The only thing I would add is that we do not consider it problematic to run both a multilateral and bilateral regional track simultaneously. This is nothing new.
During the previous round of trade negotiations, the so-called Uruguay Round, we were engaged with the negotiation of the original Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which ultimately turned into the NAFTA.
We see these as complementary exercises. In the bilateral and the regional context, for example, we will try to go further or faster than you might be able to in a multilateral context, where there are 150 countries of varying degrees of development. We also recognize that there are certain issues--and agricultural subsidies is a good example of this--which are, in all likelihood, only resolvable in a multilateral context, because if you disarm yourself on a bilateral front, in effect, it could play against you in a broader picture.
If you look through our bilateral and regional agreements, the EFTA being one example, you'll see that there are instances where both parties agree that the existing WTO provisions will be the guide in certain areas, because both parties agree, for whatever reason, that it's good enough and we're not going to get any further on a bilateral basis. To us, the fact that we're running both tracks is not an inconsistent approach.