Peru.  Benefits for 
                                                      
30 Lesser developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries are defined as countries with a 
per capita gross national product of less than US$1,500 a year in 1998 as measured by the World Bank. 
31 19 USC 3721(c)(1)(B). 
32 Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, 
Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, 
Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, 
Uganda, and Zambia. 
33 Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, 
Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Na mibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, 
South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. 
34 Section 15408 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. WT/TPR/S/235 Trade Policy Review 
Page 18 
 
 
Bolivia were suspended effective 15 December 2008,  following the determination that Bolivia does 
not meet counter narcotics cooperation criteria.35  No major changes have occurred with respect to the 
programme's product coverage since the last Review  of the United States.  U.S. imports under ATPA 
preferences totalled US$17.2 billion in 2008 (US$13 .billion in 2006), and accounted for nearly 61% 
of all imports from ATPA beneficiaries.  Colomb ia was the largest source of U.S. imports under 
ATPA in 2008.  Petroleum products accounted for 77% of imports under ATPA , followed by apparel, 
with 6%. 
(4) INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  
32. Apart from the GATS, under which the United St ates has made commitments regarding the 
supply of services through commercial presence, the United States is a party to the OECD Code of 
Liberalization of Capital Movements36, and the OECD National Treatment Instrument, which is not 
legally binding.37 
33. The United States has 40 bilateral investment  treaties (BITs) in force (March 2010).38  None 
was signed or entered into force during the period under review.  The NAFTA and most FTAs signed 
by the United States contain separate chapters on foreign investment, which are substantively 
identical to the provisions of U.S. BITs. 
34. The United States is reviewing its "model" BIT, which it uses as a basis for BIT negotiations.  
The purpose of the review is to "ensure that the mo del BIT is consistent with the public interest and 
the overall U.S. economic agenda".39 
35. The United States has 45 trade and investment  framework agreements, which establish an 
institutional framework for consultations on bilateral trade and investment policies.40 
(5) AID-FOR-TRADE  
36. Aid for trade is a component of the economic growth pillar of U.S. foreign assistance.41  At 
the Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference in 2005, the United States pledged to double aid for trade 
support from US$1.3 billion to US$2.7 billion annua lly by 2010.  U.S. aid-for-trade was 
US$2.2 billion in 2008, approximately 60% higher than in 2006.  Between 2006 and 2008, 40% of 
aid-for-trade funding was provided to sub-Sahara n Africa, followed by Latin America and the 
Caribbean (21% of the total), Middle East and North Africa (16%), Europe and Eurasia (12%), East Asia and Oceania (8%), and Southern Asia (3%) .  U.S. aid-for-trade funding is provided mainly 
in grant form.  The policy framewo rk for foreign assistance is curren tly under review as part of the 
                                                     
 
35 Federal Register , 73 FR 72677, 25 November 2008. 
36 The Code of Liberalization contains legally bi nding obligations regarding the liberalization of 
specified capital movements, incl uding foreign direct investment, subject to certain exceptions and 
country-specific reservations. 
37 The National Treatment Instrument contains a commitment, which is not legally binding, to accord 
national treatment to foreign-owned or controlled firms in the post-establishment phase. 
38 For further information on the treaties, see:  http://tcc.export.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral_ 
Investment_Treaties/index.asp. 
39 Federal Register , 74 FR 34071, 14 July 2009. 
40 USTR online information, "Trade and Invest ment Framework Agreements".  Viewed at:  
http://www.ustr.gov /trade-agreements/trade-invest ment-framework-agreements. 
41 For a description of the U.S. foreign assistance fra mework, see:  http://www.state.gov/f/c23053.htm.  
The terms "aid for trade", "trade capacity building assistance", and "trade related assistance" are used 
interchangeably by the United States to describe its aid-for-trade activities. United States WT/TPR/S/235 
 Page 19 
 
 
Presidential Study Directive on U.S. Global Devel opment Policy and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and 
Development Review and the Presidential Study Directive on U.S. Global Development Policy. 
37. U.S. foreign assistance is given primarily on a bilateral basis.42  The Office of the Director of 
U.S. Foreign Assistance at the De partment of State has overall responsibility for foreign assistance 
policy, including the preparation of budgets.  The USTR has a mandate to en sure the effectiveness 
and coherence of trade capacity building activities.  It works with two lead agencies, USAID and the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and sev eral other federal agencies.  Committees to 
coordinate trade-capacity-building activities exis t under CAFTA-DR and the FTA with Peru.  The 
United States also maintains the African Global Co mpetitiveness Initiative to help African exporters 
benefit from AGOA. 
38. The MCC provides multi-year assistance to eligible countries through the development of 
funding compacts.  The level of trade and trade-re lated support in each compact reflects the degree to 
which trade is prioritized by the partner country.  The MCC has agreed compacts and agreements with 
34 countries totalling more than US$6.8 billion, of which approximately US$3.7 billion is related to 
trade.  The work of USAID is guided by its 2008 Economic Growth Strategy, which recognizes 
international trade as a key driver for economic growth. 
39. The United States does not have a specific mon itoring and evaluation framework for aid for 
trade.  Aid-for-trade monitoring and evaluation is  conducted by each responsible agency, including 
the MCC Impact Evaluation Practice Group and USAI D, with the USTR providing overall oversight 
work.  The United States maintains an online database of its aid for trade43;  the database counts only 
the trade-related component of particular projects as aid for trade. 
                                                      
42 Figures from the OECD indicate that almost 90%  of U.S. foreign assistance was provided on a 
bilateral basis in 2008.  For details, see:  http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/5/44285062.gif. 
43 Viewed at:  http://tcb.eads.usaidallnet.gov/.